Shooting

[OUBubba]

A frangible 9mm or higher is going to be pretty damn lethal at these distances. The 9mm is the most commonly used round by law enforcement. There is a reason for that. It's effective, allows for quicker follow-up rounds, very accurate, and allows for high capacity magazines (relative to 0.40 S&W and 45 ACP). Accuracy and training are really the most important factors here. The focus on velocity by MSNBC is beyond laughable and disqualifies them from any serious discussion on this issue.

I'm no gun afficionado. That said, in my humble eastern Oklahoma growings up, pistol accuracy and rifle accuracy are like comparing the passing accuracy of Baker Mayfield to that of Poona Ford.

If we're going to have teachers armed we should focus more on building security and reasonable firepower. The buildings should have choke points and serious locked classroom doors that can be engaged centrally and one 12 gauge shotgun per classroom. I'm probably a good comparison for some of these classroom teachers. I was the best basketball player on the defensive line, I was a 3 handicap at one point but my home security maxes out at the two samurai swords that my middle daughter got from tae quon do a decade ago. That said, I'm a significant deterrent with a shotgun and I might as well be peeing at someone from 40 feet away with a 9mm handgun.

 

[UTChE96]

So you see where I'm going with this discussion; a 9mm and a plan would moot any assumption of safety if AR-15's were banned. Not that I would cry over a ban. I'm just trying to figure out where the logic starts in all of this.

Completely agree. There is no logic in the argument. It's just typical hysteria.

 

[UTChE96]

I'm no gun afficionado. That said, in my humble eastern Oklahoma growings up, pistol accuracy and rifle accuracy are like comparing the passing accuracy of Baker Mayfield to that of Poona Ford.

Who is comparing accuracy of a pistol to a rifle? MSNBC referenced the velocity of bullets of an AR15 vs handgun. And at these close distances, a handgun would be sufficiently accurate especially if being handled by someone with frequent training.

 

[OUBubba]

Who is comparing accuracy of a pistol to a rifle? MSNBC referenced the velocity of bullets of an AR15 vs handgun. And at these close distances, a handgun would be sufficiently accurate especially if being handled by someone with frequent training.

I'm just speaking to the inefficiency of arming teachers with pistols against someone with a military grade rifle. That's all. My commentary is supplementing things, not disagreeing.

I love in tv/movie when the guy with the pistol is taking out the rest of the force with their pistol while the bad guys are spraying machine gun fire all over the place and missing.

 

[Garmel]

I love in tv/movie when the guy with the pistol is taking out the rest of the force with their pistol while the bad guys are spraying machine gun fire all over the place and missing.

That was Miami Vice in every episode.

 

[bystander]

Who is comparing accuracy of a pistol to a rifle? MSNBC referenced the velocity of bullets of an AR15 vs handgun. And at these close distances, a handgun would be sufficiently accurate especially if being handled by someone with frequent training.

Unfortunately, we have to visualize the reality and a crowded panicked hallway due to a fire alarm being pulled is easy pickings for someone with that 9mm who has no fear of walking right into the crowd. They can do more than enough damage to cause horror, outrage and hand-wringing over the solution. So the logic then says that all guns with a clip will be next after the AR-15 is banned (hypothetically) because what we are trying to stop is a WMD in someone's hand.

 

[OUBubba]

Unfortunately, we have to visualize the reality and a crowded panicked hallway due to a fire alarm being pulled is easy pickings for someone with that 9mm who has no fear of walking right into the crowd. They can do more than enough damage to cause horror, outrage and hand-wringing over the solution. So the logic then says that all guns with a clip will be next after the AR-15 is banned (hypothetically) because what we are trying to stop is a WMD in someone's hand.

I guess if your argument is that [change #1] will not result in all mass casualty events being eradicated then we shouldn't do it, then that's a pretty weak argument. The efforts on drunk driving in the last 20-30 years have had MANY legal/policy changes across the country. Those have seemed painful to some and they can seem extra legal to some. That said, they have resulted in FEWER drunk driving deaths. There will still be drunk driving deaths. The delta is the impact. We need to attack that delta on these mass casualty events.

 

[ShAArk92]

I'd have cursed the NRA with my last breath.

why?

I really have a hard time understanding the vitriol toward a legal organization which lobbies on a single issue ... and which is barely 1% of the entire US population (unfortunately)

You are aware, of course, that if NON NRA members stopped shooting people, we'd have a 100% reduction in aggravated homicide ... right?

 

[bystander]

I guess if your argument is that [change #1] will not result in all mass casualty events being eradicated then we shouldn't do it, then that's a pretty weak argument. The efforts on drunk driving in the last 20-30 years have had MANY legal/policy changes across the country. Those have seemed painful to some and they can seem extra legal to some. That said, they have resulted in FEWER drunk driving deaths. There will still be drunk driving deaths. The delta is the impact. We need to attack that delta on these mass casualty events.

The problem for me is this; banning guns is an agenda on the Left. Maybe the far far Left but the logic doesn't hold up because I'm saying it's not the guns. It's mental illness or "the will to kill." That is not addressed at all by the confiscation of AR-15's. So I feel that this is an opportunity for the agenda and not the solution. That is what I am saying. It is political.

 

[bystander]

So what do our current laws say about this guy. Is it in place that he cannot buy a gun in the US?

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report...-checks-mental-health-facility-155649660.html

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I responded with statistics, yo.

1984-1994: 19 shootings. 155 deaths
1994-2004: 12 shootings. 89 deaths
2004-2014: 34 shootings. 302 deaths

Yes, and which I showed are completely unrelated (assuming you didn't just make them up, because you tend to do that kind of thing.) Your argument could just as easily be attributed to anything else going on in those decades. I get that Oklahoma doesn't really treasure logical thinking and all, but do you get there was more than one thing at work in our society during those times? So when you take legislation that as Crockett admits (because HE actually went and looked up the law) was pretty much random and useless, and pair it next to what you consider to be trends, it's meaningless in terms of proving any causality.

That's like me saying "You know... our home record is 21-5, but when we go on the road, we're 5-21. So from now on, we're going to wear our home uniforms because that MUST be what's causing the problem."

Or more appropriately, it's the Lisa Simpson "Magic Rock" analysis:

 

[ShAArk92]

I don't write laws and I don't care if you have an AR15. I don't want knuckleheads to get AR15. Kind of hard to define knucklehead, but Cruz fits within the definition.

I see Phil started the engagement. Good.

Ah ... it's pretty simple. A citizen who has not had his rights suspended/revoked from a court decision in a trial or hearing for being mentally competent ... should have every expectation to exercise his rights.

otherwise ... if the government has to first approve ... you don't have a right to that which you have sought to do. Savvy?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I love in tv/movie when the guy with the pistol is taking out the rest of the force with their pistol while the bad guys are spraying machine gun fire all over the place and missing.

Please tell me you don't think this guy had a machine gun... or that any of the shooters have had machine guns...

 

[ShAArk92]

The NRA is very powerful and I'd like to take the organization down a notch in what I perceive as the interest of public safety.

and in doing so, your position would actually be detrimental to public safety. I know it's hard to imagine, but it's true. Let's refocus the discussion on why someone does this if we really want to decrease the risk ...
We'll never eliminate the risk in a free society. So we have to ask ourselves ...

Would I rather live in tumult with liberty ... or with (perceived/relative) peace in servitude?

 

[OUBubba]

Please tell me you don't think this guy had a machine gun... or that any of the shooters have had machine guns...

I said "TV" arse hat.

 

[OUBubba]

Yes, and which I showed are completely unrelated (assuming you didn't just make them up, because you tend to do that kind of thing.) Your argument could just as easily be attributed to anything else going on in those decades. I get that Oklahoma doesn't really treasure logical thinking and all, but do you get there was more than one thing at work in our society during those times? So when you take legislation that as Crockett admits (because HE actually went and looked up the law) was pretty much random and useless, and pair it next to what you consider to be trends, it's meaningless in terms of proving any causality.

That's like me saying "You know... our home record is 21-5, but when we go on the road, we're 5-21. So from now on, we're going to wear our home uniforms because that MUST be what's causing the problem."

Or more appropriately, it's the Lisa Simpson "Magic Rock" analysis:

You didn't show me anything, to my recollection. You derided me for my "okie ignorance". Additionally, I think I agreed that the definition of an "assault weapon" could be arbitrary. However, that unfairness is nominal to me and is, at worst, an inconvenience to a law abiding citizen.

 

[OUBubba]

I said "TV" arse hat.

Should I have said "gatling gun" and "six shooter" to be more accurate? Still the same laughable television/movie scene

 

[Joe Fan]

Scot Peterson, the armed deputy at the school who stood down and then quit, has hired a lawyer......

I have read he cut a deal allowing him to keep his pension
Dunno if true

 

[iatrogenic]

I guess if your argument is that [change #1] will not result in all mass casualty events being eradicated then we shouldn't do it, then that's a pretty weak argument. The efforts on drunk driving in the last 20-30 years have had MANY legal/policy changes across the country. Those have seemed painful to some and they can seem extra legal to some. That said, they have resulted in FEWER drunk driving deaths. There will still be drunk driving deaths. The delta is the impact. We need to attack that delta on these mass casualty events.

First, comparing drunk driving to gun crime could not be more irrelevant.

Second, in a classroom, crowded hallway, or a movie theater a pistol is just as deadly as an AR-15 and easier to conceal.

 

[Crockett]

why?

I really have a hard time understanding the vitriol toward a legal organization which lobbies on a single issue ... and which is barely 1% of the entire US population (unfortunately)

You are aware, of course, that if NON NRA members stopped shooting people, we'd have a 100% reduction in aggravated homicide ... right?

I was responding to Joe Fan's suggestion that if my children were in the building I would have charged in against an opponent with a military grade weapon. My projection is that I would lose my life in that situation because a certain, very politically powerful, segment of our population protects our right to buy weapons that can rapidly fire body armor piercing rounds from vast magazines with rapid reloading.


You would deny a dying man a little hostility?

 

[Garmel]

I was responding to Joe Fan's suggestion that if my children were in the building I would have charged in against an opponent with a military grade weapon. My projection is that I would lose my life in that situation because a certain, very politically powerful, segment of our population protects our right to buy weapons that can rapidly fire body armor piercing rounds from vast magazines with rapid reloading.


You would deny a dying man a little hostility?

I don't think charging would be a good idea. Remember, you know where he is and he doesn't know where you are at first. Take advantage of that.

 

[Garmel]

I love how the left turns the NRA into a monster but yet have no problems with what Planned Parenthood is doing nor care about the body count that illegal immigration is causing(mostly gang/cartel related).

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Additionally, I think I agreed that the definition of an "assault weapon" could be arbitrary. However, that unfairness is nominal to me and is, at worst, an inconvenience to a law abiding citizen.

You're never going to understand the point because you won't go back and actually look at the legislation. It has NOTHING to do with being unfair, and everything to do with the fact that the legislation was essentially a random hodgepodge of things that make a gun look scarier. None of them except for the magazine would have any bearing at all on making a gun more dangerous. So unless you can show that there were a whole bunch of people who wanted to kill people with bayonet attachments and pistol grips, but couldn't because that feature pushed their gun over the edge and into "illegal assault rifle status," and as a result, they had to settle for rifles that only had the magazine clip, and they just didn't think they could kill enough people with just that.

The reason your stats (which may or may not be true) are meaningless is that there is no reason that the assault rifle ban as written would have kept anyone from obtaining a rifle capable of doing exactly what's been done in each of the past mass shootings.

If you don't want to be derided for "okie ignorance," then try not dismissing someone's point just because you don't want to agree with it, and check to see if it might actually be a valid argument.

 

[OUBubba]

You're never going to understand the point because you won't go back and actually look at the legislation. It has NOTHING to do with being unfair, and everything to do with the fact that the legislation was essentially a random hodgepodge of things that make a gun look scarier. None of them except for the magazine would have any bearing at all on making a gun more dangerous. So unless you can show that there were a whole bunch of people who wanted to kill people with bayonet attachments and pistol grips, but couldn't because that feature pushed their gun over the edge and into "illegal assault rifle status," and as a result, they had to settle for rifles that only had the magazine clip, and they just didn't think they could kill enough people with just that.

The reason your stats (which may or may not be true) are meaningless is that there is no reason that the assault rifle ban as written would have kept anyone from obtaining a rifle capable of doing exactly what's been done in each of the past mass shootings.

If you don't want to be derided for "okie ignorance," then try not dismissing someone's point just because you don't want to agree with it, and check to see if it might actually be a valid argument.

My point is that it's irrelevant. The legislation appears to have worked according to history. And, we've now seen an significant (exponential???) increase in mass shootings with increasing damage per incident. Can you not at least see that part?

The prodigal one is always special.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Since I'm tired of this argument and since you won't listen to someone you think is a conservative lunatic gun-monger or whatever, here's the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.b0e5ae46c37c

"
What did the 1994 ban actually do? For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.

There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.

Did the 1994 law have loopholes? Yes, lots. Even after the ban took effect, it was not difficult for someone to get their hands on an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine.

A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn't fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn't fall under the ban.

Meanwhile, here were already more than 24 million large-capacity magazines in existence before the federal ban took effect in 1994. Indeed, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers boosted production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. Dangerous weapons were still plentiful.

Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.

Did the law have an effect on mass shootings? That's possible, though not certain. As this chart from Princeton's Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect (save for a surge in 1999, a year that included Columbine):

Because mass shootings are relatively rare, it's difficult to tell whether this was just a random blip or caused by the ban. Still, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired. That's suggestive, at least."

So basically the best you can say is it's "suggestive." But there are plenty of reasons to believe that with the continued shift toward violence in our culture, that's plenty of explanation for why those shootings would have risen so dramatically during that time period.

 

[ShAArk92]

I don't think charging would be a good idea. Remember, you know where he is and he doesn't know where you are at first. Take advantage of that.

Tactics 101 ... use the best available weapon and engage the nearest available target.

ATTACK.

 

[ShAArk92]

You would deny a dying man a little hostility?

Ah ... projecting your own hostility in your dying breath are ya?

But right now in the color "white" condition ... (no threat, secure in effects) ... you have no hostility toward the NRA. Royer.

I have ocean front property in Az, too.

 

[OUBubba]

Since I'm tired of this argument and since you won't listen to someone you think is a conservative lunatic gun-monger or whatever, here's the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.b0e5ae46c37c

"
What did the 1994 ban actually do? For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.

There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.

Did the 1994 law have loopholes? Yes, lots. Even after the ban took effect, it was not difficult for someone to get their hands on an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine.

A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn't fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn't fall under the ban.

Meanwhile, here were already more than 24 million large-capacity magazines in existence before the federal ban took effect in 1994. Indeed, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers boosted production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. Dangerous weapons were still plentiful.

Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here's the UPenn study again: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."

One reason is that assault weapons were never a huge factor in gun violence to begin with. They were used in only 2 percent to 8 percent of gun crimes. Large-capacity magazines were more important — used in as many as a quarter of gun crimes. But, again, the 1994 law left more than 24 million magazines untouched, so the impact was blunted.

Did the law have an effect on mass shootings? That's possible, though not certain. As this chart from Princeton's Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect (save for a surge in 1999, a year that included Columbine):

Because mass shootings are relatively rare, it's difficult to tell whether this was just a random blip or caused by the ban. Still, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired. That's suggestive, at least."

So basically the best you can say is it's "suggestive." But there are plenty of reasons to believe that with the continued shift toward violence in our culture, that's plenty of explanation for why those shootings would have risen so dramatically during that time period.

I'll take "suggestive". All I said was that the statistics indicated that had an impact and that it couldn't hurt to reinstate it.

 

[Joe Fan]

I love how the left turns the NRA into a monster but yet have no problems with what Planned Parenthood is doing nor care about the body count that illegal immigration is causing(mostly gang/cartel related).

 

[bystander]

Have y'all seen this: