IMO, we've tired limiting the citizens for decades with the failed opinion that it somehow makes society safter, time to consider going another road....

In 1910 the vile of society was alcohol, today it is the gun.....

 

Dirt bike, I agree completely that the shooter's suicide was probably helped along by the arrival of authorities. But, they did not kill him.

And, the fact that authorities were certainly going to arrive at some point did not in any way deter the onset of violence from any of these mass-murdering shooters.

I simply put it to you this way: would you rather react to a tragedy AFTER it has occurred or, would you prefer to prevent it in the first place?

This is my position. I want to see a process enacted that will identify and prevent these insane killings. Will more guns in the hands of citizens do this? I can't see how, it appears to me that gun ownership is up in recent years but that mass killings have also been on the rise. So, I conclude that my owning a weapon will not deter some nut from using one or more of his own for his own purposes.

I have NOT said ban guns! I've said identify and restrain murderers.

- Jack

 

It is NOT the gun!

- Jack

 

Jack--it's not just owning the firearm that makes a person safe. It is the carrying a loaded firearm and the willingness to use that firearm that makes society safer. The person doing the mass shooting knows they have anywhere from 5-15 minutes before the cops show up. That is a lot of time to shoot people. If they were fairly certain they would see almost immediate resistance many would think twice about attempting to shoot up a mall or school. I have little doubt that more often than not these people see themselves as losers and feel the only way anybody will notice them is by committing some heinous crime. If they are fairly certain that they will meet quick resistance and the hero will receive most of the media attention, the number of shootings will decrease.

 

THIS! I'm of the opinion the shooters names should not ever be used. The media should only refer to them as "Some selfish anti-social *****", instead of putting up their picture they should use a generic picture of Mr. Hankey, and instead of giving them a proper burial they should be stuffed into a septic tank to be treated like the what they really are, a worthless piece of ______.

This would take the "glory" out of the equation and no longer allow them to go out with a bang.

 

Exactly, so why even discuss any more 'gun' restrictions on law-abiding citizens...

 

That's a reasonable thought, and I suspect it is certainly true in many cases, so, you may be right. I know it almost certainly applies to a "sane" person. It really seems to be a lot like the "mutually assured destruction" concept I brought up a while back, except it doesn't mean BOTH sides are killed.

What concerns me though is the un-sane individual. Notice I didn't say "insane", because there seem to be so many levels of sanity. I wonder if that person really stops to think about the excellent points you brought up.

I freely admit I don't know, and I don't know if there's any way to test this hypothesis.

Here's another take on it though, that I've been thinking about over the past several days.

I've learned, in my 72 years, and certainly in combat, that it's hard to win a battle when you play by the opponent's rules (or play his game). To me, arming yourself in the event you MIGHT be attacked is playing the other guy's game, and he holds all the advantages. He knows who, when and where his targets will be. He operates from surprise in what seems a "peaceful" setting. He can take out whomever he sees as the most serious threat with his first shot.

The "good guy" on the other hand, is not aware, until shots are fired, that anything is amiss. He then has to locate the threat, while taking cover, and drawing his own weapon. He may have to protect someone he is with, such as a child. In the midst of all this, he has to control his own emotions so that he can act effectively. If the bad guy is using something like a Bushmaster, our good guy is almost certainly seriously outgunned. And, our good guy can't just shoot randomly, for effect, like the bad guy can. Our good guy has only ONE target and he must not hit others.

So it seems to me that the bad guy has all the advantages in this fight, and I don't like fights where the other guy has the advantage. Call me chicken, but you learn, as a fighter pilot, to make sure the advantages are in your favor, or you leave the arena.

This is another reason why I don't like the "arm all the good guys" argument. And it is why I am looking for another, game-changing solution.

- Jack

 

And that right there is the key point. IF someone was already there (a good guy with a gun), these shootings would stop completely or be drastically reduced.

Heck, armed guards are good enough for the president's daughters. Why aren't they good enough for everyone else's children?

 

Jack--Your scenario might play out that way IF there were only one or two people in a mall legally carrying a firearm. If there are say 10% of the people carrying then it is highly likely that there will be a person or two within a few feet who could easily get off a shot to stop the threat. Not too mention the number of truly insane people attempting to shoot up a mall or school really isn't that high, most do have mental issues, but not enough to be excused from their crimes. I still believe most of those going on shooting rampages are the people who can be described as a loner, into dark (some believe goth) subcultures, who doesn't have many friends. These people probably are depressed and are looking for a way to punch out. You are correct the truly insane will not be deterred by the thought of immediate response, but then again with an armed person or two within a few feet those people will not be able to have the high casualty rates we have seen. I also think you underestimate the commitment many "gun nuts" have to the cause of being proficient in the use of their firearm. More times than not tactics will win a fight.

 

Given the choice in a shooting situation I would almost prefere a Hunter/Sportsman over a LEO. All you LEO's out there don't take offence, but most LEO's I have seen shooting are not even close in terms of accuracy to Hunters. I know this isn't a one size fits all statement. It is just an observation of mine over the years. Heck look at what happened in New York a few months back.

 

1depd, I like your arguments and respect the points you are making. My concern with several armed civilians in a shooting situation is that it becomes very hard to tell the good guys from the bad. I worry that it could escalate into a "blue on blue" fight. With uniforms, there is some identification.

I also DO NOT excuse anyone for committing such an act of violence. I don't consider life in a mental hospital any kind of excuse at all. They are not nice places to be in, having visited a couple psychiatric wards when I was a commander.

But, your point about degrees of mental/social nonconformity is why I feel such people deserve a competent evaluation by a psychiatric team, not to "get them off", but to put them where they belong, and, to make society safer.

- Jack

 

Nightmare: Innocent Man Mistakenly Locked Up in Mental Hospital, Injected With Powerful Antipsychotic Drugs:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nigh...ychotic-drugs/

 

Sadly I have also seen psych wards, both as a child visiting my mother who was in a military psych ward for a bit and as a local police officer dropping patients off who needed to be monitored and treated. I know they are not nice places, but neither is a maximum security prison. From what I could see at least in a psych ward the patients are able to dictate their environment and treatment by the staff a bit more than they can in a prison. The civilian ones I have had to visit as an adult are much nicer than the military one I visited as a child.

You are correct about the "blue on blue" shootings, the only way I can see to avoid that is once the threat is neutralized, put your gun away and don't look like a threat anymore. Hang around and when the officers show up identify yourself as the person who stopped the threat. If you do look like a threat, the way many officers are being trained to respond to an active shooter you will be shot. We are not talking about most of the people carrying firearms, so this isn't going to be fifty people pulling and shooting. Although everyone has the ability, most won't take the responsibility and do it. In an average sized mall there will probably be 5-10 people with a firearm. In a school there might be one or two administrators who would carry.

 

Well, we may see how the presence of more guns pans out in the next few years. I don't see Congress willing to tighten gun restrictions, and I certainly don't see them willing to improve the way we identify and treat mentally ill or sociopathic people.

- Jack

 

And the stupidity starts.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

By her standards, my bolt action M1903 from WWII and M1917 from WWI rifles will be banned as they have bayonet lugs.