Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[mookie1995]

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.

wasn't it where the "rules of war" prior to the revolution were both sides line up and march towards each other firing away? it was the american revolutionaries who were the first to bring guerrilla warfare into play and hide in woods behind trees and pick off redcoats, etc?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

wasn't it where the "rules of war" prior to the revolution were both sides line up and march towards each other firing away? it was the american revolutionaries who were the first to bring guerrilla warfare into play and hide in woods behind trees and pick off redcoats, etc?

I think that's a bit of "America, F-ck yeah!" legend that we were all taught in elementary school. Guerilla war is as old as war itself.

The "rules" for firing didn't come from a gentlemen's agreement to play fair -- they came from Italian, Dutch and Prussian manuals for how to keep up a steady rate of fire (c.f. Preussisches Infanterie Reglement of 1750). You'd have multiple lines which were synchronized to load, aim, fire, and repeat. Timing was important for obvious reasons: you don't want to be in the front line standing while Schultz in line 2 is firing or your war is going to be short and singularly eventful.

But every army also had irregulars that did all the things the colonists did, because those things have all been done since the first caveman picked up a rock and the second caveman thought, "Huh. I should probably hide behind this tree."

 

[burd]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

wasn't it where the "rules of war" prior to the revolution were both sides line up and march towards each other firing away? it was the american revolutionaries who were the first to bring guerrilla warfare into play and hide in woods behind trees and pick off redcoats, etc?

Rifled barrels changed the game.

 

[Rover]

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.

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.

The thought process it that anybody who purchases a gun has the poise, judgement, and accuracy of an experienced police officer. I've never agreed with this. The odds of the citizen with a gun holding their ground and picking off the shooter is slim. The odds of them firing wildly and hitting innocent people is greater.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

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.

Did Ivan Lopez and Nidal Hasan think twice? How about Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, Aaron Alexis, Eusebrio Lopez, William Kreutzer, or Dean Mellberg. These are individuals that apparently didn't "think twice" about walking onto a military base (filled with people actually trained and paid to kill other people with guns) and commit mass shootings.

The problem with your thinking is that a sane and logical shooter would think twice about going in to shoot up a place where he or she might receive return fire. But, of course, there is nothing either sane or logical about these people.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Did Ivan Lopez and Nidal Hasan think twice? How about Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, Aaron Alexis, Eusebrio Lopez, William Kreutzer, or Dean Mellberg. These are individuals that apparently didn't "think twice" about walking onto a military base (filled with people actually trained and paid to kill other people with guns) and commit mass shootings.

The problem with your thinking is that a sane and logical shooter would think twice about going in to shoot up a place where he or she might receive return fire. But, of course, there is nothing either sane or logical about these people.

You do know that soldiers aren't allowed to carry around personal weapons, only the ones supplied to them during combat training, yes? That point was made several times during those shootings, enacted by Clinton in the 90's.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I think you probably know more about that dynamic than I do, FF, but I don't see it as an enforcement problem but one of service. Our social service agencies are understaffed and underfunded and are not able to follow up on people who become engaged in the system, many of whom need medications of one kind or another to function. These professionals are basically putting out fires.

No doubt it varies considerably from state to state!

From what I know, our state is an outlier in that it still maintains a state-run fully-staffed psychiatric hospital (I have this information from a professional in the field, not from any direct research). The underlying problem here is part of the broader tension between the rights of an individual and the rights of the community: if a schizophrenic off his/her meds is a danger to self and others, s/he can be committed temporarily against his/her will, but then "has to be" released once stabilized. Can the dangers posed to society by a schizophrenic who refuses to take medication essential to re-balancing the brain chemicals that otherwise would cause hallucinations be sufficient to over-ride that one person's right not to be forced to take the medications that prevent the hallucinations?

I think I mangled the wording there pretty badly, I hope the point got through somehow.

We don't want to keep people confined in psychiatric hospitals indefinitely (and there are legal advocates who protect patients' rights and often those advocates are essential to make sure that the patients get the treatment they need, don't get me wrong, on balance they are usually a force for good but they go overboard sometimes), yet how can the public be protected from them otherwise?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

You do know that soldiers aren't allowed to carry around personal weapons, only the ones supplied to them during combat training, yes? That point was made several times during those shootings, enacted by Clinton in the 90's.

So these shooters were then taken out with spitballs, I assume?

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

So these shooters were then taken out with spitballs, I assume?

Typically by base security or civilian hired security agencies.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

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.

Agree mostly. it turns out that there are quite few instances in which a citizen with a gun prevented a crazy person from killing multiple people, but since those instances don't fit the preferred narrative, they are rarely publicized beyond the local papers. I'm not sure if I can find the article again, someone did research and documented that this situation occurs about once a month on average, if I remember correctly (one that did make the news was the story from Texas several months ago where a person with a gun went to shoot up an event by an anti-Muslim speaker and was shot down before he got inside the door).



I've been in a life and death situation twice, and adrenaline totally takes over. One time, I saw a life-threatening danger develop, and then several seconds later I was lying on my stomach holding on to a person at the edge of a cliff, with absolutely no memory of what happened in between. Observers told me I suddenly took several really fast steps, dove on my stomach with hands outstretched, and grabbed the person while sprawled flat on the ground. I don't remember any of that. You cannot afford to think, or else you get paralyzed. It was pure reflex from observation to action with no thinking involved whatsoever.

I doubt very many people with a concealed carry gun would have those reflexes.

I truly think that if I were in a situation with a shooter I'd probably start throwing things at him hand over fist, and if I were close enough, I imagine I'd leap in the air and try to hit him feet first with all my might. I hope I never find out!!

 

[burd]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Agree mostly. it turns out that there are quite few instances in which a citizen with a gun prevented a crazy person from killing multiple people, but since those instances don't fit the preferred narrative, they are rarely publicized beyond the local papers. I'm not sure if I can find the article again, someone did research and documented that this situation occurs about once a month on average, if I remember correctly (one that did make the news was the story from Texas several months ago where a person with a gun went to shoot up an event by an anti-Muslim speaker and was shot down before he got inside the door).



I've been in a life and death situation twice, and adrenaline totally takes over. One time, I saw a life-threatening danger develop, and then several seconds later I was lying on my stomach holding on to a person at the edge of a cliff, with absolutely no memory of what happened in between. Observers told me I suddenly took several really fast steps, dove on my stomach with hands outstretched, and grabbed the person while sprawled flat on the ground. I don't remember any of that. You cannot afford to think, or else you get paralyzed. It was pure reflex from observation to action with no thinking involved whatsoever.

I doubt very many people with a concealed carry gun would have those reflexes.

I truly think that if I were in a situation with a shooter I'd probably start throwing things at him hand over fist, and if I were close enough, I imagine I'd leap in the air and try to hit him feet first with all my might. I hope I never find out!!

I would act the same way if I ever witnessed a gopher fan hitting on one of my daughters.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Hey, just remember that a parent is supposed to want a better life for their children. Gopher fans are just doing their part to help.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Agree mostly. it turns out that there are quite few instances in which a citizen with a gun prevented a crazy person from killing multiple people, but since those instances don't fit the preferred narrative, they are rarely publicized beyond the local papers. I'm not sure if I can find the article again, someone did research and documented that this situation occurs about once a month on average, if I remember correctly (one that did make the news was the story from Texas several months ago where a person with a gun went to shoot up an event by an anti-Muslim speaker and was shot down before he got inside the door).

What you are thinking about is right here.

My father-in-law subscribes to the NRA magazine. Candidly, I love reading these letters to the editor about tales of heroism. I am about 87% certain the guy writing these letters is the same guy who used to write the Penthouse Letters back in the day. "I never thought this would happen to me, but...."

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Did Ivan Lopez and Nidal Hasan think twice? How about Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, Aaron Alexis, Eusebrio Lopez, William Kreutzer, or Dean Mellberg. These are individuals that apparently didn't "think twice" about walking onto a military base (filled with people actually trained and paid to kill other people with guns) and commit mass shootings.

The problem with your thinking is that a sane and logical shooter would think twice about going in to shoot up a place where he or she might receive return fire. But, of course, there is nothing either sane or logical about these people.

I just went through the experience of accessing a local Air Guard base. My brother, retired military, explained to me after I had asked, that the guard at the main checkpoint carries a sidearm, the standard military-issued pistol. Then they have a backup post, which is a single guard armed with a submachine gun. Once an assailant gets beyond those two people, which a known major assigned to the base could do without much issue at all. After that nobody on the base is armed. There are very few access points to a base, which means there are very few armed personnel on base.

 

[unofan]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

where a person with a gun went to shoot up an event by an anti-Muslim speaker and was shot down before he got inside the door!

Yeah...I would like to see a link to that one, because that just reeks of a FW: FW: FW: FW: YOULL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!1111!!! e-mail.

Anti-muslim speaker as victim, anti-Muslim supporter as the hero (at the last minute, nonetheless, the guy got within breathing distance of the door), and presumably a Muslim as the attacker, or at least a librul (because who else would attack an anti-muslim speaker). No, that doesn't sound like something completely made up in a right-winger's fantasy.

So I'm declaring shenanigans on that one until shown otherwise.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I just went through the experience of accessing a local Air Guard base. My brother, retired military, explained to me after I had asked, that the guard at the main checkpoint carries a sidearm, the standard military-issued pistol. Then they have a backup post, which is a single guard armed with a submachine gun. Once an assailant gets beyond those two people, which a known major assigned to the base could do without much issue at all. After that nobody on the base is armed. There are very few access points to a base, which means there are very few armed personnel on base.

I didn't intend to suggest that everyone on a military base is walking around, 24/7, carrying a machine gun or sidearm. It's a place of work, and where many of them live, and there is no point to carrying a weapon unless there is a specific job or training responsibility.

However, unlike places like Sandy Hook or San Bernadino, these places actually have armed security and armed guards somewhere on the premises. Furthermore, you can't tell me there are no weapons available on the base, either owned by the government or privately owned by the soldiers. And as I noted earlier, these people actually do have training under fire, as much as that training may or may not help, unlike a bunch of social workers. Nevertheless, any number of wackos failed to "think twice" about going there and shooting things up.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Yeah...I would like to see a link to that one, because that just reeks of a FW: FW: FW: FW: YOULL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!1111!!! e-mail.

Anti-muslim speaker as victim, anti-Muslim supporter as the hero (at the last minute, nonetheless, the guy got within breathing distance of the door), and presumably a Muslim as the attacker, or at least a librul (because who else would attack an anti-muslim speaker). No, that doesn't sound like something completely made up in a right-winger's fantasy.

So I'm declaring shenanigans on that one until shown otherwise.

I think he's recalling the event in Garland, TX, but that was a security guard who got shot by the attacker then cops who shot them. Not an armed bystander. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/us/gunmen-killed-after-firing-on-anti-islam-groups-event.html

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I didn't intend to suggest that everyone on a military base is walking around, 24/7, carrying a machine gun or sidearm. It's a place of work, and where many of them live, and there is no point to carrying a weapon unless there is a specific job or training responsibility.

However, unlike places like Sandy Hook or San Bernadino, these places actually have armed security and armed guards somewhere on the premises. Furthermore, you can't tell me there are no weapons available on the base, either owned by the government or privately owned by the soldiers. And as I noted earlier, these people actually do have training under fire, as much as that training may or may not help, unlike a bunch of social workers. Nevertheless, any number of wackos failed to "think twice" about going there and shooting things up.

Sure, there are weapons on the base, but that's not the same as the soldiers being armed. The weapons are all locked away in the armory storage or at the rifle ranges. If you look at Ft. Hood, the base is 214,000 acres in size. Hasan was a major on base, the lowest of the senior officers ranks, he knew where the soft spots would be and what to avoid in order to afflict maximum damage. Even though there are just under 89,000 people residing on base, only a couple dozen are armed at any one time, and likely miles away from where he opened fire. To simply state that there are weapons on an army base is a bit naïve in concept since, as stated prior, most soldiers are not armed on base.

 

[Rover]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I think he's recalling the event in Garland, TX, but that was a security guard who got shot by the attacker then cops who shot them. Not an armed bystander. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/us/gunmen-killed-after-firing-on-anti-islam-groups-event.html

That was my recollection too. Someone in law enforcement (don't recall which agency) shot them, which again proves the point you want experienced professionals making these decisions.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sure, there are weapons on the base, but that's not the same as the soldiers being armed. The weapons are all locked away in the armory storage or at the rifle ranges. If you look at Ft. Hood, the base is 214,000 acres in size. Hasan was a major on base, the lowest of the senior officers ranks, he knew where the soft spots would be and what to avoid in order to afflict maximum damage. Even though there are just under 89,000 people residing on base, only a couple dozen are armed at any one time, and likely miles away from where he opened fire. To simply state that there are weapons on an army base is a bit naïve in concept since, as stated prior, most soldiers are not armed on base.

Ok. You guys have me convinced. Walking onto a U.S. military base with the intent to kill poses the same risk to a shooter as does walking into an elementary school in Sandy Hook, CT, and I don't know why any mass shooter would consider one a more formidable obstacle than the other.