Wrong. Factor in range, ricochet, speed of fire, damage to target and you’ll see why.
So, you've locked yourself in classroom of primary school children and you think that "range, ricochet (!), speed of fire, damage to target" would have any bearing on the outcome? That fella in dunblane killed them all without needing a machine gun.
"The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant."
Hmm.
No.
Lethal range of a 12 bore? 50 to 100m depending on load. That's not going to penetrate a brick wall.
Assault rifle, say AR 15? 500m & that will penetrate a brick wall. Easilly.
& thats ignoring magazine capacity & rate of fire.....
I'm out of this "discussion", reason & common sense has left the building...far too many here who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Some of you need to sign out of COD & get out into the real World where there's no reset, no cheats, & you don't get 3 lives.
Dunblane. Revolver - 17 dead.
Florida. Assault rifle - 17 dead.
Shooting fish in a barrel. It makes no odds.
What is then?
Because if he’s not a SEAL, DELTA, SAS or a similar level of ability he’s under qualified & a fing liability.
We don't disagree. I said 'armed response level of capability' - (which I'll clarify in case not clear, but I mean the kind of teams currently deployed to these occurrences), you said special forces, but we're splitting hairs over terminology.
IT'S DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS, A TEACHER WHO'S BEEN ON A 3 DAY COURSE OR AN NRA MITTY.
Dunblane - Closed school srea
[s]Florida - Shooting from a hotel window across the road.[/s]
Yeah you’ve no idea at all.
Ooops! Sorry wrong mass shooting too many in America so I got confused.
They’re both rapid fire weapons with high penetration, as mentioned above.
The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant.
Must be why we they all use muskets that take 2 minutes to reload
We don’t disagree. I said ‘armed response level of capability’ – (which I’ll clarify in case not clear, but I mean the kind of teams currently deployed to these occurrences), you said special forces, but we’re splitting hairs over terminology.
So now you want SF in class rooms?? Because that's the level of skill required.
Have you had any formal weapons training??
Dunblane – Closed school sreaFlorida – Shooting from a hotel window across the road.
Yeah you’ve no idea at all.
This isn't hard. The objective is to kill a load of people. The tool used dictates how its done. The end result is much the same. Ban self loading rifles and they'll use handguns, ban handguns and they'll use shotguns. Method changes, result doesn't.
Why the (!) after ricochet? A rapid fire assault weapon will result in bullets ricocheting thereby going in random directions and hitting people not in the original trajectory. These bullets can also go through other barriers as MrLebowski says. A double barrel shot gun does not have the same capacity for carnage.
You quote stats for Dunblane (Revolver). He was carrying 4 handguns and a significant amount of ammunition.
I'd be interested to hear of mass shootings where a double barrel shotgun was the weapon of choice. I may be wrong but I'm not the one making the argument for lack of gun control.
Again, have you any military combat experience?
Ban self loading rifles and they’ll use handguns, ban handguns and they’ll use shotguns. Method changes, result doesn’t.
Not sure anyone is arguing that part but the results are far more catasphroic with ‘right’ weapon.
IT’S DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS, A TEACHER WHO’S BEEN ON A 3 DAY COURSE OR AN NRA MITTY.
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_d701c8ca-f6c5-11e4-8151-cb3478d0dc80.html
Do they teach cooking?
Get him to balance a ball on his nose as a diversion tactic?
Lebowski - the otherjonv isn't saying he wants SF in classrooms. He's saying that is the level of training / skill you would need to be effective if you are to have armed people in schools. Anything short of this level of training isn't going to be any use whatsoever therefore the idea of arming anyone in a school is a complete non starter. He's making the same point you are in a slightly different way.
Thanks drac, interesting reading.
Ah, ninfan's back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Pretty sure my high school biology teacher used to be a walrus.
I’d be interested to hear of mass shootings where a double barrel shotgun was the weapon of choice. I may be wrong but I’m not the one making the argument for lack of gun control.
Weapon of choice is interesting. I'm saying it doesn't matter what you choose. Do you really think that when confronted with a classroom full of 8 year olds you need the latest military hardware? Does it matter that you take 5 minutes rather than 3? Does it matter than you can't shoot 500 yards?
The only odds the weapon makes is how you'd go about it. You don't sit in a clock tower with a shotgun. You lock yourself in a room. End result is the same.
Again, have you any military combat experience?
Do you really think that executing children has anything to do with the military? It's not like they're shooting back. Which is, again, my point.
Not sure anyone is arguing that part but the results are far more catasphroic with ‘right’ weapon.
Dumblane. Revolver. 17
Florida. Assault rifle. 17
If you really want to kill a lot use a lorry. Nice. 86.
Since Coyote seems determined to establish the entire forums level of military combat experience.....
I once got into a snowball fight with some Army cadets.
You weren't there, man!... YOU WEREN'T THERE!
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
What if your teacher is a squirrel - oh look, there's one!
Do they teach cooking?
Well played
So now you want SF in class rooms??
I want them to ban guns, and to deal with the socio-political reasons (including mental health and terrorism) that make Americans so scared that they feel they need to be armed for self protection. But that isn't happening and isn't going to any time soon.
I'm approaching this from the PoV of what the NRA guy said about the way to stop a bad guy with a gun. And putting SF level of trained people into schools is A potential solution. But not a particularly workable one for any number of reasons. And again, just because it isn't workable does not therefore follow that arming civilians or teachers instead is a suitable alternative.
So there, and I'll say it one last time - if (as the NRA guy said) the 'short term' solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, then the only real disagreement i have with him is the definition of good guys.
Ah, ninfan’s back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Four handguns at Dunblane holding 38 rounds of ammunition.
Good luck carrying 19 shotguns.
If you really want to kill a lot use a lorry. Nice. 86.
Or assault rifles, Stephen Paddock fired over 1000 rounds, killed 68 and injured over 500 more...
Ah, ninfan’s back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Level 5 warlock, aced CoD twice in easy mode and 680/1000 on JFK reloaded
I’ve also shot and owned guns for some years without ever once feeling tempted to shoot innocent bystanders or murder a classroom full of kids
You?
do you have to resist and fight your deepest feelings of inner rage and inadequacy all the time? Is that why you think other people can’t be trusted with guns? Because you feel like you couldn’t trust yourself?
Type of gun aside, why did the shooter do this?
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
What if they're not?
Still a not particularly good troll then ninfan?
MODS!!! The Trump thread is leaking bellends!
why did the shooter do this?
I believe the silicon chip inside his head switched to overload
"And putting SF level of trained people into schools is A potential solution."
F me.
You're serious.
"What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?"
If he's not practising on a regular basis, then he's sub-par..
"Lebowski – the otherjonv isn’t saying he wants SF in classrooms. He’s saying that is the level of training / skill you would need to be effective if you are to have armed people in schools. Anything short of this level of training isn’t going to be any use whatsoever therefore the idea of arming anyone in a school is a complete non starter. He’s making the same point you are in a slightly different way."
We really aren't.
It's a cosmically bad idea - armed guards in your 8 yr olds home ec course? WTF??? Where are you going to find these highly trained & motivated individuals? Pulling them off SF duty to stag on in the playroom isn't going to wash.
The point is you need SF level competency to not be a liability in this given scenario & if you can't provide that, then you shouldn't start down that road. It's really that simple.
The problem is a piece of piss to sort - problem is that course of action requires too much moral fibre & self-analysis for the average gun toting American to muster, what the solution is I don't know but I'm pretty darned sure more guns isn't it!
Since Coyote seems determined to establish the entire forums level of military combat experience…..
Not at all PP. I'm just interested how much experience those who are pro gun have on the other end of the barrel and my thoughts were correct.
What I find odd in this whole debate is the pro-death advocates are actually admitting there's a problem by saying school teachers should be armed, but they are using it as a smokescreen to cover up the fact they aren't willing to do anything about the problem they admit is there.
That is the very definition of extreme negligence and/or corruption.
Why the hell should school teachers be armed? Why the hell should they have Navy Seals stationed in schools? That's not life, that's war. War is useful to control populations and make them feel as if you are keeping them safe when, in fact, you are doing nothing at all.
It's complete madness.
do you have to resist and fight your deepest feelings of inner rage and inadequacy all the time?
in fact, they are doing nothing at all.
They're not. They're promoting the culture of fear that will sell even more guns. Who do you think funds the NRA? Weapons manufacturers, maybe?
Not at all PP. I’m just interested how much experience those who are pro gun have on the other end of the barrel and my thoughts were correct.
My mistake. I was erroneously reading an implied subtext which was "Please ask ME how much military combat experience I have. I used to be a highly trained government assassin but I don't really like to talk about. It's classified" 😉
@ mrlebowski
F me. You don't listen do you?
I agree, it's a dumb, unworkable idea. I'm not suggesting it, the NRA guy was, but it's an idea and if it were to be workable then it would need people with "SF" (your words, i said armed response) levels of training. Not pulling SF guys off what they are doing so they can stag on in the playroom, but providing that to the people they recruit to do this. No you wouldn't find them, you couldn't afford it, and so on. I didn't say it was a good idea I said if it was to work this is what you'd need.
OK, I'm out.
They’re not. They’re promoting the culture of fear that will sell even more guns. Who do you think funds the NRA? Weapons manufacturers, maybe?
Hmm odd that you should take that sentence out of context as you have completely misunderstood my point.
"I heard the NRA guy’s speech on the radio on the way home. And sadly – he’s right. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby"
&
"There is no single answer, and sadly the NRA guy is actually right in part of it, even if it is just as a stopgap while the real issue is fixed."
@theotherjonv - your words..
& your right, I did say SF because that's what you need. I know, from experience. What's your experience?
So if only 20% of teacher are armed how do mum and dad (sorry mom and pop) make sure their kids get into their classes?
otherjonv
I think we might, maybe, on the same page - but the bottom line what the NRA guy was suggesting & you give the impression of endorsing is fundamentally flawed on so many levels it’s unworkable.
A better solution must be found.
I think we are too. And FWIW, my only relevant experience in this matter, was being a parent watching an incident unfold live on TV while my daughter was potentially in the middle of it. It wasn't a school, it was the HofP / Westminster Bridge incident actually; my daughter's class was there in the morning and the plan was to walk back over the bridge to the coach at the London Eye for a picnic lunch on the grass there, but where the weather was shit the coach had collected them early and by the time it happened they were on the way home. But we didn't know, had no means to contact them, the teachers on the coach had no idea what was happening behind them and so no reason to inform anyone they were safe ........ and at that point I was watching on the internet and I was all for armed officers having the capability to put a stop to it.
I'm guessing your experience is more relevant, and I'll defer to you in terms of what the situation needs in terms of skill set.
So no, I'm not advocating putting guns / arming teachers in schools, all I'm agreeing with the NRA guy about is that (once we are past the fact that people in the US have access to guns way beyond appropriate / need), i can't (sci-fi aside) see a way to stop a bad guy with a gun other than by a good guy with a gun.
And that good guy needs to be an expert in what he does in that situation. You with your experience say SF, i say armed response and let's not split hairs over what in the end i think we agree on. It's someone with the level of training needed to deal with it, and you don't get it on a 3 day teacher course.
I didn't say it was workable. Only that it was theoretically possible. However difficult that theoretical is.
why did the shooter do this?
I believe the silicon chip inside his head switched to overload
Why did he target the school? Why did he go on a shooting spree instead of just killing himself?
he’s right. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby
Let's see how that's working out for them.
The school resource officer on Feb. 14 took up a position viewing the western entrance of that building for more than four minutes after the shooting started, but "he never went in," Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a news conference. The shooting lasted about six minutes.
we know.......
Now go back and read about why if that is to be a solution it needs 'good guys' with a huge level of training and expertise, why that is impractical in the real world, and hence why it in the end isn't a solution and if done half arsed actually makes the situation worse.
Not a teacher (unless obviously, an ex Navy SEAL one who's managed to keep his expertise up since becoming a Home Ec teacher), and not an NRA fantasist who'd shit his pants the moment something actually happened.
all I’m agreeing with the NRA guy about is that (once we are past the fact that people in the US have access to guns way beyond appropriate / need), i can’t (sci-fi aside) see a way to stop a bad guy with a gun other than by a good guy with a gun.
In doing so, you are falling into a trap. The NRA wants the debate to be framed in the context that there will always be bad guys with guns, and moreover that there will be some bad guys with guns who will commit atrocities like this, and that because the possibility of that cannot be completely eliminated with so many guns already in circulation, the only solutions to be discussed are those which do not involve any form of gun control. It's childish logic, and a council of despair for the parents of children in US schools.
Just because it is impossible to prevent every potential bad guy getting hold of a gun, that does not mean that gun controls would not inexorably - over time - reduce the number and frequency of such massacres.
If people were faced with a clear realistic choice between the status quo (or the reality of the sheer impracticality of the solutions involving arming teachers, more guards etc.) vs. a level of gun controls which reduced the deaths to, say, the equivalent of one Sandy Hook every ten or fifteen years, they might very well support such controls. The NRA will do everything it can to avoid discussing the potential numbers of lives that would be saved by gun controls, and to prevent that being debated by american society and politicians.
Put crudely, if gun controls were likely to save the lives of, say, a hundred children over the next ten years, the NRA's view is that it is better to sacrifice the children.