Gun Laws

[Gator Hazard]

I see 2 problems with hiring ex military.1- who pays? Is this a federal, state, county or city hire? Do the schools need to budget and raise their tuition to accommodate. This will increase taxes, tuitions, benefits etc... And we know how people feel about having cost raised?

2- I am not sure if I am comfortable with all educational facilities filled with gun carrying commando types. I envision a Stalinist Russia where there is a Ak-47 holding soldier on every corner.

Are we that unwilling to discuss gun regulation that we would rather have armed guards in all schools?  

There is a big difference between taking a swing at an attacker who is trying to mug you & making a clean shot at a shooter across the room.

I have asked this before, what if the student misses and hits and kills another student? Is this just collateral damage? Is this an acceptable loss?
What is the proposed armed guard (as explained above) shoots and misses. What if they kill an innocent?
Are we willing to accept collateral damage?

That could be worked out a number of ways as state and federal government work together, much like they do for road construction and interestate highways etc.  It could be in conjunction with the GI BILL that soldiers can use to go back to school which is already a mililtary service benefit.  This would minimize the cost and impact and deals could be made with universities, its like perks, you go to work and make X an hour but you also get medical, dental, vision.  This way universities could have better response times to a violent crime while helping to employ and reintroduce a qualified, tested, trained individual back into the work force.

I previously mentioned they could be deployed as undercover marshalls, I nor anyone else really would want armed guards patrolling the universities because they just become targets themselves then (I have to take out X and Y first and then I can kill indiscriminately).  The airlines already do this with US Marshalls, how many times have you flown a plane and known a US Marshall who was armed was on it?  If you have flown more than ten times in your life, chances are very good that you have been on the same plane as one and didn't even know, and they had a gun.

Gun regulations will not take the guns already existing out of the hands of the dangerous people willing to use them, it will only make it more difficult (slightly in my opinion) for new guns to enter into their hands or for guns to be transferred through legal sale.  Yet still I am all for stricter gun regulations.  

 

[Vinsk]

Not sure how you arrived at this. . .

It's much harder to take someone down in a hand to hand situation especially if the attacker is 50-100 pounds heavier than you. Much easier to shoot them from 10-20 feet. The grouping of an average person shooting an average off the shelf pistol two handed from 30 feet is about 4" with a 20 hours of training or so.

well, me and my fellow MMA bunch would disagree.

[Mr. Desmond]

On 911 thousands were killed and not a single gun was used. Evil men armed with box cutters only. Evil people will find ways to commit evil acts. Do we need to ban box cutters ? Timothy McVey (spelling) killed hundreds with a truck filled with fertilizer. Do we need background checks to buy fertilizer ?

 2013 deaths by ;

Firearms- 33,636

Drug overdose - 43,982   

 

Well, yes ...

Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J, Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate ("Section 563"), Public Law 110–161  (PDF, 614 pages – 1.7 MB), amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The amendment requires the Department to "regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility ... to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in order to implement the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007.

DHS has established a 120 day comment period which ends on December 1, 2011. This new regulation will require sellers and purchasers of ammonium nitrate to:

1. Acquire a registration number from DHS in order to sell, transfer, and/or purchase ammonium nitrate.

2. Requires applicants who sell, transfer or purchase ammonium nitrate to conduct a background check using the Terrorist Screening Database

3. Requires DHS to issue an ammonium nitrate registration number for each ammonium nitrate seller or purchaser upon completion of an application to DHS

4. Requires ammonium nitrate sellers to verify each potential ammonium nitrate purchaser's identification and registration number prior to selling product

5. Requires all ammonium nitrate facilities to keep records of sales or transfers of ammonium nitrate for at least two years after each transaction

6. Certain ammonium nitrate sellers must report the theft or loss of certain quantities of ammonium nitrate to Federal authorities within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss

[Gator Hazard]

I think it's still true that something like 95% of gun crimes in the U.S. (or gun deaths, perhaps) are minority-on-minority crimes/murders. This is an economic problem, not a gun control problem. Inner-city people are killing other inner-city people over drugs and other stuff.

Remove that, and suicides, and the U.S. gun crime rates are on par with other countries. Canada has more guns per capita than the U.S. and doesn't have the gun crime problem we have. They're a lot like us, too: it's not like comparing Japanese or Swedish culture (just to pick two fairly different cultures) to our own.

I have two guns. Neither are registered so far as I know, but both required me to complete a background check when I purchased them in the state in which I lived at the time, about 12 years ago. They remain locked up safe and out of the way, but I can get to them and load the 9mm in 30 seconds or less if necessary.

---

Someone said it before, though: nobody's minds are going to be changed. So I'll leave it at that.

Unless you bought your handgun in a private sale and there was no paperwork I am pretty sure your hand gun at a minimum is registered.  That is done at the time of the sale as they keep a record of the serial number on the main parts of the gun and turn that in to the state.  They have hand print identification quick open safes for about $140 now that you can put a handgun in so you have faster access to it while keeping it safe as well.  I am considering getting one of those so can put it right in my nightstand for faster access and kiddies can't get to it.

well, me and my fellow MMA bunch would disagree.

That is because you are trained not everyone has that type of training.  I am not an mma person but I did wrestle in high school and coached for a few years; like you, I know a lot of ways to put someone on the ground, and fast, size be danged to a certain degree.  That being said I can tell you that I would much, much rather have a weapon to aide in stopping the hostility than having to try and take them down without one.   

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[Elmer]

An interesting topic is the one of people legally carrying and perfecting others during a shooting. I don't think people realize how inaccurate most shooters/handguns are. I'll provide a little perspective for that. 

In a competition scenario, at 25 yards, the best shooters in the state (in 4-H who grew up shooting their while life) can put 10 rounds into a stationary target the size of a grapefruit or small cantaloupe in approximately 2-3 minutes of slow fire. In rapid fire (shooting one handed, 5 shots in 10 seconds) that grouping spreads to be 18-30 inches wide. The second scenario is more plausible of a grouping in a stressful scenario (since in a real scenario you would always use two hands anyways). Shooting silhouettes (various birds, a pig, and a ram that are all not to scale) the longest target that is reasonably expected to be hit using open sights is the turkey or pig at 60 yards. The ram can be hit at 100, but most use scopes or red dot sights for that if they want to be successful. 

For a carrying individual to be remotely effective, they would need to be within 25 yards of the shooter. They would also need a clear line of fire with nobody directly in front of or behind the shooter (thar 18-30" grouping might not hit him). In addition to that, they need to - obviously - not get shot themselves. The circumstances are pretty specific as to when this could happen, so you'd need an awful lot of the population to be trained (these groupings are all for people who shoot competitively) and carrying for it to make a difference. Most untrained individuals can't put 10 rounds on a paper plate at only 7-10 yards, so that part is very important. 

Not sure how you arrived at this. . .

It's much harder to take someone down in a hand to hand situation especially if the attacker is 50-100 pounds heavier than you. Much easier to shoot them from 10-20 feet. The grouping of an average person shooting an average off the shelf pistol two handed from 30 feet is about 4" with a 20 hours of training or so.

I arrived at this conclusion by combining 2 sets of information:
1-I have been in a few fist fights. I may not have won, but you can land a punch, a kick, a knee, pull hair, scratch. Your opponent is at most an arms length away and you can make contact by flailing!
2-as previously noted I have family who saw combat and have medals for combat experience. According to them when you are being shot at, when bullets are zipping past your head, you keep your head down,  pull the trigger and spray and pray.
The purple heart recipient has informed me that when you are close proximity of gun fire and it is directed at you, your heart is beating too fast to take a deep breath hold your pistol with 2 hands and make a concise shot. You pop off some rounds and hope you hit your target. And that does not take into account having students or civilians running in your line of sight!

Comparing a school shooter to getting mugged is an apples and peanut comparison.

Other than than I would refer you to the other quoted post

[Gator Hazard]

 

 

I arrived at this conclusion by combining 2 sets of information:
1-I have been in a few fist fights. I may not have won, but you can land a punch, a kick, a knee, pull hair, scratch. Your opponent is at most an arms length away and you can make contact by flailing!
2-as previously noted I have family who saw combat and have medals for combat experience. According to them when you are being shot at, when bullets are zipping past your head, you keep your head down,  pull the trigger and spray and pray.
The purple heart recipient has informed me that when you are close proximity of gun fire and it is directed at you, your heart is beating too fast to take a deep breath hold your pistol with 2 hands and make a concise shot. You pop off some rounds and hope you hit your target. And that does not take into account having students or civilians running in your line of sight!

Comparing a school shooter to getting mugged is an apples and peanut comparison.

Other than than I would refer you to the other quoted post

The difference in the two scenarios between your family members (and some of mine) is one is in complete and all out war against enemies seen and unseen the other is not.  In the case of a single shooter in a public setting you can generally get a sense of what direction they are aiming and looking and focusing on.  There is a far better chance of picking off a single shooter and being able to get a visual than in a time of war when bullets are zinging over your head.  They are close but the scenarios are still very different.  Unarmed people have on multiple times taken down a shooter, some lost their lives in the process.  You don't see that on a battlefield, and the reason is what you have described, because war is war and you may not know where all the enemies are but you can be sure they are all looking with the same vigilance because they expect everyone to be armed just like they are.  The single shooter does not have to worry about that and focuses more on different things and isn't firing an ak-47 into a crowd.

[TN94z]

well, me and my fellow MMA bunch would disagree.

The problem with this is that everyone in the situation would need to be trained. Not to mention running into a situation where the attacker is trained. I have trained MMA for years as well and would feel comfortable defending myself in a hand to hand situation. But, like @Gator Hazard said, I would much rather have the aide of a weapon rather than taking my chances hand to hand.

One of my friends is an ex-Muay Thai fighter, trained in Krav Maga, boxing, BJJ, you name it (my standup coach) and he is also a swat team member locally. He will tell you the same. He would much rather have his weapon in a violent attack than just hand to hand even with his extensive training.

Edited October 6, 2015 by TN94z

[Lihu]

2-as previously noted I have family who saw combat and have medals for combat experience. According to them when you are being shot at, when bullets are zipping past your head, you keep your head down,  pull the trigger and spray and pray.

I was referring to the people who did not have the gun actually pointing at them. If the entire class had guns the shooter would have had to aim at all of them and that would put the pressure on him. I wasn't referring to a duel type of situation. . .

[Gator Hazard]

The problem with this is that everyone in the situation would need to be trained. Not to mention running into a situation where the attacker is trained. I have trained MMA for years as well and would feel comfortable defending myself in a hand to hand situation. But, like @Gator Hazard said, I would much rather have the aide of a weapon rather than taking my chances hand to hand.

One of my friends is an ex-Muay Thai fighter, trained in Krav Maga, boxing, BJJ, you name it (my standup coach) and he is also a swat team member locally. He will tell you the same. He would much rather have his weapon in a violent attack than just hand to hand even with his extensive training.

That's because every real fighter knows that anything can happen in a fight and that as good as any fighter is, surprises and the unexpected can and do happen in hand to hand combat situations.  Any experienced fighter in any discipline has seen someone beat an opponent they had no business beating.  It just happens sometimes.

[Elmer]

The problem with this is that everyone in the situation would need to be trained. Not to mention running into a situation where the attacker is trained. I have trained MMA for years as well and would feel comfortable defending myself in a hand to hand situation. But, like @Gator Hazard said, I would much rather have the aide of a weapon rather than taking my chances hand to hand.

One of my friends is an ex-Muay Thai fighter, trained in Krav Maga, boxing, BJJ, you name it (my standup coach) and he is also a swat team member locally. He will tell you the same. He would much rather have his weapon in a violent attack than just hand to hand even with his extensive training.

Dont get me wrong It is probably easier to drop some one with a side arm than a left kick, especially when they are 30 feet away.

I just want to dispell the myth that if just anyone one was armed and in that situation, "they would have shot and killed the shooter". Not the "well trained goes to the range every weekend" person.
BUt the average joe, that most people say, if they only had a weapon they would have stopped it.

it is too much  Monday Morning Quaterbacking! Not everyone, who has a gun or carried a gun is going to make a clean shot, in that situation.

AND WHAT IF THEY MISS?
AND HIT SOMEONE ELSE? (will they be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter?)

[mmoan2]

well, me and my fellow MMA bunch would disagree.

I respect you, but I would take an untrained nut with a gun over Anderson Silva any day of the week from 20 feet away.

[Gator Hazard]

Dont get me wrong It is probably easier to drop some one with a side arm than a left kick, especially when they are 30 feet away.

I just want to dispell the myth that if just anyone one was armed and in that situation, "they would have shot and killed the shooter". Not the "well trained goes to the range every weekend" person.
BUt the average joe, that most people say, if they only had a weapon they would have stopped it.

it is too much  Monday Morning Quaterbacking! Not everyone, who has a gun or carried a gun is going to make a clean shot, in that situation.

AND WHAT IF THEY MISS?
AND HIT SOMEONE ELSE? (will they be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter?)

If someone is carrying concealed why are they doing it?  I agree not anyone and not everyone would, it depends on the situation.  I would put my money on a trained military vet being able to assess and respond appropriately though (and that response could include NOT shooting depending on the situation).  I would like to think most people who carry concealed are going to be good shots and understand they don't want to take a shot outside of a certain range.  I think this is where stricter gun control laws could be favorable.  There are places where you literally take the class and then fire a bullet into a pail of water and they will give you a CCW permit.  I think that is crud.  My friend who lives in Vegas when he got his had to have accuracy at different distances AND had to be able to hit the target a number of times with his weak hand, singlehandedly before being given his ccw permit.  I would like to see more of that, and mandatory re-testing every 2 or 3 years.  That way the people who can and are carrying concealed are better prepared.

Things happen, sometimes they are going to miss, but I feel that we have seen so many times where a person has been able to get close enough to take down the armed assailant (life lost or not) that obviously it is very feasible for an armed person to get themselves into a good position to take the shot.  Hey, if I am in that crowd and being shot at and you have a gun and you think you may hit me but can take the guy out who has already killed 2 people, I WANT you to take that shot, I understand why you need to take it.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gator Hazard
Horrible grasp of the english language and grammar

[Lihu]

Dont get me wrong It is probably easier to drop some one with a side arm than a left kick, especially when they are 30 feet away.

I just want to dispell the myth that if just anyone one was armed and in that situation, "they would have shot and killed the shooter". Not the "well trained goes to the range every weekend" person.
BUt the average joe, that most people say, if they only had a weapon they would have stopped it.

it is too much  Monday Morning Quaterbacking! Not everyone, who has a gun or carried a gun is going to make a clean shot, in that situation.

AND WHAT IF THEY MISS?
AND HIT SOMEONE ELSE? (will they be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter?)

The main thing is if everyone had guns and the training associated with owning it, then it might deter people from doing this sort of thing.

To be perfectly honest, I can't really imagine my town having people carry around side arms to protect themselves, but we have a lot of police who come by with guns drawn within 3 minutes and patrol the town on a frequent basis. I'm not even sure how many people own handguns in my town, but it is allowed and there are many issued a lot of CCW permits as well. It's a pretty safe town, even though there are lots of weapons.

If they miss and they have a proper urban round then it should disintegrate into the wall. You don't need a lot of stopping power when aiming for the head.

[Golfingdad]

I respect you, but I would take an untrained nut with a gun over Anderson Silva any day of the week from 20 feet away.

Not me.  (The below is NSFW, btw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[Gator Hazard]

 

The main thing is if everyone had guns and the training associated with owning it, then it might deter people from doing this sort of thing.

To be perfectly honest, I can't really imagine my town having people carry around side arms to protect themselves, but we have a lot of police who come by with guns drawn within 3 minutes and patrol the town on a frequent basis. I'm not even sure how many people own handguns in my town, but it is allowed and there are many issued a lot of CCW permits as well. It's a pretty safe town, even though there are lots of weapons.

If they miss and they have a proper urban round then it should disintegrate into the wall. You don't need a lot of stopping power when aiming for the head.

My worry is if too many people, say in a classroom, have weapons it may become harder to tell who the bad guy is.  Two people pop up, first thing they see is a guy with a gun, they fire.  Problem is, they shot at each other instead of the original shooter.  OR a more feasible scenario, several CCW people hear gunshots fired, they see an individual or individuals out in the courtyard or running in an area with a weapon drawn.  Someone is shooting at someone else, do they all know who the bad guy is?

If you want to put someone down you never aim for the head, you aim center mass and put them down on the ground.  You want a head shot?  You walk up and put a pill in their head when they are on the ground clutching their chests.  Head shots in hostile situations with handguns is for tv shows and movies:)

[phillyk]

I respect you, but I would take an untrained nut with a gun over Anderson Silva any day of the week from 20 feet away.

An untrained nut will most likely miss.  A person who has gone to the firing range to practice would be more effective.

From 20ft away, many MMA fighters should be able to move that distance and take down any target within a few seconds, which could be enough time.  But from 20yds, it could be a different story.

[Lihu]

My worry is if too many people, say in a classroom, have weapons it may become harder to tell who the bad guy is.  Two people pop up, first thing they see is a guy with a gun, they fire.  Problem is, they shot at each other instead of the original shooter.  OR a more feasible scenario, several CCW people hear gunshots fired, they see an individual or individuals out in the courtyard or running in an area with a weapon drawn.  Someone is shooting at someone else, do they all know who the bad guy is?

If you want to put someone down you never aim for the head, you aim center mass and put them down on the ground.  You want a head shot?  You walk up and put a pill in their head when they are on the ground clutching their chests.  Head shots in hostile situations with handguns is for tv shows and movies:)

The perpetrator was wearing body armor, but you're right to aim for the center of mass. Even a 380 would still bruise him and might cause him to pause. A 147 9mm round might even put him to his knees. . .It's hard to say, but if they were armed he would not have been able to "toy" with them the way he did.

[Gator Hazard]

Not me.  (The below is NSFW, btw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

LOL!  A distinct if somewhat remote possibility.  However, the guy is nervy, if the shooter shoots and misses, the perp upon hearing that huge sound startling him big time probably tenses and squeezes the trigger.

 

I will still agree with @mmoan2 however, at 20 feet you can put Jon Jones and Anderson Silva in front of me, heck, any two human beings you want, and if I have a gun I am confident that I win.  Inside of 6 feet and no thank you.  This is a point I stress to my wife and others if ever in the situation.  The gun is a tactical advantage BECAUSE it gives you space.  DO NOT get close to an enemy with the gun or they can and may take it away from you.  The entire tactical advantage of a gun is being able to strike from a distance.