[Mentar]

Originally Posted by kyp275

While I don't have too much problem with your proposal in general, that one will never fly in the court, it'd get thrown out in a heartbeat. It's one thing if you have very specific provisions which outlines possible cases of criminal negligence (for example, open and unsupervised access to weapons and ammo to children), it's quite another to have what you're suggesting here, which is carte blanche vicarious liability on the gun owner's part. Even if you pass something like this, it'll never survive it's first legal challenge.

And on what ground would that be? Other western civilizations already do this - in Germany, for example, if you "lose" an assault rifle during your army time, you immediately gain a criminal record. It's merely a matter of drafting the law accordingly.

But hey, I'm willing to compromise, it needn't be THAT much. However, at the moment, you generally don't even get a slap on the wrist in the US if someone commits crimes with your weapons and you then say "oh yea, has been stolen, tehee". That must change IMHO, and handling firearms must become something serious with the appropriate responsibility.

Yup, that's working out really well for Mexico isn't it? And as long as you continue to view the US as carbon copies of other countries with zero difference other than gun availability, you're never going to grasp the real issues.

Pitiful straw man. Comparing the US to Mexico, in which even the Mexican army is fighting drug cartels in the drug wars on a regular basis, is ridiculous. When was the last time the US army was fighting someone on US soil, huh?

If you want to gauge effects, why don't you take culturally close countries like the UK or Australia? Because then, you would see that serious Gun Control DID work there when it was rigorously enacted after local massacres. Nowadays, firearms killings per capita are around 9 times more prevalent in the US than in Australia and 40 times more prevalent in the US than in the UK.

But hey, don't let me disturb your obfuscation attempts with facts.

I have no ideal how you possibly arrived at this conclusion. First you say that the number of guns directly contributes to more violent crimes and deaths, and then turns around and says the lack of similar reductions of violent crime levels in strict gun control nations is because it makes criminals in the US too effective? Huh?

You're really bad at quoting and summarizing, aren't you? What I said is that easy availability of guns leads to a higher rate of killing, with America 9 times above the average of most other western civilizations. If your implied theory was correct that gun availability had no real impact on this, it would logically mean that the amount of violent crime LEADING to these deaths should be around 9 times as much either. But that's not the case.

Any student who's taken Statistic 101 can tell you that you can pretty much slice and dice data to make it correlate to whatever it is you want.

Sure, and it's widely used. You for example just did for your side, with the Mexico caper.

Which is why the specific qualifiers are so important, as they allow you to read the data without bias.

And so, what is your theory, in an attempt to deflect the obvious and logical correlation between availability of guns and lethal outcomes? Just for the record, Mexico was an attempt to _inject_ bias, so forgive me my scepticism that you are arguing in good faith.

This is one more thing which amazes me about the US: The media-supported idea that "fair and balanced" reporting would mean that reporters would be stenographing the official statements of both opposing sides and then report them 1:1 without any kind of weighing and fact-checking. Which leads to the absurd result that when Global Warming is discussed, the small fact that only 24 of 13,950 scientific peer-reviewed articles (0.17%) contest Global Warming is ignored, and the media is all-too-often presenting it as an "open question" or worse.

And yes, please continue to sling mud, I guess someone has to right?

I find it comforting that you would consider this "slinging mud", because it implies that you concede that it's tarnishing for the image to reject Global Warming, Cancer as result of smoking and so on. A true Believer would stick to his guns here (pun intended). I could list poll numbers and their correlation here, but that might be overdoing it.

Yea, because there was no one there capable of stopping them, which is the whole point of having police/security guard there - to have someone on site that is capable of doing so.

As for the specific cases I was talking about, no, the "deed" wasn't already done. In the case of the church shooter, he killed himself right after he was wounded by a guard while attempting to carry out his mass shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/col...ngs/index.html

and in the case of the principal, he was able to stop the shooter from further attack and detain him until the police arrived.

You didn't get my point. Either an attacker was successfully foiled prior to harming people, then it was no massacre in the first place. Or he was stopped after he killed people, then the attack wasn't successfully prevented. You can't have it both ways.

Before we waste more time: I'll readily concede that an armed guard does improve the security situation and under very fortunate circumstances might be able to reduce or even prevent the loss of life in case of an attack. I'm pointing out though that such an outcome is by no means conclusive for a multitude of reasons (e.g. security not at right location, security targeted first, etc). Posting an armed guard does not reliably prevent attacks like these, they can still succeed very easily. It's a band-aid, not a cure.

You're showing your bias and lack of knowledge in the relevant field again(nor did you pay attention to what I wrote apparently).

*lol* Now let's listen to the expert ... okay, let's tackle your "knowledge" bit by bit. I'll admit that I have my informations only from my training during my Army days and the sources I've read due to interest. What is your background constituting your expertise?

Escape is not always an option, depending on the design of the building and you (and the shooter's) position, or as it was in Virginia Tech, literally impossible due to preemptive measures by the shooter.

Correct. However, in general it is the safest option and should be preferred if available. Why do you think that e.g. in hostage situations, professionals pretty much NEVER encourage hostages to try to attack if they are able to communicate with them, but rather to try to escape?

But then, what do they know...

As for rushing, these shootings are not taking place on a wide open field where you're starting from 500 yards downrange. These are extremely close quarter affairs where the shooter are in the same room as his victims, it doesn't take much time to cover even the maximum distance - back of the room to the door, this leaves the shooter with only a few seconds at the most to deal with a rush.

Yes. Unfortunately, usually the attacker already has the weapon drawn and leveled when he enters the scene, and particularly after he first fired on his target(s), indicating to other persons in the room that they are in mortal danger.

Rushing someone with leveled automatic or even semi-automatic weapons is madness unless it is absolutely clear that

1) there is no reason to hope that the attacker will not fire on others than his primary target
2) there is no chance to escape

because the likelihood is extreme that you will be shot and killed.

Also, real life is not like the movies, you don't get flung back 20 feet and insta-gibbed because you got hit with a bullet in you arm or your shoulder. With the typical classroom size of 20-30, the shooter would have to be a real life version of a headshot aimbot to do what you think would happen. In the real world? Not even Carlos Hathcock can do what you think would happen.

You really have no f*cking clue at all. Let's take the massacre at hand, where the attacker used an AR-15 with 30-shot magazines of .223 ammo which tumbles and fragments inside the target's body, meaning that it delivers almost all of its kinetic energy to the target while ripping terrible wounds. If you receive torso shots of this you will NOT run on and grapple with the shooter, you will halt and go down. And while you do that, you will obstruct the path for other people following you even if you find 10 trained lemmings who really try to get the shooter and don't care that they're about to die. And when they go down and everyone is frozen in mortal fear, the gunman can reload a new magazine or switch to his pistols and continue the carnage.

Against normal 9mm parabellum pistols, maybe. The first heroic-suicidal attacker will probably be shot too, but due to the pistol's lower stopping power, the tackler's momentum might carry him far enough to reach the shooter. Also, depending on the weapon, the number of shots might be lower. Still a crazy risk, but maybe the best option.

Basically, don't try to talk tactics when you obviously have no clue about them.

You should consume fewer movies and games and educate yourself on the issue some. I still can't believe that you babbled about headshots...

Lastly, and I'm getting real sick of this, if you're not willing to put in even the smallest of efforts to know what an automatic weapon or an assault rifle is, then I see no point in carrying on this conversation - it's like trying to talk modern astronomy with someone who still believes in the geocentric model.

More stupid gun-nut posturing. Stop pretending and give a direct quote of mine where you demonstrate where I was allegedly wrong. Put up or shut up. After your talk up there, I doubt that you have any more knowledge on this topic than a chickenhawk range-shooter gun nut who never got any combat training in the first place.

No, what gun lowers is the capability threshold for killing, by the time someone has reached for a gun to kill another, they've long since passed their "inhibition". FFS, guns are not the One Ring, it doesn't whisper in their owner's ears and make them go "My Preciousssssss!"

Both. We're talking about essentially the same thing. Reaching for a gun and leveling it at someone is not the same as having a killing intent. All too often under influence of drugs or alcohol, when arguments get heated, it does make a difference if you are wielding fists, a knife, or a pistol. In my world at least.

To really kill someone with fists, you generally need to put in enormous conscious effort. Even with knives, it usually takes multiple stabs or purposely aimed hits to kill someone, the human body is surprisingly resilient. With a gun, all it takes is a reflex reaction and some finger pulls to potentially kill someone, you don't even have to "really mean it".

And no, guns don't do Gollum hissing, the effect is more sublime. Advertisements like "Man Card Renewed" do. Pointing a firearm at someone you hate tends to give the bearer a boost in confidence and a rush of power. Particularly for people who would otherwise be inferior, this is a major factor and lowering inhibitions, especially under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But I'm sure you know that.

Expert that you are.