Today's mass shooting in the US

[Rroff]

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.

Any semi-automatic weapon theoretically if you put your mind to it could be modified to mechanise shooting at a faster pace one of the reasons I said earlier its hard to justify anything other than bolt action weapons in most cases in civilian ownership - however once you go down that route where does it end? personally I've the skill set* and equipment to 3D print a fully automatic firearm with minimal parts that encounter a lot of stress and the primer/load that can't be 3D printing - should we ban 3D printers?

Bump stock regulation makes that much harder for someone to achieve than compared to now where they are available off the shelf.

* I'm not even talking downloading pre-designed ones to print - I'm fully capable of the design and modelling.

 

[Angilion]

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?

That doesn't answer the question you replied to - why those places are not being attacked now. Why do you think that the people who go on murder sprees at schools do so specifically at schools and not as "a sports event or a mall where the targets are just as likely to congregate"?

To put it another way, would a person who chooses to go on a murder spree at a specific school just do it somewhere else if it was made more difficult to do it at that school or is the location itself important to them? If the location isn't important to them, why aren't they already doing it in other locations where, as you point out, they could kill the same people?

 

[enkoda]

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

Don't forget the problems of correctly identifying the shooter, plus the legal ramifications if a student gets hit/killed by a teacher shooting at an attacker - if I were a teacher expected to assume the role of armed response I would demand full immunity from prosecution (civil or criminal) if I accidentally shot a bystander.

Any semi-automatic weapon theoretically if you put your mind to it could be modified to mechanise shooting at a faster pace one of the reasons I said earlier its hard to justify anything other than bolt action weapons in most cases in civilian ownership - however once you go down that route where does it end? personally I've the skill set* and equipment to 3D print a fully automatic firearm with minimal parts that encounter a lot of stress and the primer/load that can't be 3D printing - should we ban 3D printers?

Bump stock regulation makes that much harder for someone to achieve than compared to now where they are available off the shelf.

* I'm not even talking downloading pre-designed ones to print - I'm fully capable of the design and modelling.

3D printers aren't designed to kill, neither are lathes or CNC machines that could reproduce metal gun parts.
Bump stocks have just one purpose - convert a weapon to fully automatic fire, and there is only one purpose of fully automatic fire - to hit as many targets as possible in the smallest amount of time.

That doesn't answer the question you replied to - why those places are not being attacked now. Why do you think that the people who go on murder sprees at schools do so specifically at schools and not as "a sports event or a mall where the targets are just as likely to congregate"?

To put it another way, would a person who chooses to go on a murder spree at a specific school just do it somewhere else if it was made more difficult to do it at that school or is the location itself important to them? If the location isn't important to them, why aren't they already doing it in other locations where, as you point out, they could kill the same people?

Because the likelihood of encountering armed response at a school is still minimal. There's not much point in killing a handful of students in Taco Bell when there's hundreds of them on campus.
Once it becomes apparent that a school is no longer a soft target then it follows that finding a different location where the intended victims are frequenting is necessary.
TBH I'm not an AR-15 wielding, depressed, American high school loner with behavioural problems planning to execute those who mocked or bullied me through the education system, so I'm not really qualified to offer an answer as to 'why'.

 

[Rroff]

Because the likelihood of encountering armed response at a school is still minimal. There's not much point in killing a handful of students in Taco Bell when there's hundreds of them on campus.
Once it becomes apparent that a school is no longer a soft target then it follows that finding a different location where the intended victims are frequenting is necessary.
TBH I'm not an AR-15 wielding, depressed, American high school loner with behavioural problems planning to execute those who mocked or bullied me through the education system, so I'm not really qualified to offer an answer as to 'why'.

More often than not these school shootings are semi or completely targetted and its the one place the shooter can pretty much guarantee finding all the intended targets together. In the US they can pretty much expect to encounter an armed response at some point so I'm not sure it will deter them as long as they think there is a high chance they can hit their intended targets before it comes to that.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Any semi-automatic weapon theoretically if you put your mind to it could be modified to mechanise shooting at a faster pace one of the reasons I said earlier its hard to justify anything other than bolt action weapons in most cases in civilian ownership - however once you go down that route where does it end? personally I've the skill set* and equipment to 3D print a fully automatic firearm with minimal parts that encounter a lot of stress and the primer/load that can't be 3D printing - should we ban 3D printers?

Bump stock regulation makes that much harder for someone to achieve than compared to now where they are available off the shelf.

* I'm not even talking downloading pre-designed ones to print - I'm fully capable of the design and modelling.

By accepting the banning of "name your gun or gun part" here will reduce gun fatalities, you have lost the ground in arguing that you need guns to fight guns and accept that the only way to reduce these killings is to reduce access to these weapons.

 

[Rroff]

By accepting the banning of "name your gun or gun part" here will reduce gun fatalities, you have lost the ground in arguing that you need guns to fight guns and accept that the only way to reduce these killings is to reduce access to these weapons.

Is that directed at me? I've not claimed you need guns to fight guns (in the civilian context).

 

[Raymond Lin]

Is that directed at me? I've not claimed you need guns to fight guns (in the civilian context).

At anyone, including Trump himself.

 

[Rroff]

I'm not a fan of prohibition like attempt to restrict anything and if people are determined the will always find a way - it does however make sense to prevent easy and/or unrestricted access to these parts.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I'm not a fan of prohibition like attempt to restrict anything and if people are determined the will always find a way - it does however make sense to prevent easy and/or unrestricted access to these parts.

It make sense that remove guns you get less gun crimes too. I mean the entire world is a statistical proof showing that less guns = less gun crimes.

It's a bit strange to apply the logic to 1 part and then stops there……very strange. If your desire goal is actually stopping the slaughter of young children, unless the whole point is just a token gesture and you don't care about lives after all.

I'd say, if you are going to do it, all in, ban assault weapons altogether. Do it properly, cross the bridge whether "people will find a way" when it actually happens again. It's not like not doing anything is going to change anything is it?

We've tried that already.

 

[Rroff]

It make sense that remove guns you get less gun crimes too. I mean the entire world is a statistical proof showing that less guns = less gun crimes.

It's a bit strange to apply the logic to 1 part and then stops there……very strange. If your desire goal is actually stopping the slaughter of young children, unless the whole point is just a token gesture and you don't care about lives after all.

I'd say, if you are going to do it, all in, ban assault weapons altogether. Do it properly, cross the bridge whether "people will find a way" when it actually happens again. It's not like not doing anything is going to change anything is it?

We've tried that already.

Simplistically less guns reduces the chances but if you look around the world it doesn't necessarily take that - Norway for instance has a pretty high level of gun ownership per capita it is at #8 in the world - though still around 1/3rd of the level of the US but less than 1/10th the number of gun related incidents and in recent years has fallen to very low levels. Gun ownership in this country is probably higher than most think and that includes ownership of AR-15s albeit in straight pull rather than semi-automatic yet gun related incidents (with legally owned firearms) are close to non-existent.

While I think banning bump stocks is more a token gesture to the baying crowd it makes sense because unrestricted access more easily facilitates mass causalities than if they were regulated that doesn't mean getting rid of them entirely.

"Assault rifles" aren't themselves the problem you think they are - most AR-15s owned in the US aren't really assault rifles either as they generally lack selective fire, etc. and in actual performance are largely the same as other intermediate calibre hunting rifles, etc.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Simplistically less guns reduces the chances but if you look around the world it doesn't necessarily take that - Norway for instance has a pretty high level of gun ownership per capita it is at #8 in the world - though still around 1/3rd of the level of the US but less than 1/10th the number of gun related incidents and in recent years has fallen to very low levels. Gun ownership in this country is probably higher than most think and that includes ownership of AR-15s albeit in straight pull rather than semi-automatic yet gun related incidents (with legally owned firearms) are close to non-existent.

While I think banning bump stocks is more a token gesture to the baying crowd it makes sense because unrestricted access more easily facilitates mass causalities than if they were regulated that doesn't mean getting rid of them entirely.

"Assault rifles" aren't themselves the problem you think they are - most AR-15s owned in the US aren't really assault rifles either as they generally lack selective fire, etc. and in actual performance are largely the same as other intermediate calibre hunting rifles, etc.

Question, why not make grenades legal ?

I mean, if the actual weapon itself is not a problem, how come some guns are banned and some are not? Why not sell grenades in vending machines like cans of pop.

Why would bumpstock be a problem if assault rifles aren't a problem?

 

[Rroff]

Question, why not make grenades legal ?

I mean, if the actual weapon itself is not a problem, how come some guns are banned and some are not? Why not sell grenades in vending machines like cans of pop.

Why would bumpstock be a problem if assault rifles aren't a problem?

Explosives are regulated not outright banned (actual regulations depend on country) you'll find plenty of people on YouTube legally using explosives often far more powerful than a hand grenade.

Big difference between firearms and explosives though is that there is far more potential for collateral damage from improper handling or accidents, etc. than a gun.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Explosives are regulated not outright banned (actual regulations depend on country) you'll find plenty of people on YouTube legally using explosives often far more powerful than a hand grenade.

Grenades don't kill people, people kill people. They ought to be sold widely and easily access with little to no regulations.

Same as flame throwers, fully automatic assault weapons and RPGs.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

This whole deterrent thing is an utter nonsense just like capital punishment which has been utterly debunked and proved false by studies, statistics and reality.

Most school shooters are mentally deranged and suicidal and are on a one-way mission, they SEEK death and have decided to take out as many people as possible who they feel have ruined their lives !

 

[Felon]

This whole deterrent thing is an utter nonsense just like capital punishment which has been utterly debunked and proved false by studies, statistics and reality.

Most school shooters are mentally deranged and suicidal and are on a one-way mission, they SEEK death and have decided to take out as many people as possible who they feel have ruined their lives !

Quite,

Even in the highly unlikely event that deterrence has any kind of effect, someone calm and more calculated (like the Vegas shooter) would do their research as he did, and go somewhere else and do the exact same thing.

 

[Rroff]

Quite,

Even in the highly unlikely event that deterrence has any kind of effect, someone calm and more calculated (like the Vegas shooter) would do their research as he did, and go somewhere else
and do the exact same thing.

Someone more calculated would probably figure out how to do it with minimum chance of encountering an armed response before they'd carried out what they wanted - some of these deranged individuals can be high functioning.

 

[Felon]

Someone more calculated would probably figure out how to do it with minimum chance of encountering an armed response before they'd carried out what they wanted - some of these deranged individuals can be high functioning.

Yeah, the proposal Trump has is that 20% of teachers would have concealed carry, with that in mind - a high functioning maniac who has done his research, in the final analysis would probably still be able to wreak the same amount of carnage whether the teachers were armed or not.

Armed with an AR15 a maniac could empty an entire clip into a crowd of children and be in the process of reloading before anyone nearby would even know what's going on, let alone be in a position to actually counter the shooter.

Whilst it's fair to suggest that if multiple teachers on campus are armed - they may bring the thing to an end quicker if one of them gets lucky (pistol vs AR15 anyone.....?) but if 10-20 people have already been killed, it wouldn't be a very effective way of solving the problem.

 

[Rroff]

pistol vs AR15 anyone.....?

Most people will only have access to semi-automatic AR-15s even in the US - in close quarters like the most likely scenarios in a school the difference is going to be a lot less than if they had some automated volume of fire. In the Florida shooting he was firing off ~15 rounds every 10 seconds of continuous shooting - with a bump stock that would have been more like 8 rounds per second or anything upto 15 a second with automatic fire.

 

[Werewolf]

The argument for armed teachers ignores the fact that in at least one big school shooting (did I really just say that?) there were armed officers on site already, it didn't stop or slow down the shooter significantly.

Short of basically building schools along the lines of prisons (complete with high brick walls), and only admitting people one at a time having passed through a secure entry and gun check there is no amount of "arming teachers" that will stop the initial surprise and confusion the attacker has on his side, as it will always take time for anyone who is carrying a gun responsibly to get the gun out, work out what is going on and aim.
In that time the attacker who probably doesn't care who he is shooing and an unopposed time, pretty much the same as it is now where the attackers are causing the most deaths/injuries in the time it takes for people to realise what is going on, and try to get into a room and lock the door (indeed the "armed teachers" heading towards the shooter could cause delays in the evacuation even before you think of possible injuries caused by them shooting and missing the attacker).

And even if you build the schools as forts/prisons you still have the issue of the gunman attacking the entrance where the children are dropped off, or the school buses, so you might as well put armed guards on armoured school busses (I hear the US army has an excess of APC's and I suspect the makers of them would love to have contracts to make a few hundred thousand more, with a snazzy yellow paint job).

 

[enkoda]

I'm guessing that Trump et al consider armed teachers as something that won't cost much to implement, and is seen as taking a pro-active step in reducing school shootings: it doesn't have any impact on the Second Amendment, nor does it require any significant legislative changes. For them it's a win-win situation - in their eyes something is being done, and anyone who opposes this decision will be criticised for not wanting to solve this issue.