Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US

[Abraham Gubler]

I can not help but wonder what those who drafted the 2nd Amendment would think of the situation today.

They’d be outraged that non land owners have a vote for one. Disgusted that New England style participative democracy had spread to the Chesapeake tidewater. And in the Apartheid Deep South pleased that blacks now counted as a full person in the census, so increasing the comparative electoral power of their elites, but violently responding to federal laws demanding they be allowed legal equality.

As to the comparative firepower this has actually moved away from the citizenry. In the 18th century you got a hundred mates together and drilled for a few days and you had the same combat power as an infantry company. There was no sophisticated military technology that couldn’t be replicated by civil communities, even warships. The only difference was there was far less surplus wealth to easily keep military units in permanent readiness.

 

[ADMk2]

I think this video pretty much sums it up :

Please stop blaming inanimate objects and the media for acts of violence like in Conneticut.

Of course, because it's not the inanimate objects that are physically hurling hundreds of copper jacketed lead projectiles at velocities of up to 3200 feet per second (and in some cases beyond).

It's people doing that...

For those who still think rapid rates of fire can't be undertaken from a "semi-auto" weapon, here you go.

Froglube Persistence Test: 300+ Round, Rapid Fire AR-15 Torture Test - YouTube

In one minute, (between 1:57 and 2:57 on the video) 150 rounds from 5x 30rnd mags from a Bushmaster lower and custom upper receiver...

Thinking that someone with practically the same weapon and a 100 round mag (ie: no mag changes) couldn't achieve 90rnds a minute (without magazine failure) is ludicrous.

 

[webmaster]

I don't want to drag this any further, we all face situations and challenges which require us to make a choice. In this case, to have a gun, to arm yourself or not to arm yourself in order to protect yourself and your family/house in face of a potential threat.

It is apparent that those living outside USA do not and will not understand the importance of US constitution, the bill of rights and what they mean to the citizens of United States. There is no country in the world which can replicate that and in my opinion, people here will fight tooth and nail to protect those rights. If someone is born with the idea, the notion that you are suppose to keep your guns, the means to protect yourself in an armory far away, then you would be okay with that in your adulthood. The 2nd amendment was not only designed to allow people to defend against criminal thugs but also against criminal, authoritarian government. We in the USA are at a point where police power of the government cannot grow any bigger until it takes away peoples right to keep arms and means to defend themselves against a threat.

As I said earlier, I rather defend myself than die and become a victim of a crime. I guess the question you should ask yourself is that, would you defend your family or allow someone to cause harm to them and go down in history as a statistic? Its a choice, knowing full well that you could have defended your home if you had a weapon.

Now to possible solutions:

Self defense and those who go on mass killing spree are two different things and those two should not be confused with each other. Why do certain individuals go on a rampage and kill random people? Its not about access to weapon, its the will, need and desire to kill random people. What causes that? Not availability of the gun. Availability of the gun is as much cause of that as the car being driven when someone decides to get behind the wheel and kills bunch of people on the road in the process. In both cases, mental health of the person is degraded.

I often wonder why don't these mass shootings happen in other countries (not UK or Australia) but those in the 3rd world? Where availability of the gun is not a problem, where licensing, paperwork does not mean anything. India? Central Asia? Pakistan (AK-47s being made in Qeutta comes to mind, freely available)? East Asia? In schools? They maybe 3rd world but their family system, social system is not as broken as the one we have here in the USA. Their kids don't play reality killing games, don't watch violent rap music videos and movies. They don't know what things like stress, depression are and if they do feel it, the cure is found in meditation, herbs and prayer and most importantly communicating it with their family, friends and social circle rather than drugs and pills. Unfortunately, many kids here have 500+ friends on facebook but they are still lonely, feel alone and can't talk to anyone who could help them.

I could go on and on about this but why? People make the decision to arm themselves or not to arm themselves and they will have to live with that choice forever if something terrible happens.

I was at a gun shop the other day (yes I bought a gun) and the store was packed! Everyone (all races, colors and ages) was looking at guns, those that the store still had on the racks (most of the autos were gone, some bolt action left) so I think people sense that Obamagoons are coming after their guns.


I will close with this:
Sen. Feinstein in 1995: 'I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did'

Boy, you better pray to be as lucky as Sen. Feinstien was if a criminal thug decides to bomb and rob your home!

 

[John Newman]

I’ve been sitting here reading the comments for the last few days and all I can do is shake my head.

Americans are outraged, and rightly so, when their citizens are the victims of foreign terrorism, in or outside of its borders, they demand a response from their Government to act.

On the other hand when their citizens, and especially children, are regularly slaughtered in droves by their own people in their own Country, nothing happens, it’s just madness, complete madness.

Whatever new restrictions that come out of the Newtown slaughter will be mere window dressing and sadly it will probably take many more mass shootings before any meaningful action is finally taken, if ever.

As others have pointed out, when the gun laws were changed here in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre 16 years ago, we haven’t had a repeat of that type of mass shooting.

Yes the gun lobby jumped up and down, collector friends of mine jumped up and down about having to hand in certain types of guns, but here we are 16 years later, the Sun comes up every morning and goes down every night and the world didn’t end!

My friends that belong to pistol clubs or go recreational shooting, still do so, it’s just that they don’t have military style weapons in their possession anymore, and I’m not “anti gun” either, I’ve owned guns in the past too.

In fact I think most Australian’s do feel safer now, knowing that high powered military style weapons aren’t scattered around their communities anymore.

Yes gun crime still exists, that won’t be stopped, but the thought that someone will go nuts and blast the crap out of everyone nearby with an AK47 or M16 or the like, is gone.

Some of the extreme comments about how do US Citizens protect themselves if guns are banned? Well, isn’t that the job of the Police in a modern first world society?

This fanatical attitude, (as it appears to the outside world), about the right to bear arms, about it being written into the Constitution, well yes, perfectly valid 200 years ago when people were living in log cabins in the middle of nowhere, perfectly valid when guns were the simple things they were then.

The idea of arming school teachers too, crazy! So what happens when a teacher goes nuts and blows away their classroom full of children? Go to the next level? Have armed guards sitting in the back corner of every classroom? Have every hallway posted with armed guards and the playgrounds too?

When is enough enough? What is the solution?

Sadly there probably is none. When you have a population of 310 million and almost as many guns as people, it’s probably too late, unless there is consensus by the majority of the population to rid themselves of the extreme types of guns in their midst.

Somehow the debate needs to be had where Americans ask themselves do they really need to have weapons of such power and in such quantities in their communities.

If the US could do something like Australia in banning those particular types weapons and the Nation as a whole accepted it, well that would be a start.

Otherwise in 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months, or whenever, we will no doubt be sitting down to watching the latest slaughter on the evening news and asking the same questions again.

John


PS, below is a link regarding the Port Arthur massacre and it’s after affects:

Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And in a bit of a bizarre connection, something I just realised in this discussion about the shooting in “Newtown”, Connecticut, Martin Bryant, the shooter at Port Arthur, came from the suburb of “New Town” in Hobart.

 

[Eeshaan]

I’d much prefer to be accosted by a crazy whose inanimate object is a wet lettuce rather than a Glock 17.

OK that was hilarious lol

But humour aside, it's not the gun that's to blame, it the person who's firing it. The bet course of action in my opinion would be to rectify the circumstances that caused said person to go bonkers.

It's a social problem. And rectifying this is the hard part...

 

[John Newman]

OK that was hilarious lol

But humour aside, it's not the gun that's to blame, it the person who's firing it. The bet course of action in my opinion would be to rectify the circumstances that caused said person to go bonkers.

It's a social problem. And rectifying this is the hard part...

People are always going to go "bonkers" as you suggested, and there is never a guarantee that someone will be around to see that or rectify it.

But what if, and this may be a concept that you find hard to acknowledge, that when they went "bonkers" they didn't have access to such high powered weapons??

What then?

Yes they may do something extreme, yes some people may get hurt or killed, but if they didn't have access to the types of weapons that this guy did, eg, used the Newtown massacre, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes its true the "gun" itself isnt to blame, but the fact he had access to the "types" of guns allowed him to slaughter as many people as he did, including the class full of 5 and 6 year olds!!!!!

 

[old faithful]

Now I'm feeling like a broken record.
I'm suggesting that semi auto,s and auto,s, need special'permits and storage conditions. an example might be semi auto rifle stored with the bolt removed, and bolt stored in a safe.

Ownership of bolt action/lever action, side by side and O/U shotguns, just need to be registered.

Pistol shooters need to belong to an approved club, and used at meets regularly at that club, and stored in a gun safe at home when not in use.

If your hand gun is stolen from your home, because it wasn't in a safe, you lose your permit. Pistol to be presented at time of permit renewal.

Concealed carrige for people deemed nessasary in their employment only.

You can defend your home with Boito coach gun better than with a pistol.

This would still allow you "the right to bear arms". (Conditions apply)

 

[Todjaeger]

Now I'm feeling like a broken record.
I'm suggesting that semi auto,s and auto,s, need special'permits and storage conditions. an example might be semi auto rifle stored with the bolt removed, and bolt stored in a safe.

Ownership of bolt action/lever action, side by side and O/U shotguns, just need to be registered.

Pistol shooters need to belong to an approved club, and used at meets regularly at that club, and stored in a gun safe at home when not in use.

If your hand gun is stolen from your home, because it wasn't in a safe, you lose your permit. Pistol to be presented at time of permit renewal.

Concealed carrige for people deemed nessasary in their employment only.

You can defend your home with Boito coach gun better than with a pistol.

This would still allow you "the right to bear arms". (Conditions apply)

And again, this suggestion demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of existing US law and the US legal system.

In a number of jurisdictions there are storage requirements, like firearms need to be stored unloaded, trigger/chamber/hammer locking mechanisms employed while in storage, storage within a locked/secured container (like a gun safe). What is legal varies from state to state, as the respective State and not Federal law has jurisdiction.

As for weapons being registered... Again, that tends to be a local/state matter and not a Federal one. Exchanges of firearms from licensed firearms dealers are registered with the Federal government, but in terms of individuals being required to register what they have/own, most states maintain some sort of firearms registration, but the only time registration is required is again when a dealer is conducting a purchase or sale. Mandatory participation in a national firearms registry would again run into a number of Constitutional issues, in part because authority not specifically set aside for the Federal government devolves to the individual state governments. It is for this reason that the individual states have their own (similar) drivers licenses and motor vehicle registrations, as the power to regulate motor vehicles and drivers/driving remains with the states.

Also, many of the individual states have additional stipulations on what is, and what is not, legal with that specific state. Take the State of New Jersey for instance, where possession of hollowpoint ammunition is only legal for on-duty LEO's. Or in California, where a ban on new sales of rifles with detachable magazines has been in place for some time.

As for the permit process for handgun and/or concealed carry, that again is a state or in some cases even, a local matter, not a Federal one. The various states set what their respective requirements are to get the permit, and also which states they will have permit reciprocity agreements with, if any. Where Federal law becomes involved, is that due to how the 2nd Amendment is being interpretted, states are being required to have some mechanism for citizens to have a firearm. For many years, Illinois had been without a handgun permit, so that only some very specific categories of resident could legally own a handgun. IIRC apart from law enforcement and possibly military personnel, licensed private investigators and guards could own handguns. Recently Illinois has lost legal challenges to their lack of a permit process, and the state is now being required to setup something. The other state which currently lacks a permit process is Vermont, and that is because Vermont does not require people to have a permit to carry in the state. The only people who are not allowed to carry a handun (concealed or not) are convicted felons and/or those adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective.

 

[John Newman]

And again, this suggestion demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of existing US law and the US legal system.

In a number of jurisdictions there are storage requirements, like firearms need to be stored unloaded, trigger/chamber/hammer locking mechanisms employed while in storage, storage within a locked/secured container (like a gun safe). What is legal varies from state to state, as the respective State and not Federal law has jurisdiction.

As for weapons being registered... Again, that tends to be a local/state matter and not a Federal one. Exchanges of firearms from licensed firearms dealers are registered with the Federal government, but in terms of individuals being required to register what they have/own, most states maintain some sort of firearms registration, but the only time registration is required is again when a dealer is conducting a purchase or sale. Mandatory participation in a national firearms registry would again run into a number of Constitutional issues, in part because authority not specifically set aside for the Federal government devolves to the individual state governments. It is for this reason that the individual states have their own (similar) drivers licenses and motor vehicle registrations, as the power to regulate motor vehicles and drivers/driving remains with the states.

Also, many of the individual states have additional stipulations on what is, and what is not, legal with that specific state. Take the State of New Jersey for instance, where possession of hollowpoint ammunition is only legal for on-duty LEO's. Or in California, where a ban on new sales of rifles with detachable magazines has been in place for some time.

As for the permit process for handgun and/or concealed carry, that again is a state or in some cases even, a local matter, not a Federal one. The various states set what their respective requirements are to get the permit, and also which states they will have permit reciprocity agreements with, if any. Where Federal law becomes involved, is that due to how the 2nd Amendment is being interpretted, states are being required to have some mechanism for citizens to have a firearm. For many years, Illinois had been without a handgun permit, so that only some very specific categories of resident could legally own a handgun. IIRC apart from law enforcement and possibly military personnel, licensed private investigators and guards could own handguns. Recently Illinois has lost legal challenges to their lack of a permit process, and the state is now being required to setup something. The other state which currently lacks a permit process is Vermont, and that is because Vermont does not require people to have a permit to carry in the state. The only people who are not allowed to carry a handun (concealed or not) are convicted felons and/or those adjudicated mentally incompetent/defective.

Very informative.

Doesn't this prove that there should be a uniform National approach to this issue?

Having laws that are extremely different, or contradictory to your own State, compared to the State that may be next to yours is almost like living next door to a different Country altogether!!

Yes, as in Australia, across the board in a range of things, not specifically gun law, we have different laws/requirements from state to state.

But seriously, on an issue such as this, don't you think the US Federal Government needs to sit down with all the States and produce a standard law, regardless of which State you live in??

 

[old faithful]

This discusion and others elsewhere, have really opened my eyes and mind, and although I have considered Americans a little naive in the past, I have lost some respect for the USA.

I will continue to watch and see what happens, but think I will read all this again after the next mass killing done by some idiôt with a gun he should not have had easy access to.u

 

[John Newman]

This discusion and others elsewhere, have really opened my eyes and mind, and although I have considered Americans a little naive in the past, I have lost some respect for the USA.

I will continue to watch and see what happens, but think I will read all this again after the next mass killing done by some idiôt with a gun he should not have had easy access to.u

Old Faithful,

I must say I'm feeling a bit like you, not really sure or comfortable about some of the opinions expressed here and elsewhere too.

I would have thought that on a forum like DT that the thoughts and comments would have been more in the middle ground, but they are not.

From an Australian's point of view, I suppose we have our "red necks" too, as every country does, (living in Sydney with 4.5 million people, we have our fair share!), but I just would have thought that on an issue like this that people would put all the "I have the right to bear arms" bit behind them for the greater good of finding a solution to the regular and ongoing slaughter of their own people.

Bit sad really, and yes, it will be interesting to read this again after the next mass shooting happens.

 

[RobWilliams]

You can ban weapons all you want, make us fight our wars with sticks & stones ( like Einstein once predicted), that isn’t going to change anything unless the effort is made to mend our own society. Blaming it simply on guns & “closing the case” like that is just looking for an easy way out. Just sharing my 2 cents here.

Einstein made that prediction based on that the next world war will be so destructive (fairly sure it was post Hiroshima) that the human race will have to resort to using primitive tools, its why he says "I know not which weapons the next war will be fought, bit the next will be fought with sticks and stones", its not word perfect as im at work but its definitely words to that effect.

Shoehorning the second part of that into a case of civil liberties suggesting he knew 'liberties' would be taken away is incredibly manipulative of what the man said.

 

[Waylander]

Centering this discussion on the idea that any weapon is just a tool and that in the end it's all about the person committing the crime seems very oversimplyfied to me.

In the end it's also the terrorist bombing the crap out of some soft target and not the explosives he uses. Why do we restrict access to explosives when everything one needs to address is the person itself and it's urge to kill evil westerners?
Or why can't I buy a couple of bouncing bettys and claymores for home defense?

Nutjobs will always exist and because of this one needs to restrict their access to tools with which they can kill a huge number of innocents.

@TodJaeger
You seem to want a solution without fundamentally changing the status quo, which IMO is impossible.

 

[Volkodav]

I’d much prefer to be accosted by a crazy whose inanimate object is a wet lettuce rather than a Glock 17.

Maybe thats the solution, an education program where we attempt to convince the crazies that leaf vegetables are more suitable for mass killings than firearms. Just employ the same people the oil and cigarette companies use to discredit actions against their interests.

 

[Volkodav]

On a more serious note how about some real data, comparisons on the effectiveness of the different laws and different requirements within different jurisdictions in the US. Look at what you are already doing and how it is or is not working. The US has the brains, the tools and the ability to collect and crunch the data so as to gain a true, unbiased view of what is happening where and determine a way forward from there.

On arming teachers to defend themselves I seriously doubt it would work based on real life examples of what can happen when trained professionals find them selves out gunned.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout"]1986 FBI Miami shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

and

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout"]North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

which is also said to be a reason behind California’s tighter gun laws, if the police are being out gunned then restrict the criminals access to specific types of weapons.

 

[Marc 1]

While the intention was to solicit potential solutions which would be viable in the US, the results have been disappointing to say the least.

I guess you find it dissapointing because there is no easy answer. Yes Eesahan in his post was correct in part - we probably do need better family networks etc, but the tone of that you tube link he posted to me sounded like we should all go back to the 1950's where mum stayed home, and home looked like the Brady bunch. So which one of you guys has the balls to tell 150 million US mom's their place is in the home making cookies for the kids? Is that idea even economically sound? Sounds like some christian right wing push to bring back an idealised world where mum and dad stayed together for the good of the family despite dad beating his missus every night.

Eesahan is also correct that weapons don't kill people, people kill people. If he honestly believes that message he should be campaigning to legalise the sale of high and low explosive, det cord and primers as well as biological agents from the local walmart - after all if high powered weapons aren't to blame, nor are these items.

It could be pointed out that cars kill - why don't we ban cars ( I have seen it in similar debates) - at least cars have a daily utility. Assault weapons do too - if you happen to be in uniform depolyed to Afganistan. Other than that there are very few people in society that would have a need to operate semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities.

I suppose the reason for the dissapointing comments is that to be realistic the only really effective means to fix the issue is to ban these weapons. We can make suggestions about pouring billions of dollars into mental health care (if you thing Obama care is a hard sell, try getting the right wing to support that), we could even suggest mum goes back to making cookies at home (the only thing more difficult than mental health Obamacare would be telling a dyed in the wool feminist that we are going back to the 1950's) OR you can take the only logical path and take away the tools these nutbags use to commit these attrocities. There will always be nutbags, there will always still be mentally unbalanced people killing people with cars, suicide by cop, by knife hell even nutjobs with enought technical knowledge to make a home made flame thrower - lets try and make it difficult for the mentally unbalanced to kill in large numbers.

Even if it were possible to screen out the mentally unbalanced from owning weapons - this most recent nutbag took his mum's weapons. I don't see any other solution other than banning the damn things.

It is not impossible - as you have pointed out there have been amendments made to the constitution - it just requires politicians with enough balls and the will of the populace to make it a reality. Until America accepts this, sadly we will see more of these mass shootings. Eventually, I see this going one of two ways because as POTUS has said we cannot sit and do nothing:

1. Common sense will prevail and these unnecessary weapons will be banned; or

2. You go the way of the NRA (the webmaster approach) where you just have to make sure you have the bigger stick - schools with armed guards equipped with semi automatics would be parity - so you'd need to go with a belt fed weapon for each guard. The average carjacker/store robber would need to upgrade, so would the store owners etc. Where would the 'arms race' between criminals and the public end? Between two superpowers the endgame was Mutually Assured Destruction - that seems to have put a cap on things nicely. Do we all have to wear a suicide vest with a dead mans switch to ensure that if someone was to try and rob me that I could ensure it would be a no win situation for the robber? OK, the last point is ridiculous but the point is upgunning ain't going to work (and the collateral damage from such a program - UD's, kids touching what they shouldn't etc would be the hidden additional cost. A copper here in Australia within the last few years accidentally shot and killed a fellow officer cleaning or unloading their service weapon back at the station).

So again, keeping in mind recommendations need to be viable within the context of the US, do people have solutions? If not, then perhaps it would be better to close this thread.

The people on here as a whole are a moderately intelligent bunch mostly capable of rational discussion. As this is a military forum, I'd hazard a guess most are not weed smoking hippies wanting world wide peace (hell, the idea of thermobaric munitions give me a chubby - when used in the right circumstances), but if the rest of the world seems to be giving the opinion that the US needs to confront the situation, I guess you have a couple of options. Close down the thread because you didn't get the answers you were seeking (and we'll sadly see another massacre in the future) OR, get on the blower to your local congressman and start advocating for change. As has been pointed out - we are not suggesting the second amendment be repealed - we are suggesting the populous has the right to bare arms - JUST NOT SEMI AUTO's with banana mags.

That's me done (except for post 78)./rant

 

[ADMk2]

Maybe thats the solution, an education program where we attempt to convince the crazies that leaf vegetables are more suitable for mass killings than firearms. Just employ the same people the oil and cigarette companies use to discredit actions against their interests.

Or a viciously sharp slice of mango...

 

[Marc 1]

In a number of jurisdictions there are storage requirements, like firearms need to be stored unloaded, trigger/chamber/hammer locking mechanisms employed while in storage, storage within a locked/secured container (like a gun safe). What is legal varies from state to state, as the respective State and not Federal law has jurisdiction.

Question - how does this fit with Webmaster's idea that it is better to be able to defend yourself? If some armed moron does break in to your home - you may have 30 seconds to a minute to react. If your weapon is stored in a gun safe, in an unloaded state in a different room in the house (or do we now propose there be a gun safe upstairs in the bedroom and another downstairs in the den?). Are you going to be able to locate the key/operate the combination lock, grab the weapon, take the trigger lock off the weapon, load it and then confront the burglar? Seems fairly unlikely.

If I lived in a high crime spot here in Oz, the most likely weapon a burglar would have is a knife - I can legally keep a cricket bat under my bed without a need to keep it in a gun safe etc. Funnily enough, there is no need to register my cricket bat, I cannot accidentally shoot and kill one of my family when oiling it and there will be no collateral damage if I swing and miss the intruder apart from some damaged gyprock - unlike a gun. Can you imagine how you would feel having one of your own bullets miss the intruder, go through the hallway wall and kill your own child. That's what happens in a civilised society where not every bad guy has a gun.

 

[Todjaeger]

Very informative.

Doesn't this prove that there should be a uniform National approach to this issue?

Having laws that are extremely different, or contradictory to your own State, compared to the State that may be next to yours is almost like living next door to a different Country altogether!!

Yes, as in Australia, across the board in a range of things, not specifically gun law, we have different laws/requirements from state to state.

But seriously, on an issue such as this, don't you think the US Federal Government needs to sit down with all the States and produce a standard law, regardless of which State you live in??

Not speaking specifically to firearms, but the right for states to self-regulate themselves is included in, and pre-dates the Constitution. The Constitution was created because the prior "national" government was too weak to manage interstate issues, due to specific weaknesses with the Articles of Confederacy. Even after passage of the Constitution, many across the US felt it was better to have a weak Federal government, and strong state governments, with power resting largely with the state governments and not the Federal government. This disageement on the distribution of power between the Federal government vs. State rights erupted in the American Civil War. Even after the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865 with a Union (Federal) victory, the 13th through the 15th Amendments which were ratified between 1865 and 1869, still left in place the state right to self-regulate unless what was being regulated was something reserved for the Federal government.

Now it would be possible for there to be a uniform, national system setup to regulate firearms, but that is back to requiring an amendment to the Constitution.

@TodJaeger
You seem to want a solution without fundamentally changing the status quo, which IMO is impossible.

What I am really looking for is potential solutions which do not require drastic changes to US law because I feel that even after what occurred in at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is insufficient support nationally for many (perhaps most) of the suggested changes. Or potentially even worse, enough national support could be garnered to push the laws/amendments through, but not enough support for people to abide by the changes. In effect a repeat of the widespread disregard paid the to 18th Amendment (Prohibition), but instead of the contraband material being alcohol, it is firearms.

It is not really a question of whether things are acceptable as they are now. They are not. The question is what changes that can be made, or what could be done differently, that would successfully have an impact.

which is also said to be a reason behind California’s tighter gun laws, if the police are being out gunned then restrict the criminals access to specific types of weapons.

One of the other concerns about the impact of gun control is whether there would be any real effect on criminals in the first place. A friend of mine in the NYPD was involved in an arrest recently where he seized a fully automatic 9 mm machine pistol. He ended up getting commended by BATFE agents for the seizure of a weapon which was illegal under NYC, NY State and Federal law. Yet still the firearm ended up within the confines of the Island of Manhattan... Additional gun control laws would not have done much, simply because the existing laws were already being broken. Going further with that, the existing gun control laws were also being broken during the Christmas Eve shooting death of two volunteer firefighters in Webster, NY because the shooter was a convicted felon and it was already illegal for him to have access to firearms.

One set of statistics which I would be interested in finding out (if it is even known) is what % of the ~280 - 300 mil. firearms within the US are illegal, along with a breakdown of which states or even cities have what % of illegal firearms. Going further with that would be to find out what % of firearms are used in the commission of a crime, and what % are used in the commission of a violent crime or shooting. Lastly would be to examine what % of illegal firearms started out as legal firearms, and what caused them to become illegal (i.e. were they stolen, given illegal modifications, illegally transported, transported to an area with different laws, etc.)

Something worth noting is why Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has put so much effort into gun controls. A significant portion (~80% IIRC) of illegal firearms seized by the NYPD within the Five Boroughs were at one point legally purchased from one of a handful of gun stores within Virginia or West Virginia. The number was enough of a statistical anomaly for investigations to be launched to see if these stores were illegally supplying criminal elements with firearms.

Really the goal of this thread has been to generate ways to keep people who would trigger active shooter incidents from being able to do so. So far, the suggestions have largely revolved around reducing the total legal, supply and access to firearms. Are there any other suggestions? Are there suggestions on how to address the supply of and access to illegal firearms? What about suggestions on how to harden potential soft targets, or would that merely cause potential shooters to pick other soft targets? Any thoughts on how to ID potential shooters, prior to them stepping onto the path which leads to an incident?

 

[Gremlin29]

This has been interesting thread, to see how matters are viewed elsewhere.

There seems to be an almost hysteria over military style rifles with their powerful cartridge and large ammo carrying capacity. According to the FBI's most recent statistics on homicides in the US (2010) of the 12,000+ murders committed that year roughly 350 were committed with a rifle. They don't specify what type of rifle however we do know that a percentage will be bolt action rifles. More than twice that many people were killed with bare hands! Alternatively over 6,000 were killed with a handgun. I would presume (I am a presumptuous bastard) that a percentage of the 350 rifle deaths would have been committed with a shotgun or handgun if all rifles were banned or simply did not exist. Banning miltiary "style" rifles is going to have very little impact in the gun related homicides in this country. The assault weapon ban solution reminds me of a wooden device they sell at art festivals. You turn a crank and all sorts of things spin and whirl but that's about it, there is no output. It is usually called a bullsh*t machine. Seems to me a more significant change would occur by banning handguns altogether?