Today's mass shooting in the US

[Rroff]

It's worth taking into account that Sheriff Israel has refused to release a copy of his department's active shooter policy. I'm not saying that he has something to hide but his reluctance is certainly not doing him any favours.

He certainly seems quick to shift the blame onto anyone else :s ultimately it sounds like his department was lacking in effective organisation for this kind of scenario on top of any lack of willingness on the part of individual officers etc.

As more information comes out it sounds increasingly like officers tied to that department were standing around as much as anything due to not having a clear approach procedurally or communication wise.

 

[Rroff]

What made me laugh about that above article. Apparently you need semi auto rifle with 30 round mag to hunt.

For hunting of actual (dangerous) wild animals the requirements are completely different to what people "need" for leisure shooting or other sport type enjoyment of firearms.

Normally a (skilled) hunter would wait for the opportunity to put an animal down with 1-2 shots but there have been instances where for instance they've been charged by large game and needed a dozen shots before the animal went down.

Magazine size actually doesn't make much odds until its combined with other systems really - the shooter in Florida was firing 10-15 rounds between pauses and a shooter can for instance tape magazines so as to have very little downtime between bursts of fire. That said there is little reason for firearm enthusiasts, rather than those actively hunting, etc. to have a magazine at all and having to hand load individual rounds and in most cases something like a shotgun with 2-3 round capacity is more effective for home defence type use. (If you need more than a couple of rounds you are in a gunfight and the whole ball game changes).

 

[Rroff]

Why not just make anything other than a 16" or longer barrelled .22 rimfire require NFA registration?

2nd amendment :s that said you don't even have to go that far to decrease firearms incidents like this to pretty close to zero - the shall permit/may permit setup like in the UK along with common sense approaches to age range and suitability to own along with storage and regulation of transfer, etc. would have a huge huge impact without stopping people from owning things like AR-15s.

You don't need to get rid of guns or even get rid of some of the more military influenced firearms to cut firearms incidents to a low to very low level.

 

[Rroff]

What is an "assault style weapon"? How is it differentiated from a rifle that's not an "assault style weapon"? Does the appearance of a rifle really make any significant difference to the chance of spree killings taking place?

I'm not convinced that this sort of thing will solve the problem.

It won't - but maybe it will make steps towards actual action that will. Most AR-15 type weapons owned in the US are not assault rifles or assault type weapons (obviously you knew that).

Is sounds like trump doesn’t even know that you can buy AR15s in stores. He thinks they’re bought on the black market...

Selling them in stores assuming other checks and balances were in place isn't the problem - currently you can buy one for instance from a Facebook group in a few hours and as long as you look older than 16 and aren't all talking about how you are going to go shoot a load of people the seller will simply hand it over probably along with a few spare loaded magazines all completely legal.

 

[Rroff]

So, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, automatic weapons, suppressors, greater than .50cal weapons, explosives and any other firearms shouldn't be NFA restricted then?

You can still buy them, it's just you'd have to pay more and actually go through security checks and wait a while.

We could argue about the actual realities of it but one of the key points of the 2nd amendment is ostensibly about not impinging on the ability to raise an effective militia - .22 rimfire would be hideously outclassed even with numbers behind it - I've even seen it deflect off car windscreens even with a little distance and the right/wrong angle (not saying it won't go through a car window because it will - but in actual combat ranges, etc. its generally lacking).

 

[Rroff]

Actually, no. The militia part has been deemed by SCOTUS to be unrelated to the right to own firearms.

As per my older post - the clarification is the ability to form an effective militia and doesn't require active service as part of a militia, the use for self defence is a later understanding.

An interesting side effect of that IMO is that it would compel those who'd ostensibly be part of a militia if it was needed to maintain themselves physically, etc. in a condition suited to that or otherwise they are infringing on their own second amendment rights :s

 

[Rroff]

Because so-called 'assault weapons' are responsible for most of the mass killings.

40% of the major mass killings in the US had a semi-automatic rifle (not necessarily an assault rifle "style" one) brought by the perpetrator(s) though not always used - the most common weapons were regular handguns and shotguns.

In shooting incidents off all kinds in the US assault style weapons account for around 3% of weapons brought by the perpetrator(s).

Firstly, people are calling for gun control, not banning guns outright. Secondly, unlike firearms, neither diesel cars nor tobacco products are specifically designed to kill people, and neither of them have been used to commit wholesale slaughter at America high schools.

What is the cost of a life? your convenience in using a knife to eat or make things, etc.? that doesn't mean nothing should be unregulated but we shouldn't let the odd crazy person dictate everything too far - there are millions of people who get quiet (sort of) enjoyment from firearms who will never shoot and kill another person and probably not another living thing either.

 

[Rroff]

Why do they think likening guns to cars, fertilizers, pressure cookers and kitchen knifes etc is a valid point. It isn't and it is stupid.

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.

 

[Rroff]

If I was an American teacher I'd probably have a g17 next to my apple.

How long til populated plate carriers are part of school uniform? and teachers are issued stun grenades on arrival.

 

[Rroff]

Dunno last bit I read on it said it would be non-teaching school staff and they would be expected to engage the shooter.

EDIT: Changed a bit since I read it - originally excluded teachers entirely but now added a caveat:

• Introduces a voluntary armed "guardian programme" for schools, named after Aaron Feis, a coach who died in the Parkland shooting. It allows school personnel to be armed, subject to school district approval and specialist training
• Classroom teachers are excluded from carrying arms unless they have a security forces background

 

[Rroff]

The actual scope and expectations of it seem to keep changing.

 

[Rroff]

The most frustrating thing, is that the vast majority of Americans want common sense gun laws, restrictions and checks for years now, time and time again all the evidence has shown it. What's most shocking to me, is how the NRA have pumped so much money into the government, they're not working to protect the people - they're literally working for the NRA.

The thing that seems to be changing (albeit very very slowly), is that the politicians are now starting to worry about votes, there was a piece on CNN last night about how some senators and state governors etc, are now starting to shy away from the NRA - because it's going to cost them serious amounts of votes quite soon, unless they start listening to what the public want, instead of the NRA.

Thing is though - I know a fair few people in the US who are "for" common sense gun laws but at the same time protective of their second amendment rights and can't see how that can happen without "erosion" of them. Not just the NRA though there are plenty of firearms owners in the US who are against any actual changes even though in the same breath many agree that something has to be done.

/rant; Since October, I've been in LA for 3 months (on and off) I drove through the aftermath of Vegas a week after, I saw the church shooting on the news, and the day after I flew in a month ago there was the school shooting, last night someone gunned 3 women down in a veterans home. Yet - they can't stop saying they're the greatest country on earth, the news, the politicians - everyone, they can't stop saying it, it's a big rich place - but omg, it's backward and weird in so many ways.

I don't think most people in this country can even conceptualise it unless they spend some time living or working there - the movies, etc. don't even come close to portraying the environment.

On a related note I was always fascinated back in the early 2000s how for instance many parts of Michigan were like stepping into some alternative reality version of the UK in the 70s/80s with a weird anachronistic mix of one foot in the past and one foot in the future.

 

[Rroff]

It really is a strange place in many ways, very old fashioned in a lot of aspects, and yeah - I did some work in Michigan last year, it's weird how you have one of the worlds best universities a stones throw from Detroit, we went for a drive through some of the "less affluent" areas, and it just beggars belief (google highland park detroit) some of the sky scrapers downtown are literally derelict and full of squatters, - it basically is like the 80s set to Robocop

Flew into Detroit metropolitan a few years back and did a trip out through Ann Arbor (quite a nice place) and on almost to Chicago a few years back. Quite a varied experience.

Didn't spend much time in Detroit but enough to get the general picture heh.

 

[Rroff]

What could possibly go wrong with arming teachers?

Oh, hang on...



I mean, +10 points for the irony of managing this in a gun safety lesson, -200 points for managing it in the first place

Not sure if its a spoof or not but there was a brilliant one awhile back on this.

 

[Rroff]

The armed teachers getting involved in accidents has been going on for a while, there have been numerous instances of it, there have also been incidents of serving police officers in the US having accidental discharges whilst on school property (giving safety lectures etc).

Yeah the famous one of "I'm allowed to do this because I'm a professional" moments later accidentally shoots himself in the leg.

 

[Rroff]

whats more concerning is that clearing a firearm and checking it's safe is not a hard task, and should be the first part of any safety exercise involving a firearm

In the video linked above he claims in a follow up video that due to his job he is supposed to have a loaded firearm on him at all times (which seems to be a common theme with these accidental discharge events in demos at schools) - which still questions his judgement as he chose to show them his personal (loaded) weapon rather than use all unloaded/props. (For the purpose of gun safety though there is no such thing as an unloaded firearm - you should always consider a firearm "loaded" even when you've cleared it).

 

[Rroff]

indeed, this is the major problem with any american gun argument is that there are too many examples of this level of basic idiocy when it comes to the fundamentals of firearm safety.

very few guns are complicated to use (in the basic sense of loading/unloading and firing), so there's no excuse.

Even with firearms safety very much in mind its possible to overlook things as well - for a long time I just kind of assumed as long as the gun was angled (horizontally) down range and pointing downwards (muzzle) everything was fine - wasn't until relatively recently I became aware of "dangling" as in you can be accidentally sweeping your feet without even thinking about it. (And that assumes there is nothing below you of consequence such as you are on a higher floor of a building with people below).

Having guns around kids in that context really isn't a good idea.

 

[Rroff]

Fortunately seems so far to not be a mass shooting.

 

[Rroff]

How many have to be shot before its called a mass shooting ? Just read that 3 were shot at this school.

Gone up then since I read the details.

 

[Rroff]

Its sad that there is no interest in debate, no interest in reason on either side of this issue - I kind of get that dealing with the likes of the NRA is sometimes like dealing with a brick wall and might necessitate more extreme measures but still.