LIVE COVERAGE: Active shooter in custody at Santa Fe HS***[W:13]***[W:1213]

bluesmoke said:

Waiting periods reduced gun homicide and suicide:

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-periods-deaths-guns.html

Licensing would only stop those not eligible to purchase a firearm.

Registration helps LE know what gun someone has when they visit someone and helps trace guns used in crimes.

As a public benefit and the cost should be shared.


“these type of guns are not often used in suicides, homicide or for accidents.”

They are in mass shootings.

Here’s a study of more recent data:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

In the DOJ studies:

“the ban was successful in reducing crimes committed with...AWs. However, that decline was likely offset “by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs,”

That’s right. It confirms that banning AR’s reduced use of such guns in crime and shifted over to what now should also be banned, high-capacity mags.

“...AR, are responsible for less than 1% of gun crime.”

And 70% of mass shootings in the last 10 years.

“What good would a so-called “high capacity” magazine ban do?”

As quoted from your article in bold lettering, it would focus on the rising use of large-capacity magazinein crime.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

normal capacity is the magazine capacity of the magazines normally supplied with the firearm. Your definition is based on gun banning politics not reality.

AR 15s were sold with 30 round magazines long before anyone tried to limit them. Same with GLOCK 17s, Browning P-35 (Hi-powers) MI Carbines etc

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Who cares? It's not about history. It's about the law and the law is based on a number.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Who cares? It's not about history. It's about the law and the law is based on a number.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

yes its based on dishonesty. there was no testimony nor evidence supporting the idiotic 10 round limit. I have a great idea-citizens can own any and all firearms (and accessories) that civilian LE officers are allowed to use in their jurisdictions

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

The law is based on what people want. If ten is what they want then that is what they get

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

No it's based upon mitigating risks in the interest of public safety.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

I think it was based on a number that is wholly reasonable,sufficient and workable for the self defense needs of the average citizen and balance that need with the need to preserve the safety of the general public.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Apparently you don't give a **** about teenagers being shot in their classrooms or being traumatized for life by seeing their friends get shot or by seeing their shattered and dead bodies pooling blood onto the floor or those living in fear that one day it may be their school. There is no equation between the two. One is the unintentional consequences of making bad decisions and the other fully intentional and personal and the result of an overt decision to deliberately cause harm and mayhem to innocent others.

If you love your teenagers then teach them well. Teach them to be respectful of others, teach them to have compassion, teach them about the awesome responsibility of guiding a moving 1 ton piece of metal through the streets and the fragility of life, teach them about the awesome responsibility of owning and using a gun, an instrument made to destroy whatever it is you point it at.

And you're right there are things we can do about it. We can hold our teenagers responsible for breaking the rules we set for them. We can seek ways of disabling a cellphone when it's in a moving vehicle or take it away from them when they violate our rules. We can take measures to see that they can only obtain a weapon of war when they join the armed services. We can call the cops on them if we discover that they may be planning to commit an act of violence. We can hold their parents responsible if they fail to safely and responsibly secure their weapons or their motor vechicles. If you really love them then teach and discipline them.

Your mean spirited, baseless and debased accusations have made me understand all the more the famous Forrest Gump quote; 'stupid it is as stupid as does.'. I mean really, how low are you willing to go to make a point? So far I'm not seeing the bottom here with you.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the claim that at 11 rounds, a firearm becomes to dangerous for honest citizens to own. You need to prove your claim because I know there is no objective study that comes anywhere close to supporting that arbitrary limit. and you can just as easily say a four round limit is proper

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Where did anyone say that they would be dangerous for an honest citizen to own? I think it would certainly be dangerous to the public's safety for a dishonest citizen to own them. The average gunfight, as far as civilian on civilian is concerned, lasts only seconds with only about 3 rounds being exchanged. The average person is also very rarely if ever to find themselves caught up is an Assault on Precinct 13 scenario. Maybe cops once in awhile and that's why they aren't limited by magazine capacity laws. Criminals are a lot like sharks. While they may be natural or alpha predators. They still much prefer to take on prey that can't or doesn't fight back. It's better for them to not risk capture injury or death and live to hunt or rob another day. So once the lead begins to fly it's time to get he heck out of there.

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

Sure I do...thats why I advocate for allowing teachers to exercise their Constitutional rights, for teaching teenagers how to fight back and stop being victims, and for doing a better job of identifying and dealing with therse people in the first place. I advocate for reclaiming societal values that have gone to ****. I advocate for better understanding why todays generation is so damaged. You on the other hand bleat like a sheep about 'guns', and advocate for stupid **** that you know wont prevent anything.

But the countering argument is NOT baseless and low. You sit here pretending you actually give a **** about lost lives whole braying on about 2.5 incidents a year which account for less than 50 dead people a year, yet when faced with a real situation with REAL solutions that would save 4,015 lives every year you refuse to address it.

Let me guess...you are a teenager, arent you?

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

no its not based on the number of rounds period. Its based on the normal magazine for the gun. anti gun propagandists are lying when they claim anything over 10 rounds is "high capacity". its common with anti gun types-they want to use loaded terms-usually that are dishonest-to try to steer the debate their way like calling normal semi automatic sporting rifles as "assault" weapons when the military term assault requires fully automatic capability.

THe left wing is trying to ban NORMAL capacity magazines. PERIOD

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

No it's based upon mitigating risks in the interest of public safety.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

I think it was based on a number that is wholly reasonable,sufficient and workable for the self defense needs of the average citizen and balance that need with the need to preserve the safety of the general public.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

That has no relevance to the issue. the fact is-private citizens are the real FIRST responders to a criminal attack. They neither choose the place nor time, nor are they as well prepared as the attacker(s). In many cases, the citizen only has time to grab his gun, rather than stuff his perhaps not being worn at the time pants with magazines. In most cases, the defender is limited to the ammo in that one weapon he can grab. Cops usually can choose the time and place where they confront a criminal. They often have back up, body armor and are carrying spare magazines

no one has ever lost a gun fight by having more ammo than they needed. I am a world class shooter. To say you only need 10 rounds is just silly. you don't know what the criminal attack might be-its silly to be limited. Its already illegal to use a firearm in anyway to harm others improperly. those who ignore those laws aren't going to worry about having an "illegal magazine" only honest people do and the only purpose of a magazine ban is to harass honest gun owners

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Where did anyone say that they would be dangerous for an honest citizen to own? I think it would certainly be dangerous to the public's safety for a dishonest citizen to own them. The average gunfight, as far as civilian on civilian is concerned, lasts only seconds with only about 3 rounds being exchanged. The average person is also very rarely if ever to find themselves caught up is an Assault on Precinct 13 scenario. Maybe cops once in awhile and that's why they aren't limited by magazine capacity laws. Criminals are a lot like sharks. While they may be natural or alpha predators. They still much prefer to take on prey that can't or doesn't fight back. It's better for them to not risk capture injury or death and live to hunt or rob another day. So once the lead begins to fly it's time to get he heck out of there.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

And I made the case for that earlier (and in previous threads)

"Here is a seemingly minor regulation that people feel is 'harmless' to the average law-abiding gun owner. Limiting magazine capacity to 10 bullets. Seems pretty reasonable, right? Who needs more than 10 bullets, right?

Here's why we may need more than 10 bullets:

--It's a fact that even trained police miss frequently in shoot outs (stress changes things).

--It's a fact that in a real life attacks, people are usually moving and screaming and being jostled and it's very hard to aim accurately.

--It's a fact that there are often multiple attackers in a situation.

--It's a fact that, unlike in the movies or TV, a single shot rarely stops an attacker. They may die later, but not immediately, and they keep attacking. It usually takes multiple shots to STOP the danger. That is why cops are taught to shoot at least 3 times immediately: 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.

So that will use up 10 bullets pretty darn fast. So it's not such a 'reasonable' regulation. It puts me and every other law-abiding citizen at a grave disadvantage (one that the criminals wont be hampered by...they'll still keep their higher capacity magazines."

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

You already messed up in the very first item on your list. We aren't talking about the police here. They get into situations the average citizen wouldn't because they have to. And cops aren't taught to to shoot two to the chest and one to the head. They aren't Annie Oakley or Special Forces. They're taught to shoot center mass and shoot until the threat is ended. Didn't you just get done saying that they miss far more often then they hit? So now they are going to try for head shots? Look the chief determining factor of who wins a gunfight is whomever scores the first hit. Because normally once that happens the person who has been hit is at a big disadvantage, in pain and usually wants to disengage.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

I've been cornered in a parking garage by 3 men. Other people coming in scared them off.

I was a park ranger for many years, I saw many situations where there were multiple attackers. How do they know a cc'er is carrying? :doh It's not a factor in their decision to attack someone.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Park ranger? Do you know Yogi and Boo Boo? Criminals size up people and situations. They are gauging how aware you are and any apparent weaknesses you may have that they can exploit. They don't want a fair fight. They want to catch you off your guard and usually in some transitional space where they can ambush you. and while they often come in numbers usually once someone gets nicked the others aren't inclined to stick around. No honor among thieves.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Wow, another whoosh! The point of that is that if supposedly highly trained cops miss...esp, trained to stress...that it's even more likely that regular people will.

You are trying so hard to make my post look wrong...you look foollish.

Cops and regular people are confronted by multiple attackers. So you're wrong there.

2 to the chest is COM :doh

No, I didnt say cops miss far more than they hit :doh What are you reading?

As a park ranger, my training was with NYPD & St Louis PD. That's what I was taught.

And please provide data that shows the aggressor (attacker) disengages when they are shot? They often keep attacking, esp. shooting, when they are hit. That is why the primary goal is to STOP the attack (hence the 2 COM).

And the rest of my post is equally valid. I hope you are able to interpret that more honestly or at least demonstrate that you understood it.

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

Just stop with the BS. You didn't say just two to the chest. You said the two the chest and the coup de grace to the head which is something that special forces may do but certainly not ethical for cops to do. And you did say that cops miss more often they hit. Because of the stress but all of sudden they will somehow compose themselves enough to be able execute head shots. You're full of it and I not believing a damn thing you say. I'm not buying that you are or ever were any the things you claim to be.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

it's a fact that even trained police miss frequently in shoot outs (stress changes things).

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

you did say that cops miss more often they hit

Click to expand...

Atomic Kid said:

It's your responsibility to raise your children properly and teach those things to them. Not your children's school teacher's responsibility. Maybe that's a big part of the problem if that is what you really believe. What's the matter? Do you just not have time for it? If you can't even at least do that then you aren't fit for advocating jack**** about it! I'm talking about children being deliberately slaughtered and murdered and here you are conflating that with accidental deaths. Accidents will happen but mass murder doesn't have to! How do you know if it won't help to prevent anything if you aren't even willing to at least try it? Countering a argument isn't baseless and low, but the way you're doing it certainly is. But then again why I not surprised?

Click to expand...