Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[sun]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Saw this picture going around facebook. Blows my mind that people actually see this and go "lol got 'em! what an apt comparison!" and repost it as if drugs and guns are even remotely similar.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Back on topic (sadly)

3 dead in Washington mall shooting

http://wtop.com/64/3549542/Fire-resc...-Columbia-Mall

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Back on topic (sadly)

3 dead in Washington mall shooting

http://wtop.com/64/3549542/Fire-resc...-Columbia-Mall

Guns, Freedom, 2A, Guns.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

And the shooter committed suicide to end the situation...not like more guns would have helped.

I almost wish the pro-gun lobby would just openly say that these incidents are the worthwhile collateral damage from their precious firearm policies and pro-firearm culture. They obviously think its worth the tradeoff. Just own it.

[Shnabdabber]

Crap Daradon, I went away for work and forgot to respond to your post. Sorry for the late reply.

I'd like to touch on all points, but your second last paragraph tells me we would likely see eye to eye on this (among others) situation anyways.

Now I'm not 100% on ALL the restrictions or otherwise in all states, but it's not as if any american can walk into any gun store in the US and walk out with whatever they chose. Many states already have background checks, as well as holding periods (the holding period was to try and eliminate 'crimes of passion') besides states that have laws that restrict certain types of firearms. In some states, the buying process is even more restrictive than what we have in Canada. For example Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords went and tried to purchase a 'assault rifle' as he calls the AR-15, and a model 1911 handgun chambered in 45acp. They ran a background check, which as a law abiding American he passed, yet there was a waiting period on the used AR he wanted to buy as checks are run on the rifle to ensure it was never used in a crime. So Kelly walks out with his 1911, and has to wait for his AR. Someone tipped off that Kelly (a vehement anti gun activist) was trying to purchase a AR and his twitter exploded on him. Of course, once caught, he claimed that he was trying to make a point on how easy it is to buy a AR (which he never walked out of the store with) and that while he planned on keeping his 1911, he was to turn over the rifle to local police for destruction. Subsequently, the store revoked his application for the AR based on that he lied on his application. Which is a felony, yet I don't see anyone going to arrest Kelly. So at best it was a cheap publicity stunt which only came to light once he was called on it, at worst he was making damn sure he had a AR before himself and others in the anti gun agenda make AR pattern rifles illegal.

Purchasing firearms is not nearly as easy as the anti gun crowd likes to make it sound.

But my question is, why does that matter? Why would a person buy a car to not use it? Same with the gun? Why would a person by a gun to not use it? Sure there may be the odd collector that just wants to buy a gun and keep it unloaded, especially historical guns (which I do believe there should be exceptions for) but that is such an infinitesimally small number. And is mirrored by people who buy cars to collect them anyway. It really doesn't help your argument any.

Those are great questions you asked, and I wouldnt know why anyone would buy a rifle/handgun and not use it. Only because all the firearm owners I know actually use them for lawful purposes. All the time. So I dont understand why you would frame that argument under the pretense of the firearms not being used anyways. Would you buy a car and then not use it? Why would you assume people buy firearms and not use them?

As for not needing the same level of paperwork and documentation for a vehicle on private property I have to ask again, why does it matter? For the majority of uses you need for a car, there are many strict rules. There is a licensing program. For a gun, there is not. You can argue all you want about people using it solely on their land, or buying it for the purpose and intent of that, but the fact of the matter is 1., this is obviously not happening as much as people think it is, and 2., you don't have these restrictions for public use either. It's a strawman.

Why does it matter? Because its done all the time perhaps? Many farmers and private land owners have vehicles that are neither registered nor insured because they never leave the farm. If they were to leave the farm and go down a public road, they would be breaking the law. I know plenty of farmers who have numerous firearms and they never leave the farm, never pose a threat to public safety so those same farmers get a little upset when they feel forced into registering private property that never leaves their private land. To your point #1 that it doesn't happen as much as people think, you must never visit rural Canada, and #2, firearms owners have PLENTY of restrictions on public use. Certainly more than vehicles. It's not a strawman in the least, and when I reread your second last paragraph, I'm again curious why you think this is a issue.

I'll hit another few arguments you've made recently. The one in response to UCB's comment about the damage a gun does, you replied with the typical, that's the exact reason you don't wants bans (or tougher rules I assume), alluding to the highly incorrect assumption rampant in NRA circles about guns making things safer. There is ZERO statistical evidence that backs that up, and in fact, there's a lot of evidence that proves the other side of the argument. If you've got statistical evidence that isn't gun lobby based, I'd love to see it, but all there is is a small handful of exceptional stories giving the illusion of circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is more guns make things more dangerous through misuse, incapable untrained users, and mistakes.

There is plenty of statistical evidence to back up my argument. Chicago, which has the strictest 'gun control' in the US, in the murder capital of north america. Nearly every single mass shooting (as defined by the FBI as being 4 or more victims) happens in gun free zones. John Lott has done major work in this area. However I realize that his work will be viewed as pro gun, so lets take a look at what Caillin Langmann discovered studying this subject in Canada.

Caillin Langmann, MD, PHD
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontairo, Canada

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

It doesn't even make logical sense. Sure, perhaps in the case of a home invader who is brandishing a knife or baseball bat, there may be a logical argument for a gun, barely. But in cases of gun vs gun, it isn't even logical, which is actually what your retort was implying. Gun v gun. All any logic dictates is that there is more chance for things to escalate, more chance for more people to get shot, and more chance for there to be mistakes and people outside the confrontation to get hurt. Heck, even police make mistakes on when to use their guns, and they are trained. Are you really telling me a populace in which everyone has a gun would be safer? It would eliminate most crime cause what, people would suddenly have 'healthy fear of wronging someone else?'

Again, based on who you believe, brandishing a firearm inside your home to protect yourself or family against a intruder with a edged weapon may not be the best course of action. Police used to (I say used to because they are currently changing their minds on this mantra) have what was called the 21 foot rule. That is, a dickhead with a knife, if inside 21 feet of you, may have a statistical advantage over those with a handgun. Based on the fact that you would have to load, point, and fire two rounds center mass. Using those guidelines you may have a valid point. However I would think most would like their chances better with a scattergun inside 21 feet of some criminal who means to do harm to you or yours. The point really is moot though, since americans (not canada as self defense is rarely justified in the courts eyes) view it as unethical to not have the ability to protect ones life and property.

I would agree that police do make mistakes with their firearms. this was just this Wednesday....

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/02/...me-controller/

Captain Crunch made a very valid point of police officers being trained to handle firearms. However, he assumes that joe taxpayer is a poor shot, trigger happy and useless in a armed confrontation. As a former member of the Canadian Forces I appreciate his opinion on these things. Surely though he must know that some of the most decorated snipers/soldiers in the field cut their teeth shooting on the farm/backwoods. Carlos Hathcock reinvented the Marine Core sniper by implementing techniques he used hunting as a boy with a .22 rifle. I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure he still holds the record for the Marines Wimbledon Cup, a 1000 yard shooting match which he set as a 18 year old. The guy was a crack shot before he ever entered the marines. A canadian soldier used to hold the longest confirmed kill at 2430m, only recently bested by a British solder by 45 meters. The canadian used to practice long range shooting as a boy and claims he used to shoot flys. Sounds ludicrous, until you see guys drive nails with a rifle over long distances. So I take offense that civillians are useless shooters, and many f class competitors, as well as Olympians and avid sportshooters would as well.

What makes more sense is that it just mean people would just shoot quicker, before the other person would could get their gun out. Criminals would shoot quicker before the other person would have a chance to react. Killing a lot of people who may have just been mugged. Yes, the criminals are still in the wrong, but that's small consolation to the person who is dead. There would be more Zimmerman types shooting sooner to protect themselves against threats possibly real but in most cases likely imagined or overblown. Good families at home would have more accidents shooting first and thinking later. You cited fear in one of your defenses, don't you see how this would ramp up the level of fear? It's a never ending spiral and it has to stop somewhere or it just gets worse.

Many assumptions made here, sorry but I don't agree. In a mugging in a dark ally? Yeah ok I agree. In a home, or public setting with a active gunman? Nope. Again I must clarify that when I mention fear, I would like to know why the anti gun croud fears a inanimate object, and instead doesn't seem concerned with the criminal element. In Canada, if we were allowed concealed carry, I wouldn't carry. Theres nothing to fear! But, and this is especially true in America, many people think differently. Once Chicago opened up CCW permits, they had a much, much higher rate of applicants for CCW than they did for Obamacare. In Chicago, I think that says a little bit about what those residents find important.

Finally, I want to touch on your other misconceived notion of logic in that banning guns would have no affect on gun murder rates. I get the idea behind what you are saying, and the very real example when compared to drugs, but to state there is no watershed mark where banning something doesn't help is ludicrous. Of course it will help. Drugs are more popular when they are legal. Look at cigarette abuse, alcohol abuse, and prescription drug abuse compared to illegal drug abuse. Much higher rates. At one point not too long ago 50% of the public smoked. Now I think it's close to 25%. Does 25% of the public use heroin? Cocaine? Heck weed? Nope. Sure, some people still get high. But to suggest the ban doesn't prevent higher numbers makes zero sense, and again has no real evidence backing it up. And yes a lot of those drugs are more harmful than cigarettes and that may affect their popularity, but guess what, weed isn't. Shoot, there's more and more evidence that MDMA isn't. So no, your comparison doesn't fly. Yes a ban doesn't stop things from being used completely, but it does reduce it. Now the morals of such is another case, and I'm a bit of a libertarian on the matter, which is why I'm not against owning guns, just that there are some rules about it. I also think people should be able to do drugs, as long as it's responsible. I would argue for restrictions there as well. But it doesn't change the fact that yeah, bans do help.

Again I would point to the studies done by Lott, and for the purpose of keeping everyone happy, Langmanns study at McMaster. As well as stats Canada showing that a licensed firearm owner in Canada is over 3 times LESS likely to commit homicide than those who are not.

I would consider myself a bit of a libertarian too, and I would counter your drug argument with this. If you made all drugs legal, right now, would you do them? If heroin was legal and available would you start sticking a needle in your arm? I know I wouldn't, and I'm guessing most here wouldnt either. So, I view it as people should be able to make choices for themselves and be held responsible for their actions. Which is why I would want VERY harsh penalties for those who use firearms in a crime. But making reactionary laws that only hurt the law abiding and do nothing to stop criminals is not the answer. Like some sort of preemptive strike against regular capacity magazines, neutering them to some arbitrary number is gonna somehow stop criminals from unpinning magazines, or *gasp* changing magazines. It's ludicrous. Personal responsibility is key here, instead of wanting the 'gubberment' to fix everything for us, take care of us, make everything safe for us, how about people start exercising responsibility? And severely punish those who violate others right to life, limb and freedom? Thats what I want.

The point I was trying to make earlier about a registered piece of property having no inherent value to the owner, specifically in Canada, is due to the fact that registered firearms, one day viewed as "lawfully owned" are subject to the scrutiny of bureaucrats and can change law with the stroke of a pen and with no outside opinion from the firearms industry or otherwise. Then, the RCMP will issue owners that they have (I believe in the past it was) 20 days to hand over said firearm that never committed a crime from a lawful owner over to the RCMP for destruction. And dont even get me started on the supposed destroyed long gun registry thats been PROVEN to still be in use by the RCMP, a direct violation, contempt of Canadian parliament. But I digress.

Also, resorting to a gun ban is a escalation of the argument that is unnecessary and incorrect. I don't know why the pro gun crowd always goes there. No one (at least no coherent argument) has ever suggest a total gun ban. But for some reason, a lot of the pro gun crowd flips to that black or white reasoning right away. I don't think a gun ban is needed, I think the balance of rules (and culture differences) Canada has works pretty good for the most part. But it's still insane to trot out that argument, as the pro gun crowd does, then argue that a ban wouldn't make things a little better in the short term, and a lot better in the long term as guns are slowly phased out and the culture changes. It obviously would. People would hate it, and there would be pushback, and small difference in the beginning as guns would still be everywhere, but it would.

Whew, I think I had more, but that's pretty long already.

I think the reason why firearms owners view more restrictions as a confiscation plan is because it has happened in the past. We already have numerous gun bans in Canada, in particular Allan Rock in tableing his useless bill C-68, promised the industry as well as sport shooters, collecters, that a ban on certain guns was not the goal, they just wanted to licence firearms owners. Shortly after the bill passed all .32 and .25 caliber pistols were deemed prohibited. You could either hand them in to RCMP, or get another certification on your licence that allows you to posses (but not use) those pistols. There is no grandfather clause, so they become the property of the government overnight.

The registry in Canada was proven to be a gigantic, grossly expensive failure. Studies have shown that gun crime in Canada has been on a steady decline for 50 years. Gun ownership in the US has been on the rise, yet they currently have a 30 year low in gun crime. The number of police officers hurt by criminal gun fire is at a 100 (yes 100) year low. A poll of beat cops, officers in Canada shown that over 90% admit the registry did not help police solve, predict, or prevent crimes, and since the implementation of the handgun registry in Canada in the 1930's (1934 if I remember correctly) not a SINGLE crime has been solved through the use of the handgun registry. This was admitted by the RCMP in the supreme court of Canada.

Again, thanks for the well thought out post Daradon. I found it very interesting that you are a libertarian, I would suspect that we would agree on most political issues.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

And the shooter committed suicide to end the situation...not like more guns would have helped.

I almost wish the pro-gun lobby would just openly say that these incidents are the worthwhile collateral damage from their precious firearm policies and pro-firearm culture. They obviously think its worth the tradeoff. Just own it.

I think the pro-gun lobby would once again point to the fact that this BS keeps happening in 'gun free zones'.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by sun

Saw this picture going around facebook. Blows my mind that people actually see this and go "lol got 'em! what an apt comparison!" and repost it as if drugs and guns are even remotely similar.

And yet here we are comparing cars to firearms. The point is, a illegal object is not impossible to obtain. Especially considering the majority of hard drugs on NA soil come from others countries and are smuggled into NA. If it's not that hard to get foreign heroin on the streets of any american city, I doubt it would be hard to get a firearm that originated from the US.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I think the pro-gun lobby would once again point to the fact that this BS keeps happening in 'gun free zones'.

I'm sure the pro-gun lobby would, but that is mainly because it relies on some really poor arguments to rationalize the frequent and senseless murder of innocents.

Unless state borders begin to be patrolled the way national borders are, there is little that can be done to prevent today's crazy from transporting their implements of murder across from free-for-all areas to 'gun free zones'.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sure the pro-gun lobby would, but that is mainly because it relies on some really poor arguments to rationalize the frequent and senseless murder of innocents.

Unless state borders begin to be patrolled the way national borders are, there is little that can be done to prevent today's crazy from transporting their implements of murder across from free-for-all areas to 'gun free zones'.

With gun totting citizen militias?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Crap Daradon, I went away for work and forgot to respond to your post. Sorry for the late reply.

I'd like to touch on all points, but your second last paragraph tells me we would likely see eye to eye on this (among others) situation anyways.

Now I'm not 100% on ALL the restrictions or otherwise in all states, but it's not as if any american can walk into any gun store in the US and walk out with whatever they chose. Many states already have background checks, as well as holding periods (the holding period was to try and eliminate 'crimes of passion') besides states that have laws that restrict certain types of firearms. In some states, the buying process is even more restrictive than what we have in Canada. For example Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords went and tried to purchase a 'assault rifle' as he calls the AR-15, and a model 1911 handgun chambered in 45acp. They ran a background check, which as a law abiding American he passed, yet there was a waiting period on the used AR he wanted to buy as checks are run on the rifle to ensure it was never used in a crime. So Kelly walks out with his 1911, and has to wait for his AR. Someone tipped off that Kelly (a vehement anti gun activist) was trying to purchase a AR and his twitter exploded on him. Of course, once caught, he claimed that he was trying to make a point on how easy it is to buy a AR (which he never walked out of the store with) and that while he planned on keeping his 1911, he was to turn over the rifle to local police for destruction. Subsequently, the store revoked his application for the AR based on that he lied on his application. Which is a felony, yet I don't see anyone going to arrest Kelly. So at best it was a cheap publicity stunt which only came to light once he was called on it, at worst he was making damn sure he had a AR before himself and others in the anti gun agenda make AR pattern rifles illegal.

Purchasing firearms is not nearly as easy as the anti gun crowd likes to make it sound.

.

I don't get it, what did he lie about on his application, so that they denied him the gun, and constitutes a felony? the fact that he wasn't an NRA gun nut?

and also, isn't it true that you can avoid those nasty background checks by just buying privately or at a gun show?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Captain Crunch made a very valid point of police officers being trained to handle firearms. However, he assumes that joe taxpayer is a poor shot, trigger happy and useless in a armed confrontation. As a former member of the Canadian Forces I appreciate his opinion on these things. Surely though he must know that some of the most decorated snipers/soldiers in the field cut their teeth shooting on the farm/backwoods. Carlos Hathcock reinvented the Marine Core sniper by implementing techniques he used hunting as a boy with a .22 rifle. I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure he still holds the record for the Marines Wimbledon Cup, a 1000 yard shooting match which he set as a 18 year old. The guy was a crack shot before he ever entered the marines. A canadian soldier used to hold the longest confirmed kill at 2430m, only recently bested by a British solder by 45 meters. The canadian used to practice long range shooting as a boy and claims he used to shoot flys. Sounds ludicrous, until you see guys drive nails with a rifle over long distances. So I take offense that civillians are useless shooters, and many f class competitors, as well as Olympians and avid sportshooters would as well.

Granted, but since I saw my name mentioned and I have a larger then life ego, I think that I need to revist.

When you talk about civillians using weapons, as far as learning to put bullets on targets that's one thing. I can successfully teach fire arms safety and I can do a relatively good job of teaching someone how to put lead to target.

However that's a long way from teaching a person how to use a fire arm in a chaotic situation and to do it without

A) Killing innocents who are not targets
B) shooting your own toe off
C) something worse.

There is a big difference between target shooting or hunting an animal and using a weapon for self defense in a chaotic situation.

I get that a lot of the really good snipers got an early shot Davy Crockett style, I get that some very good soldiers and cops graduated from hunting in the wilds.

But lets be honest, the whole call to arm teachers and to allow people to walk around with fire arms which they can use if a chaotic situation with a mad shooter erupts to me is ludicris.

I'm sure guys like Undercover and others who have served can attest to the same thing. You can't train someone to react properly with a firearm under stress in days, or weeks or months, you don't even know if someone can handle that kind of a situation until you get them into that situation, or at the very least find a way to simulate that situation realistically.

I knew a lot of guys that were very good shots when they came on board and I was working as an instructor with basic training groups. They could put bullets down range with ease. We taught gun safety out the wazoo and corrected people with a passion when they messed it up so they never did it again.

But seeing and teaching people to react when things start going crazy is another thing and it takes a looong time before you'd ever trust a person in a real situation.

In one of my first exercises in basic where we went up against a trained enemy force, it was the middle of the night, they practically sleep deprived us and ran us ragged and waited until about midnight, we were called to stand too and we jumped into our slit trenches. The enemy forces started chucking in grenade simulators and arty sims to make us extra jumpy and basically snipped at us from a distance. It felt real, and you quickly forgot that it was fake. Then I was told to move to another trench to re-enforce that position, so I left and thought I was doing the right thing. I took my time, made sure I was situational aware. But I came around a tree line and I was face to face with an enemy force guy, and he had the drop on me.

I will admit that at that moment because of my inexperience in this kind of situation, all of my training left me, and I froze for just that second.

Yes, children CaptainCrunch came pretty close to soiling himself when I saw that rifle barrel swing up, and even though he was about 30 yards away that barrel looked like it was 8 yards across. I didn't dive for the grass or behind a tree, or snap shot him. I basically died in that exercise.

But since we were so "lavishly trained over the next few years we learned how to overcome that and depend on our training.

So long story short. I believe completely that unless you take incredibly indepth in the field training and you take massive psychological testing you shouldn't be able to buy a gun that you can take into public. I don't even think you should be allowed to buy anything but a bolt action hunting rifle or a shot gun for hunting.

When the NRA talked about paying for training teachers to carry guns in school I laughed, because teaching someone to shoot at a stationary target that doesn't shoot back or scream or bleed or cry as it dies isn't going to teach someone how to react when some nut bar goes into a school with bad intentions. It won't teach a person to identify who the enemy is and isn't, and it certainly won't teach someone to be able to analyze a situation and make a semi decent decision.

Those people that joined the army that knew how to shoot a gun, they only had one percent of the training required for me to even consider them to be allowed to carry a handgun in public or use it to defend their homes or their schools or whatever, and I'm not even talking about knowing if they're psychologically stable enough to be trusted to do so.

I spent way to much time in the army with guys that thought it was easy, that a gun was the great equalizer because you simply had it and you could aim it. I spent way too much time with pocket rambo's who we had to bring back to earth with the seriousness of what they're doing.

Cops go through massive training and continue to train every day to be able to react to situations and use their weapons properly and they still get it wrong.

Soldiers train almost full time for years and there is a large percentage that still struggle when it gets real.

There's no training that a civilian will want to take in terms of time required and stress level required that would make me comfortable with them basically being a first responder.

For the most part guns are not cars. Guns are designed with the intent of causing bodily harm and death, a car is not. Guns propel bullets at high rates of speed on an uncontrollable trajectory once they leave the barrel. Cars you can constantly control.

I'm probably the most anti-gun conservative your ever going to see.

If your going to accept a right to bear arms then you have to accept that there has to be a responsibility on who has that right and what kind of guns should be allowed

The 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. When the founding fathers wrote it they had no idea that guns would become far more vicious and dangerous then they were back then. They also didn't have a civillian base lifestyle with the density and mental illness awareness that they had now. They also had an armed forces that could be generously called a civillian militia that was equal in arms technology to the average Joe, that's not the case anymore.

Anyways just blathering on now.

[Temporary_User]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ured-1.2553215

Shooting spree in Tamworth, Ont., leaves 2 dead, 2 injured

6 crime scenes involved in small-town shootings, according to Ontario Provincial Police

[jayswin]

^^^^

Wrong country.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by flameswin

^^^^

Wrong country.

It's OK, the guns came from the USA!

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by flameswin

^^^^

Wrong country.

I don't know if you've been following this thread too much but it has really just become a gun thread.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Granted, but since I saw my name mentioned and I have a larger then life ego, I think that I need to revist.

When you talk about civillians using weapons, as far as learning to put bullets on targets that's one thing. I can successfully teach fire arms safety and I can do a relatively good job of teaching someone how to put lead to target.

However that's a long way from teaching a person how to use a fire arm in a chaotic situation and to do it without

A) Killing innocents who are not targets
B) shooting your own toe off
C) something worse.

There is a big difference between target shooting or hunting an animal and using a weapon for self defense in a chaotic situation.

I get that a lot of the really good snipers got an early shot Davy Crockett style, I get that some very good soldiers and cops graduated from hunting in the wilds.

But lets be honest, the whole call to arm teachers and to allow people to walk around with fire arms which they can use if a chaotic situation with a mad shooter erupts to me is ludicris.

I'm sure guys like Undercover and others who have served can attest to the same thing. You can't train someone to react properly with a firearm under stress in days, or weeks or months, you don't even know if someone can handle that kind of a situation until you get them into that situation, or at the very least find a way to simulate that situation realistically.

I knew a lot of guys that were very good shots when they came on board and I was working as an instructor with basic training groups. They could put bullets down range with ease. We taught gun safety out the wazoo and corrected people with a passion when they messed it up so they never did it again.

But seeing and teaching people to react when things start going crazy is another thing and it takes a looong time before you'd ever trust a person in a real situation.

In one of my first exercises in basic where we went up against a trained enemy force, it was the middle of the night, they practically sleep deprived us and ran us ragged and waited until about midnight, we were called to stand too and we jumped into our slit trenches. The enemy forces started chucking in grenade simulators and arty sims to make us extra jumpy and basically snipped at us from a distance. It felt real, and you quickly forgot that it was fake. Then I was told to move to another trench to re-enforce that position, so I left and thought I was doing the right thing. I took my time, made sure I was situational aware. But I came around a tree line and I was face to face with an enemy force guy, and he had the drop on me.

I will admit that at that moment because of my inexperience in this kind of situation, all of my training left me, and I froze for just that second.

Yes, children CaptainCrunch came pretty close to soiling himself when I saw that rifle barrel swing up, and even though he was about 30 yards away that barrel looked like it was 8 yards across. I didn't dive for the grass or behind a tree, or snap shot him. I basically died in that exercise.

But since we were so "lavishly trained over the next few years we learned how to overcome that and depend on our training.

So long story short. I believe completely that unless you take incredibly indepth in the field training and you take massive psychological testing you shouldn't be able to buy a gun that you can take into public. I don't even think you should be allowed to buy anything but a bolt action hunting rifle or a shot gun for hunting.

When the NRA talked about paying for training teachers to carry guns in school I laughed, because teaching someone to shoot at a stationary target that doesn't shoot back or scream or bleed or cry as it dies isn't going to teach someone how to react when some nut bar goes into a school with bad intentions. It won't teach a person to identify who the enemy is and isn't, and it certainly won't teach someone to be able to analyze a situation and make a semi decent decision.

Those people that joined the army that knew how to shoot a gun, they only had one percent of the training required for me to even consider them to be allowed to carry a handgun in public or use it to defend their homes or their schools or whatever, and I'm not even talking about knowing if they're psychologically stable enough to be trusted to do so.

I spent way to much time in the army with guys that thought it was easy, that a gun was the great equalizer because you simply had it and you could aim it. I spent way too much time with pocket rambo's who we had to bring back to earth with the seriousness of what they're doing.

Cops go through massive training and continue to train every day to be able to react to situations and use their weapons properly and they still get it wrong.

Soldiers train almost full time for years and there is a large percentage that still struggle when it gets real.

There's no training that a civilian will want to take in terms of time required and stress level required that would make me comfortable with them basically being a first responder.

For the most part guns are not cars. Guns are designed with the intent of causing bodily harm and death, a car is not. Guns propel bullets at high rates of speed on an uncontrollable trajectory once they leave the barrel. Cars you can constantly control.

I'm probably the most anti-gun conservative your ever going to see.

If your going to accept a right to bear arms then you have to accept that there has to be a responsibility on who has that right and what kind of guns should be allowed

The 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. When the founding fathers wrote it they had no idea that guns would become far more vicious and dangerous then they were back then. They also didn't have a civillian base lifestyle with the density and mental illness awareness that they had now. They also had an armed forces that could be generously called a civillian militia that was equal in arms technology to the average Joe, that's not the case anymore.

Anyways just blathering on now.

Blather on, your input is well thought out and more than welcome.

I get and totally understand the points you make. No amount of civilian training can equate to what you would receive in the military. Even though there are many groups that train civilians for tactical scenarios, self defense or other applications, run by former military personnel. Hell, 1/3 of the US "boots on the ground" funding goes to PMC's. I get that living and breathing military training is something you cannot replicate.

However we are talking about lone active shooters in a public environment. These situations are not being played out in the battlefield against other lawful combatants.

I understand what you are talking about when you explain the urgency, fear and panic in a combat scenario. But to assume civilians are trigger happy, unable to execute judgement in regards to surroundings and the situation at hand isnt fair. People (at least in the US) defend their homes against intruders regularly. Unfortunately. Public shootings being stopped by civilians with good judgement happens as well. Off hand, a shooting at a middle school in Texas (I believe) was stopped by the principal after he SHOWED his handgun to the shooter. He held his fire. Still he was able to diffuse the situation. Another story from a year ago or so, a man shot his neighbor, and after police were called to deal with him he holed himself up against a car and had a standoff with police shooting at them and others. Another neighbor, who had clear view of him and knew nothing was behind the shooter, used his snub nosed revolver to drop the shooter from over 125 yards. Thats an incredible shot. The police claimed the man to be a hero, saying he saved many officers lives that day. I don't have the links to the stories off hand but I can dig them up if you would like.

I think the issue for "the gun lobby" is that concerted efforts are being made to neuter peoples ability, and right to self defense. A bullet travels much faster than a phone call to the police, and they can't be everywhere at once. A man in Ontario, a firearms instructor, lives in a rural area. His neighbor flips out one day, sets fire to his property and threatens to "blow the guys head off" Subsequently police are called, and take over 1.5 hours to arrive. This guy is currently jumping through the legal hoops in order to be able to legally carry his pistol as its obvious the police cannot protect him. So should people just lay down and die because they shouldn't be allowed to have the right to self defense? Should we entrust the police, who in this case are over 1.5 hours away, to protect us?

When you talk about banning all guns except for bolt action rifles and shotguns, are you talking about magazine fed firearms as well? Basically the Australian model? The majority of shotguns used to hunt waterfowl are semi automatic, many hunters use semi autos to take their game every year, and I would guess that over 90-95% of the hunting rifles available in Canada are magazine fed. You would want those banned as well? Basically anything outside of breach actions or single shot bolts? I don't understand why their is such a concerted effort to take away semi auto rifles as if they are the pinnacle of the gun controls ire. The recent navy yard shooting was committed with a typical rem 870 pump shotgun. The most common shotgun in the world. Should we ban those too?

I guess I don't understand why the anti gun lobby thinks its imperative to go after so called assault rifles. Especially when they make up but a fraction of gun crimes committed in the US. Millions of them are present on NA soil and they are simply not a problem. Mental health and social issues need to be examined before draconian bans are placed on certain firearms. Tighter border security for example would help reduce the gross amount of illegal handguns being transported into Canada. These guns make up the vast majority of gun crime in Canada, yet imposing more laws in Canada that hurt the law abiding do NOTHING to stop this, or stop the main issue, which is the criminal element.

Captain Crunch I appreciate your opinion and even though my reply may not seem like it I do agree with you. No amount of training can replicate or prepare people for the kind of things you have trained for in the military. Agree 100%. However I do not agree that confiscation or banning of firearms is the answer.

One other quick question I have for you. You say you support the banning of all firearms outside of bolt action rifles and shotguns. What are your thoughts on collectors who have historic models and have invested a great deal of time and money into their investments. Say for example, the magazine fed Lee Enfield, perhaps the most common and available centerfire sporting rifle in Canada? The M1 Garand? A firearm designed by a Canadian which General Patton proclaimed as the greatest tool ever used in the field, which he attributed to the winning of the second World war?

[Shnabdabber]

For those of you who still believe you have property rights in Canada, and those that claim registration doesn't lead to confiscation...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...ifle-1.2554372

So the 2000 or so owners of a 4000$ non restricted rifle are now required to just turn them over to the RCMP for destruction, because... well they said so. No compensation (which is a farce anyways, who pays for that??) just turn em over and go on pretending that you have property rights in Canada. What a joke.

A legally obtained piece of property, by legal gun owners, which has been available in Canada for almost 13 years, approved by the RCMP's firearms lab, which has never been used in the act of a crime in this country, is now deemed prohibited and illegal. A estimated $8,000,000 (not including accessories) worth of legally obtained Canadian property has been stolen by the RCMP with the stroke of a pen. And since no compensation has been offered (again, which is a joke) the RCMP recommend owners go after the dealer which they purchased the rifle from for compensation. Which would in effect have the potential to bankrupt private businesses.

RCMP, getting two birds stoned at once with this one.

But thank god, I couldn't sleep at night knowing these rifles were out there.

[DuffMan]

Hello Shnabdabber, can you answer these.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I don't get it, what did he lie about on his application, so that they denied him the gun, and constitutes a felony? the fact that he wasn't an NRA gun nut?

and also, isn't it true that you can avoid those nasty background checks by just buying privately or at a gun show? .

[CaptainCrunch]

I'll try to respond to your points

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Blather on, your input is well thought out and more than welcome.

I get and totally understand the points you make. No amount of civilian training can equate to what you would receive in the military. Even though there are many groups that train civilians for tactical scenarios, self defense or other applications, run by former military personnel. Hell, 1/3 of the US "boots on the ground" funding goes to PMC's. I get that living and breathing military training is something you cannot replicate.

However we are talking about lone active shooters in a public environment. These situations are not being played out in the battlefield against other lawful combatants.

I don't have a trust in any situation where a deadly weapon is in play if the training isn't highly consistent and completely thorough.

I guess that's a big problem that I have with private companies of different sorts doing the training, especially with the training intending on letting people use fire arms outside of hunting or target shooting situations.

We all know that private companies will cut corners to make profit, that's why they're in business, so you either have to force a consistant curriculum on all of them, or create this huge bureaucracy to make sure that the standards are being met.

And chances are that I still wouldn't be all that comfortable with people carrying guns around in public or teachers being armed in schools etc.

Here's the other question with that. Lets say that we got a consistent program throughout all the schools, the next logical step would have to be a created and linked database to make sure that the people that failed these courses or showed instability mentally wouldn't be able to buy fire arms. As well, if you want to make me comfortable, make every first time gun buyer under go a psychiatric evaluation, the results of which are publicly available to gun vendors and the police.

What I am talking about is a proper and in depth certification program before you're allowed to carry a fire arm in public.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I understand what you are talking about when you explain the urgency, fear and panic in a combat scenario. But to assume civilians are trigger happy, unable to execute judgement in regards to surroundings and the situation at hand isnt fair. People (at least in the US) defend their homes against intruders regularly. Unfortunately. Public shootings being stopped by civilians with good judgement happens as well. Off hand, a shooting at a middle school in Texas (I believe) was stopped by the principal after he SHOWED his handgun to the shooter. He held his fire. Still he was able to diffuse the situation. Another story from a year ago or so, a man shot his neighbor, and after police were called to deal with him he holed himself up against a car and had a standoff with police shooting at them and others. Another neighbor, who had clear view of him and knew nothing was behind the shooter, used his snub nosed revolver to drop the shooter from over 125 yards. Thats an incredible shot. The police claimed the man to be a hero, saying he saved many officers lives that day. I don't have the links to the stories off hand but I can dig them up if you would like.

I think that this is a bit of cherry picking though, you've picked stories with happy endings. We've seen stories of home defenses that have gone horribly wrong. We've also seen stories of missed bullets killing innocent people. It just goes to logic that if you increase the number of people carrying guns out there that think its ok to intervene that the number of tragedies will probably outstrip the success stories, because the number of incompetent or mentally un prepared people outstrip the number of people that are capable.

I know that its sounding like I'm punishing the good because of the bad, but when your dealing with a weapon designed to fire a round at sub to super sonic speed with no control when it leaves the barrel I think discretion is the better part of valor.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I think the issue for "the gun lobby" is that concerted efforts are being made to neuter peoples ability, and right to self defense. A bullet travels much faster than a phone call to the police, and they can't be everywhere at once. A man in Ontario, a firearms instructor, lives in a rural area. His neighbor flips out one day, sets fire to his property and threatens to "blow the guys head off" Subsequently police are called, and take over 1.5 hours to arrive. This guy is currently jumping through the legal hoops in order to be able to legally carry his pistol as its obvious the police cannot protect him. So should people just lay down and die because they shouldn't be allowed to have the right to self defense? Should we entrust the police, who in this case are over 1.5 hours away, to protect us?

Thats more an issue with enforcement and policing then anything else. I get what your saying, and I don't really have a great answer to this without putting in some more thought.

But the questions that I have. This neighbor clearly had issues, in a perfect world he shouldn't be allowed to own a fire arm, now that's not necessarily going to happen, we've seen people spontaneously snap. But don't you think that a proper gun owner certification protocol instead of everyone can own a gun because of right to self defense would reduce the rage induced I'm going to solve my problems with this now conveniently owned gun?

But the answer besides the above is looking at rural policing is handled. but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

When you talk about banning all guns except for bolt action rifles and shotguns, are you talking about magazine fed firearms as well? Basically the Australian model? The majority of shotguns used to hunt waterfowl are semi automatic, many hunters use semi autos to take their game every year, and I would guess that over 90-95% of the hunting rifles available in Canada are magazine fed. You would want those banned as well? Basically anything outside of breach actions or single shot bolts? I don't understand why their is such a concerted effort to take away semi auto rifles as if they are the pinnacle of the gun controls ire. The recent navy yard shooting was committed with a typical rem 870 pump shotgun. The most common shotgun in the world. Should we ban those too?

I'll grant you this, however we are talking about the differences here between lets say a 3 to 5 round magazine and a 30 round or more magazine which I believe is UN-neccessary. I still don't have a problem with banning semi-automatics.

Take away magazine fed pistols and take away any capacity larger then 10 rounds in a rifle and you're not impacting peoples rights to arm themselves. I don't really see why in hunting a semi auto rifle or a more then 3 to 5 round capacity weapon is necessary.

In terms of self defense, if you're in your house and you hear a noise, your probable first instinct shouldn't be to pick up a gun and go towards the intruder. If someone has broken in to you're house and are armed with a gun, chances are pretty good that they're committed to using it if the circumstances warrant. They're also far more alert then any home owner is. Plus a home is notorious short range territory and there are lots and lots of non lethal alternatives that would work just as well.

Also in terms of home defense a lot of what we see are chasing down and killing the bad guy after he's fled or left the home, I believe I read a comparison of home defense cases where the majority of the deaths to the shootee were actually in the yard or front lawn.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I guess I don't understand why the anti gun lobby thinks its imperative to go after so called assault rifles. Especially when they make up but a fraction of gun crimes committed in the US. Millions of them are present on NA soil and they are simply not a problem. Mental health and social issues need to be examined before draconian bans are placed on certain firearms. Tighter border security for example would help reduce the gross amount of illegal handguns being transported into Canada. These guns make up the vast majority of gun crime in Canada, yet imposing more laws in Canada that hurt the law abiding do NOTHING to stop this, or stop the main issue, which is the criminal element.

Assault style weapons are not designed to be hobby guns, they are designed to put a lot of bullets on target accurately very fast, especially in a semi automatic firing mode. I just really don't see the need for average Joe Citizen to own them. And if it comes around to some kind of evil federal government being fought by plucky insurrectionists holding the constitution in one hand and a M-16 in the other, I'm going to Vegas to lay bets on the government winning.

you are hugely right in terms of border security and going after illegal guns, I also think that there needs to be international pressure on the Chinese and the Indians and the other nations with government controlled weapons manufacturing who don't care where their guns end up and so we see cheap AK-47's and Uzi knockoffs and other weapons turning up in the hands of gang bangers.

I am in full agreement of minimum sentences for gun crimes, I am of a mind set that if your a gang member and you use a gun in a crime we ship you to a prison in the arctic that you don't leave.

I am certainly of the mind set that the American government and the gun lobby's have their priorities completely messed up on this and that the 2nd amendment is in need of a huge update.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Captain Crunch I appreciate your opinion and even though my reply may not seem like it I do agree with you. No amount of training can replicate or prepare people for the kind of things you have trained for in the military. Agree 100%. However I do not agree that confiscation or banning of firearms is the answer.

One other quick question I have for you. You say you support the banning of all firearms outside of bolt action rifles and shotguns. What are your thoughts on collectors who have historic models and have invested a great deal of time and money into their investments. Say for example, the magazine fed Lee Enfield, perhaps the most common and available centerfire sporting rifle in Canada? The M1 Garand? A firearm designed by a Canadian which General Patton proclaimed as the greatest tool ever used in the field, which he attributed to the winning of the second World war?

[/quote]

Do you need to have ammo with the collection?

Do the weapons have to be activated to maintain their value?

Lets ask if they're collections or weapons.

I have no problem with a collection if ammo for some of these weapons is stored off site.

Or you can display with for example the breech block removed and stored in a safe.

But they don't really need to be activated or loaded to be a collector piece.

By now you know, I love military history, and as a habit I like to study weapons of war. I would love to collect tanks and armored vehicles, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to have a fully armed and ready to go T-72 in my garage.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

T-72 in my garage.

Mate, come on, T-34 it changed the world!