Today's mass shooting in the US

It doesnt really matter, the 2nd ammedment has been tested in the Supreme Court and legally covers private gun ownership.

thing is it's also been tested and proven not to apply to all types of firearms, so the ability to limit access to certain types of firearms (for example currently short barreled rifles, machine guns and "firearms over .50 caliber with no clear sporting purpose" are limited)

so it is perfectly possible, legally speaking, for the restriction of semi automatic firearms. you can't even argue that the second amendment requires access to current level miltitary technology as it was perfectly ok to limit the sales of brand new military machine guns.
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting he go on some Rambo/call of duty style one man raid on the building but if he did nothing, didn't even attempt to intervene/distract the shooter/save kids who were being killed en mass then he's not really fit to be a police officer.

It takes time to assess a situation like that and people freeze and i am sure lone gunman with an AR in a school is really high up on the training board.

Half the people calling for his head would stood in a pool of their own water if it was to happen to them, what would have made a difference if they banned guns from the last mass shooting... or the last mass shooting before or the one before that pinning the blame on some chap is not a solution or a fix.

I have zero sympathy.
 
It takes time to assess a situation like that and people freeze and i am sure lone gunman with an AR in a school is really high up on the training board.

It is the US...

Again no one is saying he jump through a window like some ninja and deliver a quick head shot etc...

The criticism is over the lack of response/him doing nothing. It's not as if it is just random commentary about this but even his own police dept are critical of him and generally, if you've followed news stories where the police are criticised in the US, it takes rather a lot for the police themselves to criticise their own.
 
You accept the risks if you take position like police officer. Not a job for cowards.

I wouldn't fancy going in myself though :p


I can categorically state, in the UK, that police training emphasises with the importance of not putting yourself in a position where you are very likely to be ineffective and likely to add to any casualty figure....

I doubt US training differs wildly from these precepts

Given the gun man ditched his rifle before blending in with the other fleeing students imagine the scenario if the cop had gone in and come across a student or staff member who had themselves come across the discarded firearm....

Real life isn't csgo.... The chances of sucessfully, solely disabling an opponent with an assault weapon when armed with a pistol are rather slim i would suggest....

You would have to rely on an element of surprise..... And some luck .... If they are at all aware you are coming armed with a pistol and they have an ar15 style rifle you are almost certainly dead with the shooter likely able to continue unabated.

Edit..

It would appear the relevant training was to go in in an 'active shooter' scenario!

But as the link indicates the cops are fully aware of the issues dealing with rifle carrying suspects when the police are armed with handguns.

I still maintain the likely ourcome of the cop going in would have been an extra ineffectual casualty.
 
Last edited:
One thing that amazed me was the testimony of one of the radiologists at the hospital who commented on the scans of the patients as they came in.

Apparently, a regular gunshot wound from a handgun can generally be fixed, because the wound follows the bullet's trajectory, making it possible to repair the damage. However with rifles like AR15s they generally fire high velocity ammunition which completely obliterates internal organs and arteries, even in cases where such organs are distant from the impact site - due to the amount of energy and the way the round deforms and breaks up as it hits the target.

It's ridiculous

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
 
The arming of teachers is obviously a bad idea.

Pupils sit down for class, get books out of their bags. One gets a gun out along with his homework, executes his armed teacher and Mayhem ensues.

Alternstively a pupil shoots a class mate. Instantly the class descends into chaos. The armed teacher fumbles around to get their concealed weapon. In the panic takes shots at the crowded room to hit who they hope is the shooter.

I have literally no idea how anyone intelligent would push to arm teachers.

Gangsta’s Paradise wasn’t far off?
 
thing is it's also been tested and proven not to apply to all types of firearms, so the ability to limit access to certain types of firearms (for example currently short barreled rifles, machine guns and "firearms over .50 caliber with no clear sporting purpose" are limited)

so it is perfectly possible, legally speaking, for the restriction of semi automatic firearms. you can't even argue that the second amendment requires access to current level miltitary technology as it was perfectly ok to limit the sales of brand new military machine guns.

Indeed, the same ruling that stated that being part of a militia wasn't required also stated that restrictions could be placed on the types of firearms. I doubt that semi-automatic weapons will be banned anytime soon though, the gun lobby and too many gun owners would be against it.
 
Fine, but in that case the founding fathers never conceived of the internet, fake news, violent action movies, pornography or video games so the 1st amendment doesn't apply to those modern things and Trump and the christian right should be free to ban or heavily moderate all of those.

You can have an old timey printing press if you need to express your views.



thing is it's also been tested and proven not to apply to all types of firearms, so the ability to limit access to certain types of firearms (for example currently short barreled rifles, machine guns and "firearms over .50 caliber with no clear sporting purpose" are limited)

so it is perfectly possible, legally speaking, for the restriction of semi automatic firearms. you can't even argue that the second amendment requires access to current level miltitary technology as it was perfectly ok to limit the sales of brand new military machine guns.
 
Indeed, the same ruling that stated that being part of a militia wasn't required also stated that restrictions could be placed on the types of firearms. I doubt that semi-automatic weapons will be banned anytime soon though, the gun lobby and too many gun owners would be against it.

indeed, it's just sad to see that the controls that worked so effectively on machine guns not being used again (remember you can still legally own a machine gun in the states, it's just expensive, requires extra paperwork and is generally more of a ballache).

you're right though, the lobby and political motivation won't allow it, even if accepting a little regulation will do wonders for their reputation.
 
Fine, but in that case the founding fathers never conceived of the internet, fake news, violent action movies, pornography or video games so the 1st amendment doesn't apply to those modern things and Trump and the christian right should be free to ban or heavily moderate all of those.

You can have an old timey printing press if you need to express your views.

awesome straw man right there ;)
 
Strange how I’ve never seen one person or the media mention Barack Obama not renewing the ban on assault rifles.
 
Strange how I’ve never seen one person or the media mention Barack Obama not renewing the ban on assault rifles.
Obama tried and tried to enact safe and sensible gun laws but was prevented by NRA backed republicans. And some Democrats too. All whipped up by a storm of 'Obama and Clinton want to take your guns away!' False and misleading rhetoric by the NRA. And it worked as gun and ammunition sales went through the roof. It was practically advertising!
 
Strange how I’ve never seen one person or the media mention Barack Obama not renewing the ban on assault rifles.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../promise/1118/work-renew-assault-weapons-ban/

Even as he issued multiple gun control directives in his second term, President Barack Obama's promise to revive the federal assault weapons ban hit a wall with Congress.

Obama suggested reintroducing the ban during his 2012 re-election campaign. He had wanted legislation similar to the version in effect between 1994 and 2004, which had outlawed a broad range of semi-automatic weapons.

He included the ban as part of a set of executive actions in January 2013, following the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct., in December 2012.

Some lawmakers did take up the cause.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced S. 150 in January 2013. Her bill would have banned the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of 157 semi-automatic weapons, as well as magazines that held more than 10 cartridges and other weapons with certain cosmetic characteristics. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., also introduced HR 4269 in December 2015.

Neither bill succeeded in the Republican-controlled Congress. Jaclyn Schildkraut, an assistant professor at the State University of New York at Oswego's Department of Public Justice, said that part of the reason was because the prior ban didn't stop mass shootings.

For example, one of the weapons used in the 1999 Columbine shootings, an IntraTec TEC-DC9, was on the list of banned guns, she said.

Stymied by gridlock and unable to order a ban on his own, Obama opted instead to strengthen current gun laws — a separate promise we've rated Promise Kept.

As some polls showed dwindling public support for an assault weapons ban, Obama curbed his call for a ban. He still worked to strengthen background checks, restart federal gun research, and provide more resources to federal agencies.

Since no ban went anywhere in either the House or Senate, we rate this a Promise Broken.
 
Obama tried and tried to enact safe and sensible gun laws but was prevented by NRA backed republicans. And some Democrats too. All whipped up by a storm of 'Obama and Clinton want to take your guns away!' False and misleading rhetoric by the NRA. And it worked as gun and ammunition sales went through the roof. It was practically advertising!

I’m not surprised if all politicians are in bed with the NRA.
 
well that is unsurprising seem kind of obvious that it would be tbh...

it isn't a hostage situation, it is kids actively being killed, any assistance/intervention from an armed police officer in that scenario could be helpful as time is pretty critical...

Could be helpful ... but unlikely ..... I am sure the officer would have had a nice obituary entry had he gone in and come across the still armed shooter....

A pistol wielding cop is not equipped to deal with a potentially unknown amount of assault weapon wielding suspects much in it the same fashion as an unarmed cop is not equipped to deal with suspect(s) armed with handguns
 
Could be helpful ... but unlikely ..... I am sure the officer would have had a nice obituary entry had he gone in and come across the still armed shooter....

A pistol wielding cop is not equipped to deal with a potentially unknown amount of assault weapon wielding suspects much in it the same fashion as an unarmed cop is not equipped to deal with suspect(s) armed with handguns

He's better equipped than any of the kids being actively killed, and I'd disagree an armed police officer stepping in would likely make a big difference there! Instead of kids carrying on being shot the shooter has a more pressing matter to respond to. Again I'm not suggesting he goes in Rambo style... but I don't think he'd necessarily die either, I think it is more likely he could stay behind cover and at least restrict the moment of the shooter.

In fact even shouting at him, ordering him to put the weapon down, making him aware of the presence of a police officer could be useful and allow others to escape.

The shooter doesn't know how many police officers there are and if someone fires shots at him then he'll likely want to stay in cover too.
 
Back
Top Bottom