What price do we put on a life though is it worth your convenience in the kitchen, etc. we shouldn't go around banning things just in case someone does something bad regardless of the intent of the thing or how many people might or might not use said thing. That isn't to say we shouldn't employ sensible regulation and not take other precautions.
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
What price do we put on a life though is it worth your convenience in the kitchen, etc. we shouldn't go around banning things just in case someone does something bad regardless of the intent of the thing or how many people might or might not use said thing. That isn't to say we shouldn't employ sensible regulation and not take other precautions.
A gun is literally designed to kill things. That is it's purpose. You don't need a gun for any other reason, other than target practice (you could have regulated ranges where the guns don't leave the premises) or maybe memorabilia (deactivate the weapons in this case). Also, do have sensible regulation on other dangerous things, like cars.
Honestly, comparing guns to fertilizer like that congressman did is just utterly ridiculous.
Sometimes you need to kill things, I know it's not a nice thing and it would be great if that wasn't the case, but that's the reality.
And in those few exceptions trained and licensed people can have some limited controlled access to firearms, such as a bolt action rifle or single-shot rifles and shotguns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I'm 33 years old and I have been required to kill a thing off my own back precisely 0 times. Assuming that I agree with your central premise (I don't) and taking my own experience of needing to kill stuff as a low guide I fail to see how the number of instances where a thing needs to be killed by a member of the public can be so high as to precipitate the need for 270 million barely regulated fire arms.
"We are done with your agenda to undermine voters will and individual liberty in America."
#irony
Regulation of firearms in the US isn't going to work. The horse has already bolted and closing the gate now is pointless, if I am not mistaken there are more guns than people in the US and that's those which are legally registered. Guns can last generations if well maintained and good luck taking away millions of guns without them slipping through the cracks.
I don't think for America there is actually a solution to the problem.
I don't think for America there is actually a solution to the problem.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Like those people who stood outside the school while 13 kids was shot up?
It takes time for the police to arrive, police will never arrive in time to save you if someone wants to kill you.
Self-defence should be a human right, everyone should be allowed to defend themselves. The American second amendment is a good thing, but it's poorly executed with weak laws and rules.
The UK law system around guns is very good but with a mix of the Japan gun laws, it could be even better while allowing more access to firearms again.
Strict background checks, references from family or friends and medical checks up that includes mental and psychology tests. Required training at the range plus classroom work, could throw in basic first aid course that includes gun shot treatment.
National database with yearly checks up (Like we do in the UK) that includes checking on gun storage plus mental checkups and finally proving a need for having one, like for sport, protection, job, hunting or whatever else.
I would finally make it an requirement that you must regularly join a gun club. that you must attend X times a month, possible 2 times seems reasonable.
Any sort of bad behaviour and you lose them.
I did not know about NRA TV until this week's John Oliver, mindless zealots the lot of them.
Love at First Shot looked like a really good TV show. I can't believe it hasn't been picked up by a major broadcaster.
I had a feeling that NRATV would be a bit crazy but nowhere near as bad as it looks like it actually is.
Sure it isn't [as bad as it looks]......
They don't even hide it ^. In one clip (a woman at a range with another woman who was apprehensive about guns, firing an AR-15. The NRA woman comforted her after firing and said it was like little puffs of happiness.
Gun lobby want to sell guns and make more money, they have a market with 300+ million people and the NRA are the perfect vehicle to achieve this.
They don't even hide it ^. In one clip (a woman at a range with another woman who was apprehensive about guns, firing an AR-15. The NRA woman comforted her after firing and said it was like little puffs of happiness.
Gun lobby want to sell guns and make more money, they have a market with 300+ million people and the NRA are the perfect vehicle to achieve this.
I kept reading that as "Bump socks" and wondered why the hell Trump would ban socks? Wondered if it was anything to do with smuggling bombs on aircraft or something.Bump stocks: legal under 8 years of Obama; illegal after less than 2 years of Trump?
That would absolutely make my year.
Was only when I googled it I realised my mistake
Read it incorrectly about 4 or 5 times... guess I need more coffee.
Whilst perusing YouTube I *accidently* watched a clip of Piers Morgan on morning TV interviewing some American lady about gun control and he said something that made me sit up and think "hang on a minute....that can't be right....".
Well, it turns out he was right, and I found a very interesting article that adds weight to the argument that arming teachers is a catastrophe in the making.
https://www.myajc.com/blog/get-scho...yet-want-arm-teachers/mDBlhDtV6Na4wJVpeu58cM/
In a nutshell the article (and linked articles) say that trained police officers exhibit an average accuracy of around 80% at firing ranges (i.e. a controlled situation with minimal stress or distraction), yet this drops to as low as 18% when exposed to real-life events. Even if teachers were trained to the same standard as police officers, it is virtually impossible to expect them to achieve a greater level of accuracy in an active shooter scenario.
I realise this data is only a guide but in the absence of anything else it's quite an eye opener, especially that last sentence where LA cops 'only' fired 67 times in 2006
....that can't be right....don't they mean per day? 
Well, it turns out he was right, and I found a very interesting article that adds weight to the argument that arming teachers is a catastrophe in the making.
https://www.myajc.com/blog/get-scho...yet-want-arm-teachers/mDBlhDtV6Na4wJVpeu58cM/
In a nutshell the article (and linked articles) say that trained police officers exhibit an average accuracy of around 80% at firing ranges (i.e. a controlled situation with minimal stress or distraction), yet this drops to as low as 18% when exposed to real-life events. Even if teachers were trained to the same standard as police officers, it is virtually impossible to expect them to achieve a greater level of accuracy in an active shooter scenario.
I realise this data is only a guide but in the absence of anything else it's quite an eye opener, especially that last sentence where LA cops 'only' fired 67 times in 2006
....that can't be right....don't they mean per day? 
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,340
I realise this data is only a guide but in the absence of anything else it's quite an eye opener, especially that last sentence where LA cops 'only' fired 67 times in 2006
damn, that's some pretty poor odds.
only way i can think of improving that is giving them automatic shotguns, sure the per-shot accuracy won't be there but there's a greater chance of hit per engagement.
There's also a greater chance of hitting other people, like the hundreds of children in the school. If you increase the hit per engagement rate by having a spread of smaller bullets rather than one larger bullet, you'll increase the chance of hitting other people if there are other people nearby.
I don't think there is a way of improving the odds. Regular military training with simulated combat situations, maybe. It's the situation that's the problem - even someone who's a champion target shooter at a range will probably miss in a combat situation, even if they're really trying to kill someone.
Another factor is avoiding shooting other people. Imagine you're in a school, which of course has a lot of people in it. Somewhere in the school is one person who you should kill. Along with hundreds of people you shouldn't kill. Every time you encounter someone, you have an extremely small amount of time to decide whether or not to shoot them. Get it wrong with the killer and you're dead. Get it wrong with anyone who isn't the killer and you've killed an innocent person. Shoot at the killer and miss and you might kill an innocent person. Do you shoot? You must decide immediately, every time. A second's thought might well be too long. And you must get it right every time.
There's another factor - most people have an extremely strong aversion to killing people regardless of the circumstances. That's been extensively studied in the military, for obvious reasons. Many people won't shoot to kill, even if they think they should. Soldiers have to be specifically trained to shoot to kill, to overcome their natural aversion to doing so.
I think the training requirements would be too high - to be really effective, armed teachers would have to be trained to at least regular infantry soldier level and that training would have to be refreshed regularly.
This is why a good guy with a gun stands little to no chance against a bad guy with a gun in 99.99% of situations. The bad guy doesn't have to decide who they just met in the school corridor or in the street, everyone is an 'enemy' and generally they don't fear for their own life. They shoot at everyone they meet. A single good guy with a gun is way more likely just to either hide in fear of their own life, await backup from the professionals or run away like everyone else. And even if they do decide to play the hero, the same applies. 'Is this the shooter? What if he's another good guy with a gun? An innocent bystander? Best not to shoot first.....bang bang...oh **** he was the shooter! Now I'm bleeding out and will likely die and the bad guy has my gun. Oops.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
Simple, we only get Navy Seals with full combat gear teaching, problem sorted.
I honestly don't believe those NRA adverts are real, surely they are parodies?
I honestly don't believe those NRA adverts are real, surely they are parodies?
That's too restrictive...the USA has other special forces units that would do as well
In some ways, it would still be a a problem. While special forces are the right people to go into buildings full of civilians to kill an attacker (or a few attackers), they do it in a highly organised way if at all possible. Having a dozen soldiers each starting from a different room in the complex of buildings and with no communication between them and no leader is the wrong way to go about it, even with the best of soldiers specifically trained for such a thing.
So to do the job properly you'd need special forces teachers in communication with each other and with constant knowledge of each other's location (so they would know in advance that a specific armed person they may encounter is another teacher and not an attacker) and preferably a leader to co-ordinate them.
EDIT: I recently watched a video of an airsoft contest in a complex of buildings and grounds around them, i.e. trying to replicate the conditions of modern combat in a built-up area with quite a bit of ground around the buildings. Like you get in a school, for example. Almost all of the contestents were of course civilians, but they had some relevant training and experience because they'd done this before quite often. So they would probably be better than teachers who'd done some unspecified training at some point in time. One of the contestents for this time was special forces. The difference in ability was startling. The scoreline was mostly him, over and over again. The main variation was which weapon he used (he had a pistol and a rifle and switched between them depending on the situation) rather than who was scoring. It was a farcical mismatch. You can't have lightly trained civilians doing a special forces job and expect a good result. It might be better than nothing, if you're lucky. Or it might be worse.
Last edited: