NOT Gun Control

[NateKirk]

Hissoldier,

My personal opinion of the president aside, the rest of my statements still stand. If you want to discuss the arming teachers then offer a rebuttal to my reasoning above.

For the sake of convenience however here is the rest of what I said without searching for it:

"On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

 

[44 AMP]

I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)

Yes you can. You can't get them at WalMart, and you can't get them at your local gun shop (most likely) but you can get them, if you have the $$$$. And $$$$$$ is what it takes. And a clean record, and a lot of patience, and living in a state that does not have a state law prohibiting ownership.

Registered NFA weapons are not banned. Heavily restricted, but not completely banned.

"Might as well be" is true, in the practical sense for most of us without huge amounts of disposable income, but its not true in the legal sense. If you're willing to pay $40,000 for a Tommy Gun, you can legally own one.

I'm not in the crowd that thinks doing something means passing a new law. I'd rather see NO new law than a bad new law. And a bad new law is almost guaranteed to be what's our representatives will be voting on, if/when it comes to that.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.

Not really.

Prior to our entry into World War 1, the strength of our standing Army was just 98,000 (plus 27,000 National Guard). Source At the height of our involvement in WW1, our troop strength went up to 4 million -- 2.7 million of whom were draftees.

In 1939, two years prior to our entry into World War 2, our army numbered just 187,000 and was only the 19th largest army in the world. At the peak of our involvement in WW2, our troop strength went up to 12.2 million. By 1947 we were back down to 1.6 million.

I think it's fair to argue that, while the U.S. did technically have a standing army, both world wars were fought by men who could rightly be considered to have been called up from the militia (since that's what they were).

 

[5whiskey]

On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

I will happily rebut every point. First off, no one here that I know of is suggesting that bubba hillbilly redneck who barely hits paper at 5 yards taking "DAT dere concealed carry class" should just be given a gun and a teacher certificate and start packing in schools with no additional training. Law enforcement mandates yearly firearms in-service classes and qualification. Law enforcement has to provide this to their officers. At least in my jurisdiction, it would not be a drain on resources to simply allow teachers WHO VOLUNTEER to attend this training. This could be a mandated requirement for any teacher who chooses to carry a firearm.

On to the SWAT team shooting the teacher argument... Well this is a risk. It can be mitigated. For one, said armed teacher could immediately drop their weapon when they see LEO presence. That's what everyone else who encounters police and doesn't want to die does. There could be discreet identifying cues utilized, known only by local LOEs, to also help identify the teacher.

The SRO was a coward. So what!?!? I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan as an infantry marine. I've seen folks that most doubted respond well under fire, and I've seen "hard chargers" hide out. The Sutherland springs shooter was engaged by a neighbor to the church and apparently hit at least once by him. One lone police officer with barely a years experience, the only one on duty in southern pines, nc, stopped a mass shooting in a rest home about 7 years ago. There are numerous examples of teachers, coaches, and other staff sacrificing themselves to save students, tackling gunmen, and committing other acts of bravery. Do you think they would act differently? Yeah in this case the "good guy with a gun" hid outside. Doesn't mean that is the norm.

Lastly, I will agree that many teachers may be slightly more liberal, but that's painting with a broad brush. Are you sure the Ag teacher, mechanics teacher, every janitor, football coaches, and every other staff member is so liberal that they couldn't imagine using violence to stop a threat against their students? I dont believe it.

 

[5whiskey]

On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence."

I'll even one up the argument. Statistically, mass shooters often commit suicide at the first sign of armed resistance. This is well documented. I don't know why. My supposition is they don't want to face consequences (in this life at least) and would rather off themselves instead of risk being incapacitated but captured alive. Using this statistically significant outcome, you could argue that an armed teacher doesn't even have to engage a mass shooter with superior firepower, or superior tactics. They just have to engage them.

 

[LogicMan]

The idea that because a person being armed could confuse a SWAT is ridiculous IMO. I mean yes, there's a risk, but I'd much rather take that risk and be armed so I can shoot back at the mass shooter as opposed to be disarmed and thus at the mercy of the mass shooter and thus probably get killed all so that I don't maybe get shot by a SWAT team.

As for the term "high-capacity" magazine, that was made up by gun control proponents. No where in the world of firearms was it ever considered that anything over ten rounds constituted "high-capacity." What they are really talking about is banning what are standard-capacity magazines and limiting people to what are arbitrarily-determined reduced capacity magazines. As for why people would use standard-capacity magazines outside of fighting a tyranny, well a few reasons:

1) Criminal or criminals who break into your home who are on a drug-fueled rage and need multiple shots to bring down

2) Due to adrenaline, you could miss a lot more easily

3) There could be multiple criminals

Regarding resistance to tyranny, the idea that an armed populace couldn't stop a tyranny is nonsensical too IMO. If you had a tyranny form that had a military of the same capability as the U.S. military, and it was tasked with oppressing the entire United States, that would be virtually impossible. Some people say, "Your AR-15 is not going to make a difference against an Abrams tank/Apache helicopter/drone/etc...yeah, well if it's a small force of people, then yes, they will get clobbered. But if it's the whole country, or a massive portion of the country, then the government is going to be SOL.

Because there are only so many places that you can send tanks, troops, aircraft, drones, etc...and only a portion of your military are the actual infantry troops. The rest of it are not going to be a whole lot better trained than ordinary civilians in the usage of firearms. And those civilian forces will be able to do things like mess up supply lines, attack military bases, and so forth. Tanks and helicopters can't move without fuel.

 

[Al Norris]

This is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not increased background checks, not magazine restrictions, not bans... Nothing is certain.

You're correct, there is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee. Do you have one that might reach 50%? Before you answer, read on...

Seems to me that common sense would dictate enforcing current law, before adding more untried law. I mean, if the current laws aren't being enforced, how do we know if they work or not? And what makes anyone think adding a new law, or laws, would be enforced, if we aren't enforcing what we have now?

So again, how do we go about fixing the current broken system?

 

[s3779m]

The NRA and probably 5% of the US population also has an agenda.

I see the press being attacked on a regular basis (and no they are far from perfect)

A free press his what makes a functioning democracy than does gun ownership.

I can name a dozen countries that have functioning democracies that have severe gun restrictions.

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, it is our constitution that ensures us our gun rights will not be taken away, not some vote. Second, the "agenda" that the N.R.A and the 5% are pushing is our constitutional rights and they are protecting them. Third, had the laws on the books been enforced, the last two shootings should not have occurred. Before we look at removing rights and banning objects, we need to look at why the laws were not enforced and how to correct that. Fourth, there is nothing in common with today's lame stream media and the term "free press".

 

[s3779m]

The caveat of this argument is that the assumption is being made that the shooter is trained to efficiently and effectively use the weapon, and reload it.

Some nut job like in Florida, who I highly doubt was ever trained in optimizing the effective firing rate of an AR is always going to run for a higher capacity mag.

I'd say if you were thoroughly trained in the use of an AR and had developed muscle memory then to your point it wouldn't matter if it were 10,20, or 30 round mags, either way a lot of lead is coming down the barrel.

I'm not advocating for restrictions, not at all. Just fleshing out two different sides to a point of view.

When no one is firing back at you, you have all the time needed to exchange mags. Which makes for another good reason teachers should be allowed to carry.

 

[NateKirk]

First off, no one here that I know of is suggesting that bubba hillbilly redneck who barely hits paper at 5 yards taking "DAT dere concealed carry class" should just be given a gun and a teacher certificate and start packing in schools with no additional training.

I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that, I'm talking about current teachers.

At least in my jurisdiction, it would not be a drain on resources to simply allow teachers WHO VOLUNTEER to attend this training. This could be a mandated requirement for any teacher who chooses to carry a firearm.

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants. That's pretty much a worst case scenario, and I'm sure if one was to ask a SWAT officer they would agree.

My point is that even if those who elected to use the new option of carrying to school decided to go through rigorous, repeated training, I don't think they would be prepared, even if they had the mental discipline to ensure that they stayed practiced.

Personally, were I a teacher I would carry to work to defend myself if need be and those around me. But I would not expect myself or any other non professional to be effective in actually seeking and engaging the killer. Carrying in a school might save the one carrying, but it doesn't make the overall situation any better. And, to repeat something I said earlier:

"Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation."

Lastly, I will agree that many teachers may be slightly more liberal, but that's painting with a broad brush. Are you sure the Ag teacher, mechanics teacher, every janitor, football coaches, and every other staff member is so liberal that they couldn't imagine using violence to stop a threat against their students? I don't believe it.

We're both right. Here's a fun tool.

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

Using this statistically significant outcome, you could argue that an armed teacher doesn't even have to engage a mass shooter with superior firepower, or superior tactics. They just have to engage them.

That's not something one can count on though. Plans and policy are not made to account for best case scenarios.

So again, how do we go about fixing the current broken system?

By holding law enforcement accountable for following up on concerns, providing them ways to act on concerns (GVRO's,) and better inter agency reporting of disqualifiers for ownership making NICS effective. This would make the current system more effective.

Personally, I would add background checks for all transactions and transfers (UBC,) raising the age to purchase to 21, requiring training and education before ownership, etc, but I already went over what I would add in pages 4,5,6

 

[s3779m]

I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that, I'm talking about current teachers.



That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. We're talking about preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants. That's pretty much a worst case scenario, and I'm sure if one was to ask a SWAT officer they would agree.

My point is that even if those who elected to use the new option of carrying to school decided to go through rigorous, repeated training, I don't think they would be prepared, even if they had the mental discipline to ensure that they stayed practiced.

Personally, were I a teacher I would carry to work to defend myself if need be and those around me. But I would not expect myself or any other non professional to be effective in actually seeking and engaging the killer. Carrying in a school might save the one carrying, but it doesn't make the overall situation any better. And, to repeat something I said earlier:

"Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation."



We're both right. Here's a fun tool.

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/



That's not something one can count on though. Plans and policy are not made to account for best case scenarios.



By holding law enforcement accountable for following up on concerns, providing them ways to act on concerns (GVRO's,) and better inter agency reporting of disqualifiers for ownership making NICS effective. This would make the current system more effective.

Personally, I would add background checks for all transactions and transfers (UBC,) raising the age to purchase to 21, requiring training and education before ownership, etc, but I already went over what I would add in pages 4,5,6

Wish you could send this to those in charge, right about now they need to be hit with common sense.

 

[NateKirk]

Wish you could send this to those in charge, right about now they need to be hit with common sense.

Well thanks, hope that isn't sarcasm; I don't seem to have a popular opinion around here the last few days

 

[s3779m]

Well thanks, hope that isn't sarcasm; I don't seem to have a popular opinion around here the last few days

Not sarcasm at all, the left can not be in charge of this discussion, we will only get bans and more senseless killings. The right thing to do will not be popular in the lsm but it will be a step in the right direction.

 

[zukiphile]

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

A murderer isn't a combatant. He isn't someone who has brought force to bear on an opposing force.

The idea that in order to stop a teenager who is occupied pumping rounds into other children one would need frequent, very good and extensive training is both implausible and implies a special pleading. Many POs don't get extensive, very good, or extensive training, and we still expect them to function effectively in a substantially more adversarial environment.

A firearm is not an extremely complex device; the sense that one can't employ it effectively without special training is disproven regularly by ordinary people with little training.

It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.

Can you think of a better reason to discount an opinion than the opinion itself?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.

Well, I can’t speak for everyove but I’m discounting your opinion because I find it poorly reasoned and not based in fact. I am not even sure what you mean by “discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion” as the phrase strikes me as so circuitous as to be meaningless.

To the extent you are obejcting that your ideas are being rejected out of hand, without due consideration. Some of us here have been involved in this debate longer than you’ve been alive. So, while I am sure the ideas seem fresh and new to you, they aren’t new, unknown or unconsidered by me.

However, to the extent you think firearms registration is a good idea - the two biggest roadblocks to it are a Supreme Court that doesn’t take the Second Amendment seriously and gun owner privacy concerns. The people preaching expanded background checks know this, yet they don’t do anything to address those concerns. Why do you think that is?

You are being propagandized pure and simple. We all feel angry and powerless when we see a needless waste of life. Especially when it feels like there is so little we can do as individuals to change it. Because the entire purpose of government in a democratic schema is to do the things we can’t do as individuals, we often look to it and demand it “do something.”

The rationale from the politicians’ side is “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done.” The “something” being offered to you by the news media is more expansion of a system already way too dangerous to liberty. For that matter, the NRA’s “arm teachers” is more an appropriation of the same tactic (a pro-gun something to choose) rather than a well-considered solution.

Instead of “Well, this is a horrible idea that isn’t working already; but it kind of addresses the same general need and it is something”, we need actual effective solutions - because gun owners least of all want to see these incidents. We’re just as disgusted as anyone else at the tragedy AND we know we’ll be emotiinally bullied and blamed for things we didn’t do on top of it all.

Surrendering our rights for a solution that is already failing at a lower level and hoping that this magically fixes our problem or at least stops the bullying shows both a poor understanding of logic and bullies.

 

[NateKirk]

However, to the extent you think firearms registration is a good idea - the two biggest roadblocks to it are a Supreme Court that doesn’t take the Second Amendment seriously and gun owner privacy concerns. The people preaching expanded background checks know this, yet they don’t do anything to address those concerns. Why do you think that is?

I never said registration was a good idea. Please quote me where I ever said anything about registration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Kirk
That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

A murderer isn't a combatant. He isn't someone who has brought force to bear on an opposing force.

What does this have to do with anything I said? The label of the killer doesn't matter.

The idea that in order to stop a teenager who is occupied pumping rounds into other children one would need frequent, very good and extensive training is both implausible and implies a special pleading. Many POs don't get extensive, very good, or extensive training, and we still expect them to function effectively in a substantially more adversarial environment.

A firearm is not an extremely complex device; the sense that one can't employ it effectively without special training is disproven regularly by ordinary people with little training.

This is just ridiculous. How many times have we heard it from CPL instructors, the NRA, people on this forum, that to effectively use a firearm for a defensive purpose requires quality training, and copious amounts practice. The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard. And besides that it isn't correct. Any shooting instructor, gun shop worker, or CPL instructor can personally attest to the mass ignorance of the public concerning knowledge and use of firearms, and would endorse education and training as the only way to make ones competent enough to defend themselves.

 

[xandi]

It’s point and shoot when the ranges are close.
Any one can do that

 

[NateKirk]

It’s point and shoot when the ranges are close.
Any one can do that

*face palm*

This. This is why I think people should be required to undergo better training.

 

[doofus47]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html

Waiting outside while teachers ran toward the sound of gunfire and died.

Regardless of crappy pay, it seems teachers care more.

 

[zukiphile]

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

A murderer isn't a combatant. He isn't someone who has brought force to bear on an opposing force.

What does this have to do with anything I said? The label of the killer doesn't matter.

It has to do with your description of the problem. You can't solve a problem you can't correctly describe. Where you imagine the training that would be useful in facing a combatant, you have ignored the proficiency that can suffice in facing a murderer.

It isn't a mere difference in label. "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."

The idea that in order to stop a teenager who is occupied pumping rounds into other children one would need frequent, very good and extensive training is both implausible and implies a special pleading. Many POs don't get extensive, very good, or extensive training, and we still expect them to function effectively in a substantially more adversarial environment.

A firearm is not an extremely complex device; the sense that one can't employ it effectively without special training is disproven regularly by ordinary people with little training.

This is just ridiculous. How many times have we heard it from CPL instructors, the NRA, people on this forum, that to effectively use a firearm for a defensive purpose requires quality training, and copious amounts practice.

I've never heard any of them say it, perhaps because it isn't true. It is too easy to demonstrate that copious practice and quality training aren't necessary to effectively use a firearm with a single example of someone with neither who effectively employs a firearm. What was the quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

That isn't a knock on training and practice, both of which are an asset.

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves with it is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

Here you've employed the fallacy of the false choice. There is enormous middle ground between extensive and high quality training and handing someone a firearm without any instruction.

Any shooting instructor, gun shop worker, or CPL instructor can personally attest to the mass ignorance of the public concerning knowledge and use of firearms, and would endorse education and training as the only way to make ones competent enough to defend themselves.

That is incorrect. Since there is no minimum thresh hold of training require for one to defend himself, training can't be the only way to be competent enough to engage in it. Your appeal to authority may rest on a misunderstanding of instruction, or an instructor's exaggeration in the service of emphasis.


Your reaction above illustrates Bartholomew Roberts' observation.