What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Wry Catcher]

Continued from 1452

The Governor and legislature in each state could then pass legislation allowing the Officers to appoint the volunteers with experience in vetting those who choose to own, posses, etc. a firearm to determine how those not in the militia should be licensed or if the legislature of the Governor not pass a bill requiring Licensing and/or registration.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

The reason is it is a FASTER round

Kinetic energy is greater the faster a round travels
an unjacketed round and a jacketed round traveling at the same velocity will do the same amount of damage to soft tissue

No, the jacketed will get a better penetration and hold the ballistics better making it able to make longer shots and do more damage with it's penetration. But in the 223s case, it's still a short ranged cartridge. And not even an average for the other high powered 22s.

and is more likely to pass through thereby wasting its kinetic energy which is why people use hollow points

 

[2aguy]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

It takes no skill to drive a truck through a crowd.

and if a person wants to walk into a place and start shooting he isn't going to care if his gun is registered or not.

Anyone hell bent on killing will kill and you cannot stop it.

I'm not going to argue the militia aspect. The Bill of rights is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of states or of state militias.

His post shows he either doesn't think about what he is posting or doesn't care, since his goal is simply to make it harder for normal people to own guns...since it won't make any difference for criminals or mass shooters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Yes...and since we know that mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they select schools that do not have armed security...or they target those guards first........

Correct. Just because somebody is a kook doesn't mean they are not smart or crafty. People who have these evil obsessions spend every given moment studying how to accomplishes their goals.

 

[Rustic]

The .223 is a 22 caliber round you idiot

The post never said it was. Wow, this is why people complsin with stupid people running around with these weapons.

LUsh said use a .22 instead of a .223 you moron so obviously he she it doesn't realize that a .223 is a .22 caliber round

Easy mistake for someone not obsessed with firearms. Talk about velocity and size of magazine being used, and the type of long gun being used.

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the right to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

I hunted squirrels, rabbits, ground hogs, etc. just fine with a 22LR. It did the job. But it took a bit of skill that the 223 and the like won't possess. Like many in my Generation, we all started out with the 22LR and then went to the Shotgun. Finally, we graduated to the larger calibers and the hunting rifle. For almost everything you say that the 223 is good at, so is the 22LR with few exceptions.

Lol
I would have no problem using the .223 for hunting Whitetails and mule deer up here in South Dakota...
I would limit it to right around 300 yards though... My eyesight isn’t as good as it used to be.
We don’t have hogs up here but 223’s have no problem with 100- 200 yard shots on Hogs all day long.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you for proving that 223 can't hack it. At that range, a heavy coat will stop the bullet cold. Even a heavy shirt will stop it. It's only 143ftlbs. And you notice that a few were hits but generally, it was all over the place. They didn't use an AR, they used pretty much a match rifle and you can bet the shooter was an Expert. It's a lark,nothing more. Do that same shot with a Model 70 308 and you will get a more consistent grouping and enough power left to get the kill.

Lol
I was just saying that 300 yards is not the limit... ARs can we set up just as accurate but they would be considerably more in the cost department...
Obviously an 308 Has Way more stopping power but that wasn’t the subject was it?

Let's take a 357 against a 45 Auto. Out to about 125 yds, both are quite accurate if you are good enough. But the stopping power (shot value) of the 45 far outweighs the extra speed of the 357. Then we introduce in cross winds, thermal barriers and other factors. At some point, the 45 will outshoot the 357 in both accuracy and shock value.

If you look at the ballistics of a 444 Marlin versus a 300 win mag, the 444 Marlin is terrible on the ballistic charts. But what they don't show is cross bullet density. It turns out for knowdown, the 444 marlins has the same value at 300 yds that a 300 Win Mag has at 100 yds.

The lesson here is, it doesn't matter much if you can get the bullet there or not. It's the shock value that is more important.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty ******* silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place.
Really? They simply shoot the guy at the detector and walk into the school.


We already have states that allow staff to be armed and nothing you claim is happening....you talk out of your ass and then act as if you have posted something intelligent....

So we make schools like prisons where nobody can get in. But the kids can't stay in school forever. At some point they leave the building in large crowds to head home on a bus or to be picked up by a family member. And then what's next? Brick walls with only one entrance that's gated? Where does it stop?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Yes...and since we know that mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they select schools that do not have armed security...or they target those guards first........

Correct. Just because somebody is a kook doesn't mean they are not smart or crafty. People who have these evil obsessions spend every given moment studying how to accomplishes their goals.

Most Mass shootings are poorly planned. So the more effective your firearm the better it goes. The one exception to this was the Vegas Shooting who did plan for a long time and did have a decent plan. He also owns the record on body count.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now you'e not being open minded in the slightest. Guns do good things such as self-defense and yes, hunting. Up here we are loaded with deer that have to be culled in certain areas. Where it's illegal to hunt the government has to come in to thin the herds out. I'm sure most people who live out in the sticks will tell you how beneficial being able to kill an animal is.

Been hunting deer since I was 12. A pump action shotgun works just fine. If you're inclined to longer ranges most serious hunters use bolt action rifles in the .30 calibre range.

I have also taken dear with a bow.

You do NOT need an assault weapon to hunt. In fact it's not a particularly good weapon for deer hunting

A .223 isn't good for anything but small game and pest control

and that has been said many times here.

 

[2aguy]

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Yes...and since we know that mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they select schools that do not have armed security...or they target those guards first........

Correct. Just because somebody is a kook doesn't mean they are not smart or crafty. People who have these evil obsessions spend every given moment studying how to accomplishes their goals.

Most Mass shootings are poorly planned. So the more effective your firearm the better it goes. The one exception to this was the Vegas Shooting who did plan for a long time and did have a decent plan. He also owns the record on body count.

You don't know what you are talking about....... actual experts in the field, law enforcement experts state that the average mass shooter plans their attack 6 months to 2 years in advance.... you say things off the top of your head and think you are stating the truth....

 

[Wry Catcher]

As can be seen, those obsessed with their lethal toys have no inclination to discuss the victims of gun violence, because they have this self proclaimed Right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Yes...and since we know that mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they select schools that do not have armed security...or they target those guards first........

Correct. Just because somebody is a kook doesn't mean they are not smart or crafty. People who have these evil obsessions spend every given moment studying how to accomplishes their goals.

Most Mass shootings are poorly planned. So the more effective your firearm the better it goes. The one exception to this was the Vegas Shooting who did plan for a long time and did have a decent plan. He also owns the record on body count.

When you're firing into a crowd of people, you don't need accuracy or quality guns. You just need something that will be powerful enough to kill and allow you to shoot at a rapid pace.

 

[Rustic]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

Lol
What do you mean by jacketed like a military round? All hunting “rounds” jacketed in one way or another or they are copper altogether.
Where do you get your information from the Clinton news network?

150 yards? Not 200? not 250? Lol
Affective out to 300 yards? On what? But not effective out to 350 or 400?

You’re just talking shit..

While he was wrong about the Jacketing he isn't wrong abut the range. One of the problems our troops have in the Middle East is that the bad guys started using the larger and longer ranged battle rifles that could go easily out to 800 yds. The 556 could only go out to a maximum of 400 yards before it pretty much left the useful ballistics. At 350yds, you won't be doing that neat little grouping. It's going to be a bit irratic as the bullet is starting to lose it's mind. The 223 is designed for less than 200 yds and is generally used at less than 100. If you claim to do a nice tight grouping at 400 yds, you are just plain lying. I would say that anything past 250 yds, you are using the wrong caliber. But that's just me since I have shot thousands of rounds of 556 and 7.62.

A .223 would not be my first choice for anything larger than a yote, I like .308, 6.8spc and 7mm08 For anything in the lower 48, those would be my first choices.
But for up to 500 yard shots On any type of varmint a .223 is a wonderful cartridge...
More than adequate… And affordable
I’m talking about a dinner plate size of grouping of 500 yards is doable

 

[Daryl Hunt]

ARs are just sporting rifles.... no two ways about it

Then how could they be a credible defense against a government that has an actual military?

First of all the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would never go against their own… And against the constitution
Federal government would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/homeland security/ATF to confiscate firearms from the public… They could not use the military, the use the military domestically against citizens?Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
The military would never go for that to begin with, they would turn their weapons on an oppressive federal government...

How do you think a bunch of rag heads in Afghanistan have foiled every empire over the course of history with much lesser?

First of all, no Government Agency is remotely conceiving of confiscating you guns. You just a well stop trying to scare small children around the campfire with that one. I don't see small children posting in there.

Second, If anyone is trying to violently overthrow our elected government then that is treason. And don't expect there to be a huge exodus to your cause from the US Military. In fact, chances are, they will be the ones doing the support duties for the National Guard and various other agencies unless Congress allows it. You are gambling that much of the Military will disregard the Oath, Customs and Traditions. I don't see that happening on a large scale.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Or you can have only one way in where you have a detector and at least one highly trained and armed Security Guard where he can instigate a school lockdown with the touch of a button. Then if you get past that, any Teacher can instigate that lockdown with a touch of a button that is only available to Teachers and Faculty. You have to have a Mass to do a Mass Shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, the cops are notified and are coming enmass. The potential shooter just disturbed the cops Donut Break and they are going to be pissed off to hell and back. The Kook can plan till the cows come home but chances are, he will give up, go home or do something really stupid and still try to do the Mass Shooting. Talk about frustrating.

The Teachers aren't paid enough as it is. Yet you want them to go get trained to the point they can enter a battle field and function? And yes, one person with an AR and 4 30 round mags is a battlefield all by themselves to a SillyVillian. Unless you get continuous stress training, chances are,you are either going to start blasting away which becomes a real problem in a target rich situation but most likely you are going to freeze too long (hesitation is the normal human reaction) and that gun you have becomes worthless fast. Isn't it better to just remove the Mass from the Mass Shooting if you have the choice? The Teachers are much better at removing the masses than getting into a firefight.

You don't know what you are talking about.....mass shooters are not looking for a shoot out, they are looking to murder unarmed innocent people to get a high body count. As actual statements from them show, and actual shootings show, they run away, surrender or commit suicide as soon as they are confronted by anyone with a gun...... which is why you need to get someone challenging them, with a gun so that they move to that final step faster...... which is why getting rid of gun free zones is so important....mass shooters target gun free zones so if they know that parents can carry their legal guns with them when they drop off their kids or pick them up, or when they enter the school to drop off homework, or lunches, they will not target those schools....

And mass shooters are not looking for a gun fight..so the AR-15 does nothing for them when they are confronted by an armed civilian or police officer since they surrender, commit suicide or run away..... staff and civilian gun owners do not need to be Navy SEALs or Delta Force and they don't need to be experts in Close Quarters Battle......

They simply have to confront the shooter with intent to fight, and the shooter will commit suicide, run away or surrender.....

You are Fake news.

 

[Rustic]

Now you'e not being open minded in the slightest. Guns do good things such as self-defense and yes, hunting. Up here we are loaded with deer that have to be culled in certain areas. Where it's illegal to hunt the government has to come in to thin the herds out. I'm sure most people who live out in the sticks will tell you how beneficial being able to kill an animal is.

Been hunting deer since I was 12. A pump action shotgun works just fine. If you're inclined to longer ranges most serious hunters use bolt action rifles in the .30 calibre range.

I have also taken dear with a bow.

You do NOT need an assault weapon to hunt. In fact it's not a particularly good weapon for deer hunting

Lol
And Ar15 is not anything more than a sporting rifle...
I hunt antelope with an Ar15 in 6.8 SPC It is a particularly good hunting rifle for white tails, mule deer and antelope.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

It takes no skill to drive a truck through a crowd.

and if a person wants to walk into a place and start shooting he isn't going to care if his gun is registered or not.

Anyone hell bent on killing will kill and you cannot stop it.

I'm not going to argue the militia aspect. The Bill of rights is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of states or of state militias.

His post shows he either doesn't think about what he is posting or doesn't care, since his goal is simply to make it harder for normal people to own guns...since it won't make any difference for criminals or mass shooters.

The idea that no solution exists, is the only strength you have. People like you who cannot think outside of the box are part of the problem and never part of a solution.

 

[2aguy]

As can be seen, those obsessed with their lethal toys have no inclination to discuss the victims of gun violence, because they have this self proclaimed Right.

We tell you actual solutions to the problem..but because the solutions do not include banning guns, or making them harder for law abiding people to own or carry them, you don't want them....

 

[Rustic]

ARs are just sporting rifles.... no two ways about it

Then how could they be a credible defense against a government that has an actual military?

First of all the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would never go against their own… And against the constitution
Federal government would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/homeland security/ATF to confiscate firearms from the public… They could not use the military, the use the military domestically against citizens?Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
The military would never go for that to begin with, they would turn their weapons on an oppressive federal government...

How do you think a bunch of rag heads in Afghanistan have foiled every empire over the course of history with much lesser?

First of all, no Government Agency is remotely conceiving of confiscating you guns. You just a well stop trying to scare small children around the campfire with that one. I don't see small children posting in there.

Second, If anyone is trying to violently overthrow our elected government then that is treason. And don't expect there to be a huge exodus to your cause from the US Military. In fact, chances are, they will be the ones doing the support duties for the National Guard and various other agencies unless Congress allows it. You are gambling that much of the Military will disregard the Oath, Customs and Traditions. I don't see that happening on a large scale.

The Military “oath” is to the country not the federal government

 

[2aguy]

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

It takes no skill to drive a truck through a crowd.

and if a person wants to walk into a place and start shooting he isn't going to care if his gun is registered or not.

Anyone hell bent on killing will kill and you cannot stop it.

I'm not going to argue the militia aspect. The Bill of rights is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of states or of state militias.

His post shows he either doesn't think about what he is posting or doesn't care, since his goal is simply to make it harder for normal people to own guns...since it won't make any difference for criminals or mass shooters.

The idea that no solution exists, is the only strength you have. People like you who cannot think outside of the box are part of the problem and never part of a solution.

We have given you the solutions.... we never said there was no solution we showed you through this entire thread what the solutions are....you just don't want them because they don't include targeting law abiding gun owners....you are the one trapped in the box, you hate guns, you hate gun owners, you want guns banned and limited......

Our solution...end gun free zones so mass shooters stop targeting schools and churches.

Our solution, lock up known, violent, repeat gun offenders for long prison sentences instead of allowing democrat party politicians and judges to let them out of prison.

Our solution is to focus on mental health issues, to help the dangerously mentally ill, not taking guns away from women who need them to stay safe.