School shooting Florida

[Nessie]

But that is what passing any law does.

When I was in the police I seized guns made illegal to possess after the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings.

We seized from law abiding, decent people who had been thoroughly checked before they had become firearms holders. We knew who had what gun. None were happy at what was happening and some were very unhappy. But they all accepted they had to hand over the guns and did so without any incident.

If the USA wants to have no guns of a certain type in civilian hands, the police have no idea who has the guns and they will have to go and seize from very unhappy people, who have not necessarily been through any background checks.

Good luck with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

When I was in the police I seized guns made illegal to possess after the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings.

We seized from law abiding, decent people who had been thoroughly checked before they had become firearms holders. We knew who had what gun. None were happy at what was happening and some were very unhappy. But they all accepted they had to hand over the guns and did so without any incident.

If the USA wants to have no guns of a certain type in civilian hands, the police have no idea who has the guns and they will have to go and seize from very unhappy people, who have not necessarily been through any background checks.

Good luck with that.

We have always been fine turning large numbers of people into criminals with new laws is perfectly american though. True it is supposed to be people of color not proper white folk though.

 

[smartcooky]

10 round magazines would have changed nothing in any of the mass shootings.

A matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds from almost any firearm, except a muzzle loader.

You can fire 100 rounds, accurately, in 60 seconds, with a bolt action rifle* using only 10 round magazines? Really?

* for clarity, that is a rifle which has to have the action worked manually to eject the spent cartridge and a new round loaded after each shot.

The fact you are ignoring is that a shooter attempting a school shooting with such a rifle would hit far less victims than one equipped with a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round magazines. The shooter has to stop to change magazines three times more often, and his rifle cannot shoot at the high rate of fire (300+ round per minute) that most automatic weapons can. That gives potential victims more time to get away.

 

[deadrose]

I think there is something in this, I've mentioned that I'm currently involved in a situation where a member of my extended family with severe mental health issues threatened to kill someone, they have no access to firearms so they threatenec to stab this person. I think it's telling that they then went on line and started looking at combat/survival knives rather than going downstairs and grabbing something sharp from the kitchen. A kitchen knife wouldn't match the fantasy that they've built up.

Perhaps we should just dictate that all new weapons come in colors straight from the girlie toys aisle, or fetching pastels. It would be hard to cultivate that ultimate warrior stereotype if you were bristling with My Little Pony cartoon colors.

Of course there's a danger that cops would start shooting little girls "I saw a flash of pink and feared for my life!".

 

[Nessie]

If the AR15 is made illegal for a civilian to possess, what would it take to remove the guns?

You would really need to stop manufacturing them. Or, maybe transfer making them to somewhere abroad. However it is done, there would need to be very good security to stop smuggling guns back into civilian hands.

You have no idea who has an AR15. So, do you then have an amnesty and hope people hand them in? Do you just make them illegal and pick off the guns as police come across them? Do you visit people and ask if they have one and could they hand it over?

If someone has an AR15 but refuses to hand it over, do you send in an armed response team to get it?

 

[MikeG]

When I was in the police I seized guns made illegal to possess after the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings.

We seized from law abiding, decent people who had been thoroughly checked before they had become firearms holders. We knew who had what gun. None were happy at what was happening and some were very unhappy. But they all accepted they had to hand over the guns and did so without any incident.

If the USA wants to have no guns of a certain type in civilian hands, the police have no idea who has the guns and they will have to go and seize from very unhappy people, who have not necessarily been through any background checks.

Good luck with that.

You're wonderful at poo-poohing every suggestion made in this thread. Not so hot at trying to see a way through the problem. With your expertise in this area, and experience of going through a tightening of our gun laws, do you have anything positive to add to the thread? Any suggestions as to how to make the US a safer place, or at least, US schools to be safer for schoolkids? It's the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick every suggestion, but it doesn't exactly move things along.

 

[William Parcher]

If someone has an AR15 but refuses to hand it over, do you send in an armed response team to get it?

If they are serious about hiding it then you will never find it. It's probably not in their house or maybe not even on the property. To get it you will have to torture or threaten them. Waterboarding or take children hostage.

 

[lobosrul5]

You can fire 100 rounds, accurately, in 60 seconds, with a bolt action rifle* using only 10 round magazines? Really?

* for clarity, that is a rifle which has to have the action worked manually to eject the spent cartridge and a new round loaded after each shot.

The fact you are ignoring is that a shooter attempting a school shooting with such a rifle would hit far less victims than one equipped with a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round magazines. The shooter has to stop to change magazines three times more often, and his rifle cannot shoot at the high rate of fire (300+ round per minute) that most automatic weapons can. That gives potential victims more time to get away.

If bolt action rifles were just as effective as (semi)auto rifles then modern military would still be using them. I mean its just a silly argument really. Why do gun owners want semi-autos and large cap magazines? Because they're better.

LCT is trying his damnedest to convince people that rate of fire would make no difference in the amount of casualties in mass shooting. But each time the shooter has to reload thats a chance for someone to rush the shooter or get away. A well trained soldier can reload in about 4 or 5 seconds in actual combat situations*, the average joe between realizing the gun is empty, fumbling for a new mag, probably twice that.

*I'm well aware that 3 gun shooters with speed holsters can do much better.

 

[crescent]

You can fire 100 rounds, accurately, in 60 seconds, with a bolt action rifle* using only 10 round magazines?

The super skilled perfect marksman is the Superman of gun regulation opposition. So long as you can find one person who can perform extremely well without this thing or that thing, we know that any regulation of this thing or that thing is useless.

The regulations must always be utterly perfect, or they are useless.

 

[William Parcher]

But each time the shooter has to reload thats a chance for someone to rush the shooter or get away.

I've always wondered when one of these sicko spree shooters is going to mount a bayonet.

 

[LTC8K6]

Gun enthusiasts who feel this way should maybe consider coming to the table and offering their own common sense solutions instead of being obstinate and obstructionist.

Because eventually you might have that option taken away from you by the growing number of people who have increasingly less sympathy for the sentiment expressed above.

I have said it before in other discussions here.

I believe I will lose my right to own firearms and target shoot, and I believe there is nothing I can do about it.

I believe discussing the subject with people who want to ban guns is a lost cause.

I'm not an NRA member and my guns have never killed anything but paper and tin cans, and I do not have any guns for self defense.

It's an inevitable thing that I just accept as only a matter of time.

I rarely discuss gun control with anyone anymore, except a few times on a couple of message boards.

 

[Nessie]

You're wonderful at poo-poohing every suggestion made in this thread. Not so hot at trying to see a way through the problem. With your expertise in this area, and experience of going through a tightening of our gun laws, do you have anything positive to add to the thread? Any suggestions as to how to make the US a safer place, or at least, US schools to be safer for schoolkids? It's the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick every suggestion, but it doesn't exactly move things along.

I am not nit picking every suggestion. I am pragmatically pointing out how and why changes to laws, seizing guns etc will not work. The best analogy I can think of is the USA has had its arm amputated. It cannot grown one back. Instead it has to learnt to adapt to having a disability. So I have suggested a realistic solution;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327267

Sandy Hook was the tipping point. Since that did not unite the USA into action, NOTHING will. Learn to cope.

 

[Nessie]

If they are serious about hiding it then you will never find it. It's probably not in their house or maybe not even on the property. To get it you will have to torture or threaten them. Waterboarding or take children hostage.

Indeed, the cure will be worse than the disease. It will result in more deaths.

 

[LTC8K6]

You can fire 100 rounds, accurately, in 60 seconds, with a bolt action rifle* using only 10 round magazines? Really?

* for clarity, that is a rifle which has to have the action worked manually to eject the spent cartridge and a new round loaded after each shot.

The fact you are ignoring is that a shooter attempting a school shooting with such a rifle would hit far less victims than one equipped with a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round magazines. The shooter has to stop to change magazines three times more often, and his rifle cannot shoot at the high rate of fire (300+ round per minute) that most automatic weapons can. That gives potential victims more time to get away.

A few minutes is not 60 seconds.

You can find numerous videos of the "mad minute" contests on youtube.
The Norwegians seem to be the best.
Generally 5 round magazines are used.
They generally fire several magazines worth, and a good score on a 200 meter target is 30 hits.
The record is 36 hits in one minute. Don't know how many rounds missed the 200 meter target.

 

[MikeG]

I am not nit picking every suggestion. I am pragmatically pointing out how and why changes to laws, seizing guns etc will not work......

Nitpicking every suggestion, in other words. It's tedious.

 

[MikeG]

A few minutes is not 60 seconds.

You can find numerous videos of the "mad minute" contests on youtube.
The Norwegians seem to be the best.
Generally 5 round magazines are used.
They generally fire several magazines worth, and a good score on a 200 meter target is 30 hits.The record is 36 hits in one minute. Don't know how many rounds missed the 200 meter target.

Not sure how this applies to classrooms and school corridors.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not sure how this applies to classrooms and school corridors.

Presumably there would be far fewer misses...

If I can fire 60 rounds a minute with a bolt action rifle, and hit a 200 meter target with half of them, how many school kids can I hit in 3 minutes?

And this utterly stupid discussion is what I always seem to end up in when I discuss gun control...

That's probably my own stupid fault, though.

 

[crescent]

I have said it before in other discussions here.

I believe I will lose my right to own firearms and target shoot, and I believe there is nothing I can do about it.

I don't think you need to worry about that at all. Nobody with any clout has made any move towards anything like that. I don't know what the newest generation of activists will propose, but nothing any of the mainstream gun-control organizations have proposed would end your right to own firearms or go target shooting.

 

[Bob001]

I have said it before in other discussions here.

I believe I will lose my right to own firearms and target shoot, and I believe there is nothing I can do about it.
.....

On what basis do you make that claim? Even in the UK and Australia, people can still own firearms for hunting and target shooting. Canada's firearms laws are not much different from those of the more restrictive U.S. states, and nobody has any trouble hunting and target shooting in Massachusetts, Connecticut or California. What's wildly irrational is to buy into the NRA's claim that any restrictions are a half-step from a ban.

 

[Nessie]

Nitpicking every suggestion, in other words. It's tedious.

I am pointing out very good reasons why changes in the law and banning certain types of gun will not work and are not possible.