Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[Jimjamesak]

They would have thought twice about shooting up somewhere where they might have gotten whacked.

And that right there is why any gun control discussion is worthless. As long as that is thought of as a legitimate form of control nothing will change.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Flight 93 people were not planning on being heroes when their plane took off on 9/11. Yet, when the time arose they rose up. Yes they all died, but they prevented a greater tragedy.

We don't know what we'll do when presented with a life or death situation. We hope to do the heroic thing to stop/mitigate the damage. But we'll never know who will be the hero or what the deed will be.

The problem is with everybody walking around bristling for a flight, the odds of some George Zimmerman jackwagon "feeling threatened" and hauling off and putting bullets into kids' heads is 10,000 times greater than somebody stopping one of these attacks.

Don't ask whether you want a guy with a gun at this scene. Ask if you want the type of guy who gets off on this type of thing next to you or your kid or your spouse everywhere at all times. No thank you. I'll take my chances being hit by a meteor rather than have every small-d-cked overcompensating loser walking around loaded up and ready... wanting... to kill.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Don't assault style weapons have a center of gravity quite a bit closer to the shooter than your typical hunting rifle? It certainly appears that way. I am no expert on handling firearms, but I imagine it would be significantly more cumbersome to move quickly from target to target with a hunting style weapon than with an assault style weapon.

I think your average assault style semi-auto rifle is a bit shorter than the standard deer hunting rifle most of us may think of, but I'm not sure exactly how much. Maybe 4-5 inches, which may certainly make it a little easier to handle in tight quarters than say a Remington Model 700 rifle. Personally I've never fired one so I can't speak to what it feels like in terms of ease of use.

Whatever you might say, I don't think the AK style weapon is the most efficient killing machine in terms of these mass shootings, if that's what you are looking for. I would think a short-barreled semi-auto shotgun or handgun would be more efficient, but that's just me.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

The problem is with everybody walking around bristling for a flight, the odds of some George Zimmerman jackwagon "feeling threatened" and hauling off and putting bullets into kids' heads is 10,000 times greater than somebody stopping one of these attacks.

Don't ask whether you want a guy with a gun at this scene. Ask if you want the type of guy who gets off on this type of thing next to you or your kid or your spouse everywhere at all times. No thank you. I'll take my chances being hit by a meteor rather than have every small-d-cked overcompensating loser walking around loaded up and ready... wanting... to kill.

That is exactly my thinking when people ask why I've never owned a handgun or get a conceal/carry permit.

First, the odds of me being in one of these situations is extraordinarily low. Second, they are heavy and uncomfortable. It's bad enough I've got haul around this cell phone. I don't need something else to look after. Third, why would I ever want to give myself the chance to do something stupid with a gun. The last thing I need is to be sitting in a Costco parking lot with some other clown, guns drawn over who gets that parking spot up front.

But that said, I defend the right of others if they don't think the same way.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I'm with Hovey on this one. I have my shotgun I use for trap and never really thought about getting anything else. I entered into a raffle at the year-end banquet for our trap league and when they were calling out the numbers all I could think was, "what the hell am I going to do with a second shotgun?"

I'd like to think it is better for home defense than a handgun as well. That being said I keep it hidden away and unloaded. I don't lock it since there are no children in my house. If there were any visiting it would be locked.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Oh and regarding active shooter situations. The best way to survive is get away from the scene. If you can't get away, barricade yourself in somewhere safe. If you can't do that, hide as best you can and look for your chance to run. If you're confronted, then you fight back. You're going to lose almost certainly, but I don't want a bunch of idiots firing weapons in a crowded and panicked situation.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I have seen ordinary people with long, extensive histories of handling weapons, miss a shot at a deer at a range so close it would shock most people. The excitement, adrenaline, nerves and rush to shoot (known collectively among hunters as "buck fever") is insurmountable. Very, very few people are immune, even the most experienced of hunters.

I can't imagine what it would be like if some clown in assault gear shows up and starts shooting up the room. I give the average person no better than one chance out of a hundred of even coming close to hitting the assailant in a situation like that.

We had a similar discussion to this a while ago in one of the pleasant threads that discussed police shootings prior to the police-specific thread came into being. At the time, the NYPD officers on the scene shot something like 96 times combined and only 10 or 11 shots hit their target while the remaining rounds were recovered from various nearby objects.

During that discussion, the remarks for bad marksmanship came about, as would be expected when you see only around 11% of the shots hit their mark. So I did some digging on that back then - some two or three years ago now - and found that NYPD's officers do very well in their target ranges, well over 50% (I want to say close to 90%) of their shots hit their targets. In the field, the average drops down to roughly 6%. It's a completely different situation, and like you said, that variation of "buck fever" hits and making your shots count is a much harder thing to do even for trained professionals.

People can do their own research to verify the information. It was simple enough to do at the time, but I'm at work now.

 

[Jimjamesak]

We had a similar discussion to this a while ago in one of the pleasant threads that discussed police shootings prior to the police-specific thread came into being. At the time, the NYPD officers on the scene shot something like 96 times combined and only 10 or 11 shots hit their target while the remaining rounds were recovered from various nearby objects.

During that discussion, the remarks for bad marksmanship came about, as would be expected when you see only around 11% of the shots hit their mark. So I did some digging on that back then - some two or three years ago now - and found that NYPD's officers do very well in their target ranges, well over 50% (I want to say close to 90%) of their shots hit their targets. In the field, the average drops down to roughly 6%. It's a completely different situation, and like you said, that variation of "buck fever" hits and making your shots count is a much harder thing to do even for trained professionals.

People can do their own research to verify the information. It was simple enough to do at the time, but I'm at work now.

The sad part is a lot of the people who believe that they can carry and stop a shooter don't realize this. I know this because I live in a state full of these people. Plenty of people truly believe they'll face this situation, pull out their handgun, take one shot, and be a hero.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

We had a similar discussion to this a while ago in one of the pleasant threads that discussed police shootings prior to the police-specific thread came into being. At the time, the NYPD officers on the scene shot something like 96 times combined and only 10 or 11 shots hit their target while the remaining rounds were recovered from various nearby objects.

During that discussion, the remarks for bad marksmanship came about, as would be expected when you see only around 11% of the shots hit their mark. So I did some digging on that back then - some two or three years ago now - and found that NYPD's officers do very well in their target ranges, well over 50% (I want to say close to 90%) of their shots hit their targets. In the field, the average drops down to roughly 6%. It's a completely different situation, and like you said, that variation of "buck fever" hits and making your shots count is a much harder thing to do even for trained professionals.

People can do their own research to verify the information. It was simple enough to do at the time, but I'm at work now.

It may be urban legend but I've heard the rule of thumb for the hit rate of trained infantry fire in combat is 1%. (This is up significantly from the Revolutionary War where the estimate is about 1 in 500 even by the top of the line British troops). Pretty much the only effective fire in combat is suppressive, except for actual bona fide snipers.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

It may be urban legend but I've heard the rule of thumb for the hit rate of trained infantry fire in combat is 1%. (This is up significantly from the Revolutionary War where the estimate is about 1 in 500 even by the top of the line British troops). Pretty much the only effective fire in combat is suppressive, except for actual bona fide snipers.

Suppression fire is why those figures are so low in combat. Our military personnel are quite accurate when in able to take the time to line up shots. But in order to move into position, the suppression fire tactic means we expend many more rounds of ammunition per hit than they would actually need. I don't know, something about keeping our own troops safe or something.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

That is exactly my thinking when people ask why I've never owned a handgun or get a conceal/carry permit.

First, the odds of me being in one of these situations is extraordinarily low. Second, they are heavy and uncomfortable. It's bad enough I've got haul around this cell phone. I don't need something else to look after. Third, why would I ever want to give myself the chance to do something stupid with a gun. The last thing I need is to be sitting in a Costco parking lot with some other clown, guns drawn over who gets that parking spot up front.

But that said, I defend the right of others if they don't think the same way.

This is how I feel. I don't own a gun, however I have shot rifles and handguns at ranges, and living where I do almost all my neighbors and coworkers carry. They practice stellar safety, most of them having been trained in the military, and most of them belonging to rural families in which guns are just part of the normal equipment of a home. I'd say about half of them are members of the NRA. They support closing loopholes but each time it comes time to vote they buy into the "slippery slope" argument that the NRA blares 24/7 and then vote for whichever candidate is most vocally, vehemently anti-gun control (hint: the one with the 'R').

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Suppression fire is why those figures are so low in combat. Our military personnel are quite accurate when in able to take the time to line up shots. But in order to move into position, the suppression fire tactic means we expend many more rounds of ammunition per hit than they would actually need. I don't know, something about keeping our own troops safe or something.

Yeah, I can see that. Arguably you could say that an army is performing at peak value if its hit rate is zero, since that means it has used its rounds to control the tactical field so well that there is zero enemy presence within the range of fire.

There's a great line in War and Peace about this where the French are retreating and the other generals and the Emperor keep badgering Kutusov to attack, and he says his two aims are to drive the enemy from Russian territory and to decimate it. The French are doing the first, and General Winter is doing the second. Why attack when all that is needed to achieve total victory is pursuit?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

And that right there is why any gun control discussion is worthless. As long as that is thought of as a legitimate form of control nothing will change.

Then would you like to explain why over 95% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones? You'd be surprised how many of these wackos would think twice if there was even the possibility of someone carrying with the ability to spoil their plans. We're not even talking about a requirement that people carry, either, just reasonable doubt that a law-abiding person could take them out. By now, you should know the Japanese quotation when it came to the concept of attacking on US soil. It is our biggest advantage in every conflict. If you go after the weapons, you're only helping the criminals.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

The problem is with everybody walking around bristling for a flight, the odds of some George Zimmerman jackwagon "feeling threatened" and hauling off and putting bullets into kids' heads is 10,000 times greater than somebody stopping one of these attacks.

Don't ask whether you want a guy with a gun at this scene. Ask if you want the type of guy who gets off on this type of thing next to you or your kid or your spouse everywhere at all times. No thank you. I'll take my chances being hit by a meteor rather than have every small-d-cked overcompensating loser walking around loaded up and ready... wanting... to kill.

Also, what happens if you have a gun at this type of scene and the police arrive? All they know is someone with a gun is shooting up the place, odds are they do not have a good description of the person. It seems to me if you're the guy walking around with a gun drawn when they arrive you have a good chance of getting shot by them.

I think everyone can agree there might be some cases, very specific ones, where someone having a concealed gun might help. Certainly the theory behind it makes sense. But the large number of ways it could go wrong - hitting bystanders, the attacker wanting to die anyways, etc. - means it is by no means the silver bullet its proponents keep saying it is. It would think there are many other angles to take before that becomes our best option.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Also, what happens if you have a gun at this type of scene and the police arrive? All they know is someone with a gun is shooting up the place, odds are they do not have a good description of the person. It seems to me if you're the guy walking around with a gun drawn when they arrive you have a good chance of getting shot by them.

Not to mention, if gunfire breaks out and several of these vigilante yahoos decide ALL MY LIFE HAS BEEN PREPARING ME FOR THIS!!!, they'll probably wind up shooting at one another, since these scenes are not exactly ordered and info rich.

Actually, those are reasons to encourage them to carry...

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

The sad part is a lot of the people who believe that they can carry and stop a shooter don't realize this. I know this because I live in a state full of these people. Plenty of people truly believe they'll face this situation, pull out their handgun, take one shot, and be a hero.

Bad TV and Movies. How many movies are out there that have the Hero going through the place ducking bullets and taking out a multiple bad guys with well placed shots.

https://youtu.be/9E79P3OhLX4

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Bad TV and Movies. How many movies are out there that have the Hero going through the place ducking bullets and taking out a multiple bad guys with well placed shots.

https://youtu.be/9E79P3OhLX4

Clint Eastwood roles are the far right's model citizen.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Then would you like to explain why over 95% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones? You'd be surprised how many of these wackos would think twice if there was even the possibility of someone carrying with the ability to spoil their plans. We're not even talking about a requirement that people carry, either, just reasonable doubt that a law-abiding person could take them out. By now, you should know the Japanese quotation when it came to the concept of attacking on US soil. It is our biggest advantage in every conflict. If you go after the weapons, you're only helping the criminals.

Citations please.

(I'll take the risk of foreign invasion if it means I can go to the mall without the risk of being shot.)

 

[Jimjamesak]

Clint Eastwood roles are the far right's model citizen.

Old, white, non-Jewish, non-Catholic, male, shoots brown people.

Yeah that fits.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Not to mention, if gunfire breaks out and several of these vigilante yahoos decide ALL MY LIFE HAS BEEN PREPARING ME FOR THIS!!!, they'll probably wind up shooting at one another, since these scenes are not exactly ordered and info rich.

Actually, those are reasons to encourage them to carry...

You mean "Die Hard" isn't a documentary?