Gun Laws

[mmoan2]

Engaging in these hypotheticals and situational discussions misses the point of how to approach systemic change. I haven't read everyone's take, but I really got involved in this topic when I had to change my plans drastically a few weeks ago because a sniper was found in Phoenix shooting at cars randomly on the interstate I drive on every day. It pissed me off enough to look into the "gun control" issue.

It is undeniable that the United States has far more civilian firearm fatalities than other industrialized nations. We are 13th in the world for ALL nations in per capita firearm deaths. We beat out Nicaragua and are just below Mexico. As far as "rampage-related shootings," where a single gunman kills multiple people with an unclear motive, we are by far the worst industrialized nation in the world. Almost 300 dead since 2009. Norway is next at about 80 people.

I'm pretty libertarian, but I also work for the government. Sometimes legislation is necessary. Senseless deaths like these rampages, and gun homicides in general, are an issue that must be addressed in this country. Stronger background checks, waiting periods before purchases, licensing requiring classes, technology requirements like fingerprint ID,etc. None of these solutions is the final answer, but I don't see how you can't support a systemic, comprehensive reform of firearms laws in the U.S. Clearly as a nation we can't play nice on the playground with our deadly toys. The teacher needs to step in. Like she did with the drinking age in 1984 and the DUI laws of the 90s.

[14ledo81]

Another point (I did scan most of this thread, but did not see this mentioned), is how much more bold do the criminals become when they know there is less of a chance of someone defending themselves with a gun?

Edited October 6, 2015 by 14ledo81
Spelling

[mmoan2]

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.

Perhaps, but I don't think many would want to take that chance. Anyway, this is getting a little silly. We've gone from talking about gun laws to deciding whether or not a trained MMA fighter could dodge bullets, and from whom. It was a fun conversation while it lasted, but kinda OT, in my opinion.

[Gator Hazard]

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.

Very true, I am just speaking in general, in general most shooters are not wearing body armor, the ones who do though, you know they came to shoot more than one or two people.  I would still shoot for center mass.  Being shot in the chest with a bullet while you are wearing a vest is going to be like getting kicked in the chest while you are not.  It is going to put you down and hurt like hell.  It could possible make the assailant drop the gun.  The .45 was made for a reason, it was made for stopping power.  Some bullets go right through a person but a .45 knocks you off your feet.

[mmoan2]

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

 

I forgot about that movie! Poor Don Cheadle, and the rest of those guys!

[Gator Hazard]

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.

20 feet is too far away still even for a trained and nimble warrior, 6-8 feet is a different story.  There was a lot of controversy over police shooting people with knives at that range who made moves, until they showed you how a person with a knife at that distance could get to you, they may die but they had a chance.  If you are 6 feet away I am moving myself to safer distance to give me more time to respond.  Twenty feet?  I am going to wait for you to clear the first ten so I know for certain I don't miss and then I am going to plug you even if you are Batman (not you personally!).  

Perhaps, but I don't think many would want to take that chance. Anyway, this is getting a little silly. We've gone from talking about gun laws to deciding whether or not a trained MMA fighter could dodge bullets, and from whom. It was a fun conversation while it lasted, but kinda OT, in my opinion.

LOL.  Agreed.

[iacas]

Not sure what the point of that video is. You could make one where an armed citizen saves the lives of tens, hundreds, even thousands. Heck, those types of videos also already exist.

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.

Yeah, or runs away because he doesn't want to get shot. That's more likely, IIRC.

Look, like many things, people are just arguing with their emotions and culling stats to suit whatever side they happen to fall on. Nobody here is qualified to talk about this stuff beyond "I don't want to carry a gun" or "I feel safer with a gun" or whatever. Their own opinions. That's it.

Very few people here have read, I imagine, books on the topic.

And I realize I may be showing my bias here, but the "anti-gun" side tends to argue the emotional side of things, the "what about the poor innocent children being slaughtered by the… well, okay, not quite dozens, but more than a few" angle.

Every book I ever read stressed to me that it's largely an economic issue. People who want to kill a lot of other people are also free to choose other means: poisonous gases, bombs, etc. Many of them are even safer for them to use than having to stand there pulling the trigger on something.

[Golfingdad]

Not sure what the point of that video is.

It demonstrates a (very remote) possible outcome when a "nut" with a gun decides to be a hero.  I absolutely don't want or need that guy to try and help me.

Most importantly, though, it's Boogie Nights and it's damn funny!

[TN94z]

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?)

Yeah, but MMA is not really on topic with gun control. I don't want to push the conversation down a different path. I agree that the average CCW person nowadays talks a big game because they can carry, but being in that situation is a totally different ball game. I could see it making a situation worse in some cases, depending on the skill level of the CCW holder. Misses happen. Would it be better to not attempt to take the shooter out and allow him to continue the rampage?

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.

I think there needs to be more scrutiny over the CCW classes at least. I have sat through some where there were people who had no business carrying a gun. One person could not even hit the target from 5 yards. The instructors stayed after class to help her pass. That class was a joke and I am sure there are carriers out there now just like the person I described, which is scary!

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:)

That's a thought I have as well. If schools were to have CCW people on campus for safety, they need to be designated people that the entire staff knows are designated and would need to be involved in training as a group for these situations. Center mass every time. Regardless of body armor, it's still going to slow the stampede of what is coming.

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.

I agree about the untrained carrier. I've seen it first hand in handgun defense classes. It blows my mind that people are carrying these weapons with such a limited skill set. I personally think the MMA talk is way off topic. It really has nothing to do with gun control

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.

Body armor or not, I still believe that it would distract the shooter enough to help the situation. Most of these shooters are not trained per say, so being shot at and hit (even with body armor) is going to be a shock to their system.

[Elmer]

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:)

This makes the point really well.

We are not all john wayne, with perfect aim and a bad guy in a black hat standing in front of us!

[Gator Hazard]

Not sure what the point of that video is. You could make one where an armed citizen saves the lives of tens, hundreds, even thousands. Heck, those types of videos also already exist.

Yeah, or runs away because he doesn't want to get shot. That's more likely, IIRC.

Look, like many things, people are just arguing with their emotions and culling stats to suit whatever side they happen to fall on. Nobody here is qualified to talk about this stuff beyond "I don't want to carry a gun" or "I feel safer with a gun" or whatever. Their own opinions. That's it.

Very few people here have read, I imagine, books on the topic.

And I realize I may be showing my bias here, but the "anti-gun" side tends to argue the emotional side of things, the "what about the poor innocent children being slaughtered by the… well, okay, not quite dozens, but more than a few" angle.

Every book I ever read stressed to me that it's largely an economic issue. People who want to kill a lot of other people are also free to choose other means: poisonous gases, bombs, etc. Many of them are even safer for them to use than having to stand there pulling the trigger on something.

I think both could happen, if the guy is pointing a gun at close range at another persons head, when the second person tries to shoot him it is very possible they tense and pull the trigger and Don Cheadle dies, AND the guy runs away.

I agree completely, I think a lot of our violence in America is social and structural, and there are a lot of factors including economic and part of that economics is pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs on us as the answers for everything (and this is different than other western economies as in many referenced have different healthcare plans in place than we do in America).  When a person gets body armor, stockpiles guns and ammo and has clips and other tools they have planned in advance to kill many people.  Columbine and other schools shootings were like that, they had pipe bombs and all sorts of guns and bullets.  If they had no guns it would have been pipe bombs and whatever else.  Did people forget what happened at the Boston Marathon a few years ago?  

It is still fun to talk about and debate sometimes, in general I like that this place has remained civil in this conversation.  Shows we have some good members.

[iacas]

It demonstrates a (very remote) possible outcome when a "nut" with a gun decides to be a hero.  I absolutely don't want or need that guy to try and help me.

Then, so far as I know from when I last read up on this stuff, you're likely unaware of the statistics (or must think they don't apply to you). Good example of the emotional argument, Drew. And one from a movie? C'mon. Do you want Bruce Willis to be the "nut" that saves you from an asteroid? Heck, that involved a nuclear weapon IIRC, too. It's a movie.

The truth (as I last read it) is that armed citizens help in situations like that - they avoid serious injury and death at a higher rate - and it's not really even a close margin. There are reasons most states allow the use of lethal force on someone who is committing a felony.

I don't care enough about these to read them; some of them may be counter to my point, some of them may be from trash sites, I don't care. I just did a quick search, and these are some of the top hits:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/02/02/10-stories-that-prove-guns-save-lives-n1503549/page/full
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/armed-citizens-save-lives/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/ 
(that's apparently a whole site about it, so I'm sure it's heavily propagandized, but still…).
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/the-armed-citizen-proof-guns-save-lives/
http://bearingarms.com/armed-citizen-saves-officer-attack-oklahoma-city/

[newtogolf]

Gun laws throughout the world will be challenged as 3D printing technology improves.  While the government can try to regulate sharing CAD drawings of guns online, it will be virtually impossible to prevent people from "printing" guns in their homes.

We keep trying to address mental problems by blaming guns when in reality we need to take action against those who are mentally ill and a threat to others.  Instead of the parents of the OR shooter being upset their son had access to guns why didn't they make sure he received proper care and if they felt he was a danger to others call the cops.  I blame the parents more than I blame the gun.

One can get in a big SUV, drive into Manhattan and cause a lot of carnage just running people down on Broadway or at a high school when school lets out, one doesn't need a gun to hurt a lot of people.  Psycho's may think guns are cool and convenient but ultimately someone who is sick enough to want to hurt a lot of people will find a method to do so.

[Braivo]

Look, like many things, people are just arguing with their emotions and culling stats to suit whatever side they happen to fall on. Nobody here is qualified to talk about this stuff beyond "I don't want to carry a gun" or "I feel safer with a gun" or whatever. Their own opinions. That's it.

Correct. Everyone should read this. This guy is qualified to talk about it and he backs his argument up with statistics. He doesn't speak about things that he doesn't have knowledge of. My opinion: I agree with this article on almost all points. 

[Pretzel]

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.

Question about this: Aren't you still likely to have a rib broken if you're hit in the chest wearing kevlar from close range? I know kevlar also is very bad at withstanding repeated shots, just because a majority of the protection comes from the tensile strength of the weave that is broken once it's hit by a bullet (it's the reason that vests have to be thrown out if they're shot, because they can't guarantee it will stop another bullet). A center of mass hit means the perpetrator is hurting quite a bit, and likely not as concerned with killing others as he was before he was shot.

[boogielicious]

Gun laws throughout the world will be challenged as 3D printing technology improves.  While the government can try to regulate sharing CAD drawings of guns online, it will be virtually impossible to prevent people from "printing" guns in their homes.

We keep trying to address mental problems by blaming guns when in reality we need to take action against those who are mentally ill and a threat to others.  Instead of the parents of the OR shooter being upset their son had access to guns why didn't they make sure he received proper care and if they felt he was a danger to others call the cops.  I blame the parents more than I blame the gun.

One can get in a big SUV, drive into Manhattan and cause a lot of carnage just running people down on Broadway or at a high school when school lets out, one doesn't need a gun to hurt a lot of people.  Psycho's may think guns are cool and convenient but ultimately someone who is sick enough to want to hurt a lot of people will find a method to do so.

Sadly, because there is not enough proper care available. I know this from personal experience. Even in Massachusetts, where we have some of the best hospitals in the world including psychiatric hospitals, it is very difficult to get "help" for young people (18 - 25). It actually takes a violent episode to create that opportunity. I won't go into details, but someone I know very well has spent more than two years trying to get an adult child care from a real psychiatrist. 2 years! Because the child has not been violent, they can't even get seen. And these are not people without means either. There is just a lack of psychiatrist for these types of issues. The police have also been extremely helpful. It is very sad.

[Gator Hazard]

Question about this: Aren't you still likely to have a rib broken if you're hit in the chest wearing kevlar from close range? I know kevlar also is very bad at withstanding repeated shots, just because a majority of the protection comes from the tensile strength of the weave that is broken once it's hit by a bullet (it's the reason that vests have to be thrown out if they're shot, because they can't guarantee it will stop another bullet). A center of mass hit means the perpetrator is hurting quite a bit, and likely not as concerned with killing others as he was before he was shot.

It can stop a bullet but it cannot stop the laws of physics.  The energy needs to go somewhere, yes, you are correct, and getting shot anywhere while wearing a vest is going to hurt like heck unless it is a really small caliber.  Lihu had mentioned a .380, I don't know enough about ballistics to comment knowledgeably but i would think that anything less would hurt but not stop you too much, anything bigger than that and its gonna sting like a son of a gun and probably put you to your knees.

When I got my handgun I wanted something between stopping power and lethality.  I wanted a caliber and bullet that was going to put someone down and probably kill them.  This was about 16 years ago, all of my research led me to purchase a 40 caliber gun (happens to be a Glock).

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[newtogolf]

Question about this: Aren't you still likely to have a rib broken if you're hit in the chest wearing kevlar from close range? I know kevlar also is very bad at withstanding repeated shots, just because a majority of the protection comes from the tensile strength of the weave that is broken once it's hit by a bullet (it's the reason that vests have to be thrown out if they're shot, because they can't guarantee it will stop another bullet). A center of mass hit means the perpetrator is hurting quite a bit, and likely not as concerned with killing others as he was before he was shot.

A 9mm won't likely break ribs unless it's from an AR-15, a low gauge shotgun slug might.  In either case it's going to hurt pretty bad and might even knock the wind out of him.   

Sadly, because there is not enough proper care available. I know this from personal experience. Even in Massachusetts, where we have some of the best hospitals in the world including psychiatric hospitals, it is very difficult to get "help" for young people (18 - 25). It actually takes a violent episode to create that opportunity. I won't go into details, but someone I know very well has spent more than two years trying to get an adult child care from a real psychiatrist. 2 years! Because the child has not been violent, they can't even get seen. And these are not people without means either. There is just a lack of psychiatrist for these types of issues. The police have also been extremely helpful. It is very sad.

Thanks for sharing, as I wasn't aware it's that difficult to get these people care.  If this is universal throughout the country then I think that's where the efforts and legislation needs to be focused, not in banning guns.