Today's mass shooting in the US

[Roar87]

Way to go America.

Lets combat gun violence in schools by throwing more guns into the mix.

What happens if a teacher flips out and shoots a kid?

You could fly to America, buy a gun illegally and start shooting people tomorrow, what happens if you flip out and do that? What happens if someone in the UK Armed Police flips out and starts shooting members of the public? What happens if someone in charge of an AH-64 Apache Longbow flips out and starts firing Hellfire missiles into the center of London?

I don't think school shooters are put off by the idea of possibly getting shot. I think arming teachers will make them the first target and also create a holy grail opportunity for kids to steal something worth money, is dangerous and is cool.

They are put off because it makes it harder for them to achieve their goal which is to kill as many people as possible, that's the deterrent, being stopped, not being shot. They've probably accepted they're going to be shot by Police anyway.

 

[Werewolf]

You could fly to America, buy a gun illegally and start shooting people tomorrow, what happens if you flip out and do that? What happens if someone in the UK Armed Police flips out and starts shooting members of the public? What happens if someone in charge of an AH-64 Apache Longbow flips out and starts firing Hellfire missiles into the center of London?

I think the thing is, UK armed police are rare and very highly trained and monitored (IIRC they have extremely strict evaluations before they're even accepted for armed training, and any indication of issues results in them being disarmed/checked), let alone the stupidity of comparing an apache pilot to the availability of guns in the US.

Teaching (especially in the US) has a very high level of stress and IIRC one of the higher suicide/mental health problems, there are already problems in the US with teachers and violence towards children and the like, adding the stress of them being expected to if need be shoot a kid they know and I can see things really going well...
This is completely ignoring the fact that most of the teachers don't seem to want to have to go to school armed, or be expected to act as poorly paid, poorly trained armed security in addition to their normal job (and any that do should probably be looked at very very closely), and that many teachers are smaller/physically weaker than a lot of their students which means if they are to carry the gun it's at risk of being taken off them, and that's before the risks of things like accidental discharges or the teacher leaving the gun somewhere (as happens with US police, or teachers leving things like their keys/phones on the side and forgetting about them)

 

[adolf hamster]

You could fly to America, buy a gun illegally and start shooting people tomorrow, what happens if you flip out and do that? What happens if someone in the UK Armed Police flips out and starts shooting members of the public? What happens if someone in charge of an AH-64 Apache Longbow flips out and starts firing Hellfire missiles into the center of London?

difficulty, going to america is too much effort, and armed police/military personell are trained and monitored.

sure it's not that much more difficulty, but it's enough to stop it being a regular occurrence, which is exactly what effective gun controls mean.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I'm sure I've read before that every time UK police shoot someone they have an independent inquiry into whether there was another option. In the US it seems like shooting someone is the first response to everything.

 

[adolf hamster]

I'm sure I've read before that every time UK police shoot someone they have an independent inquiry into whether there was another option. In the US it seems like shooting someone is the first response to everything.

it's called accountability, and it's why our armed police aren't trigger happy lunatics.

 

[Angilion]

I'm sure I've read before that every time UK police shoot someone they have an independent inquiry into whether there was another option. In the US it seems like shooting someone is the first response to everything.

I'm fairly sure that most police officers in the USA never fire their weapon outside of training. I've read that and I think it's true. The USA also has the same kind of inquiries - look up "officer involved shooting" if you want more details.

The image of a country, especially the image of it seen in other countries, isn't necessarily accurate. For example, many people in the USA have been given a completely false image of UK law regarding reasonable force, sometimes to the ludicrous extreme of believing that self defence is completely illegal in the UK and criminals can do as they please to such an extent that people in the UK aren't even allowed to intervene in any way while someone burgles their home.

A crucial difference in the USA is that far more civilians have guns. That completely changes the situation. Here, the police can go into a situation assuming nobody has a gun unless there's a reason to think someone does. In the USA, police have to always assume that every time they enter any situation people have guns unless there's a reason to think no-one does.

A random example I chanced across when I was checking that I'd got the wording right for "officer involved shooting" - a copper was at home when someone a couple of houses away called for help, went to investigate and was shot dead as soon as he got there:

https://wtop.com/prince-georges-cou...d-prince-georges-county-police-investigation/

 

[enkoda]

I don't think school shooters are put off by the idea of possibly getting shot. I think arming teachers will make them the first target and also create a holy grail opportunity for kids to steal something worth money, is dangerous and is cool.

They are put off because it makes it harder for them to achieve their goal which is to kill as many people as possible, that's the deterrent, being stopped, not being shot. They've probably accepted they're going to be shot by Police anyway.

I seriously doubt they'll be put off - as others have said, teachers will now become the primary target.

Even if they are put off by armed teachers, it will just shift the attacks to shopping malls, fast food restaurants, or anywhere else their peers hang out.

 

[chroniclard]

I seriously doubt they'll be put off - as others have said, teachers will now become the primary target.

Even if they are put off by armed teachers, it will just shift the attacks to shopping malls, fast food restaurants, or anywhere else their peers hang out.

Simple solution, arm KFC staff and Paul Blart.

 

[shorttricky]

Law abiding citizens have stopped numberless shooters before, they have protected home owners against home inversions as well in other protected lives of the gun owner and others, the latest recent one is the guy who chased the gunman who shot up the church back in November.

It's debatable exactly how many times a citizen with a gun has actually prevented a crime - not helped by the fact the CDC aren't allowed to investigate these sort of things. It certainly can happen, as in the case you mention; there's plenty of other cases where the civilian is actually an off-duty or previous law enforcement officer/military. There's also others where the shooting was already over, and some where the civilian ended up as a victim (Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington, Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas), or endangered innocents

It's also been said that in the case of home invasions, a baseball bat or a dog would be just as effective.

You could fly to America, buy a gun illegally and start shooting people tomorrow, what happens if you flip out and do that?

You could fly to Britain or Australia, not be able to buy a gun and not shoot anybody.

What happens if someone in the UK Armed Police flips out and starts shooting members of the public? What happens if someone in charge of an AH-64 Apache Longbow flips out and starts firing Hellfire missiles into the center of London?

Years of training, medical assessments, psychological testing, strict controls over the storage and use all seem to be working.

They are put off because it makes it harder for them to achieve their goal which is to kill as many people as possible, that's the deterrent, being stopped, not being shot. They've probably accepted they're going to be shot by Police anyway.

“If more guns made America safer, we’d be an awfully safe place,” - University of California Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler

Would it shock you to see that more guns meant more gun deaths?

 

[Angilion]

I seriously doubt they'll be put off - as others have said, teachers will now become the primary target.

Even if they are put off by armed teachers, it will just shift the attacks to shopping malls, fast food restaurants, or anywhere else their peers hang out.

So why aren't those places attacked now? I think that at least to some extent these attackers want to kill people specifically in a particular school, i.e. that the location matters to them. So I think it will put some of them off to some extent.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The teacher’s first aim is get the children out away from danger, I very much doubt they will team up and do a search and destroy against the shooter. They are teachers, not Special Forces.


Even if a teacher come across a gunman in the corridor, can you imagine the chaos, with kids running around screaming, about 50 people between the teacher and the gunman. The shooter can shoot all 50 of them, the tracher just stands there still trying not to shoot any kids, or do you risk shooting one of the kid when you fire back?


Next thing you know it would be arming children with guns, logic dictates that it would be suicidal to attack a school with an army right? If everyone has access to guns then that would solve gun crime doesn’t it? That clearly has worked so far, the US has the lowest crime rate in the world doesn’t it because every one can get gun. That is the best logic clearly.

 

[IronWarrior]

It's also been said that in the case of home invasions, a baseball bat or a dog would be just as effective.

Baseball bat ain't doing crap against someone with a gun nor a dog.

 

[Rroff]

There was a bunch of studies done in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting - I think they used that actual scenario - I'll try and find them later. In almost no cases did an armed civilian with no or a little training manage to stop the shooters and often caused collateral damage. Only the "cream of the crop" of special forces trained persons managed to anything like reliably stop it - most of those with a "normal" military background were little better than the civilians. And that was a study not an actual situation with the additional stress and unexpectedness to contend with.

In my experience almost everyone will freeze up the first time they encounter something like that for real - being able to both react quickly and effectively while procedurally running through the scenario in your mind and making good decisions doesn't come from any amount of training alone.

EDIT: Only thing I can find quickly is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-time-armed-victim-able-prevent-massacre.html there is an actual proper study somewhere.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Baseball bat ain't doing crap against someone with a gun nor a dog.

I agree, I propose putting a few assault rifle right next to the axe and fire extinguisher in school corridors. Fully loaded, ready to fire. Safety on though, that’s important.

 

[enkoda]

So why aren't those places attacked now? I think that at least to some extent these attackers want to kill people specifically in a particular school, i.e. that the location matters to them. So I think it will put some of them off to some extent.

Because they're still an easy target. Lots of kids in close proximity, fire off a magazine's worth of ammo and they've achieved carnage.
Why risk going to a school where potentially 20% of teachers could be armed when the same result can be achieved at a sports event or a mall where the targets are just as likely to congregate?

 

[topshot]

I wonder if the NRA will pull their support/campaigning for silencers as well...something they're pushing "to save hunters hearing" despite no sane person, including law enforcement waning.

They are sound moderators not silencers and sound moderators are legal in the UK for that very reason so its a valid argument. I wouldn't want to be out hunting without one.

 

[TallPaul1878]

There was a bunch of studies done in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting - I think they used that actual scenario - I'll try and find them later. In almost no cases did an armed civilian with no or a little training manage to stop the shooters and often caused collateral damage. Only the "cream of the crop" of special forces trained persons managed to anything like reliably stop it - most of those with a "normal" military background were little better than the civilians. And that was a study not an actual situation with the additional stress and unexpectedness to contend with.

In my experience almost everyone will freeze up the first time they encounter something like that for real - being able to both react quickly and effectively while procedurally running through the scenario in your mind and making good decisions doesn't come from any amount of training alone.

EDIT: Only thing I can find quickly is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-time-armed-victim-able-prevent-massacre.html there is an actual proper study somewhere.

I'm pretty sure you're right and it was the Charlie Hebdo attack. Iirc it was because the news had broken in America causing the usual "wouldn't happen here cuz muh guns" and so a scenario was set up with varying amounts of armed civilians. In almost all instances the armed civilians got killed.

It's on youtube to watch. In all situations a variety of "players" acted the role of armed citizen they got killed. The only time they survived was when they ran away at the first sound of gunfire.

Honestly I don't think America will ever be able to stop school shootings. Arming the teachers means they will be hunted and killed first. Banning bump stocks is a joke. Even if they ban all rifles then a shooter will choose to use hand guns. They'll just fill a bag full of pistols if needs be.

The Columbine massacre was interesting because the original plan was to set off propane tanks to blow the school up. They had dozens of home made pipe bombs and only resorted to guns because the bombs failed to go off.

My opinion is that America has this issue because of it's hyper capitalist society. The real problem is that America allows people to drop out of society, isn't it true that the Florida shooter was once told "you're a future school shooter" by his peers? The West has a system that allows for winners and losers and America is at the sharp end of that. Kids with problems are just dosed up on Ritalin or whatever psychotropic drug is in fashion. Eventually they flip out and shoot a school up.

 

[Jono8]

Just some of the multitude of problems with teachers having guns -

- It likely means the teacher will be targeted and shot first
- Someone who is going to a school to shoot multiple children with an assault rifle is not worried about the probability of them being shot themselves or the ramifications of their actions
- Unless the teacher is on alert and on a watchtower observing incoming threats, the likelihood that they will be able to react in time and shoot the shooter before multiple people are killed is slim to none.
- The potential for the teacher's gun, if carried on their person, being used by an irrate student or teacher pushed over the edge is something not to be ignored
- If only one or two teachers are armed anyway, the likelihood of that particular teacher being exactly where the shooter starts shooting is slim.
- MORE GUNS IS NOT THE SOLUTION

 

[Rroff]

Banning bump stocks is a joke. Even if they ban all rifles then a shooter will choose to use hand guns. They'll just fill a bag full of pistols if needs be.

I disagree with that - the largest number of fatalities are usually in the opening 30 seconds or so of these scenarios and/or in situations like Vegas where a bump stock allows a significant sustained volume of fire massively increasing casualty numbers.

(In the Florida shooting with a semi-automatic AR-15 he shot 15 rounds in slightly over 10 seconds and assumedly 30 rounds in just under 30 seconds in the opening moments in comparison with a bump stock theoretically could have worked through anything upto 8 magazines of 30 rounds).

There are very few people who truly can fire with both the rapidity approach that and retaining a useful amount of accuracy while doing so using a semi automatic never mind bolt action weapon although there are some who have a talent for it.

Although you can usually "derate" a fully automatic weapon bump stocks also theoretically allow a significant volume of fire for longer with reduced potential for malfunction that comes from running a gun hot with full automatic speeds even bursted which tends to result in rapid heating/cooling cycles.

The second point is one of the reasons why I'm against a knee jerk full on banning of guns, etc. if people are this ****** in the head they will find a way eventually to do harm but proper regulation of firearms helps to minimise the potential for that.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I disagree with that - the largest number of fatalities are usually in the opening 30 seconds or so of these scenarios and/or in situations like Vegas where a bump stock allows a significant sustained volume of fire massively increasing casualty numbers.

There are very few people who truly can fire with both the rapidity approach that and retaining a useful amount of accuracy while doing so using a semi automatic never mind bolt action weapon although there are some who have a talent for it.

Although you can usually "derate" a fully automatic weapon bump stocks also theoretically allow a significant volume of fire for longer with reduced potential for malfunction that comes from running a gun hot with full automatic speeds even bursted which tends to result in rapid heating/cooling cycles.

The second point is one of the reasons why I'm against a knee jerk full on banning of guns, etc. if people are this ****** in the head they will find a way eventually to do harm but proper regulation of firearms helps to minimise the potential for that.

But won’t they just find a different method of obtaining an equally fast shooting rifle or gun now that bump stock is banned? Why not 3D print it?

If the argument is banning bump stock will work in reduce fatalities then then you basically accept banning assault rifles will also work.