Mass shooting of the day

[Beebs52]

There was one Democrat who voted nay. The partisan split in the vote makes it plain that the NRA owns the Republican Party.

Sooo...who owns the Democrats then? Everytown? The Brady Campaign? The Daily Kos? It's not fair to suggest that there are shadowy figures behind your political opponents without acknowledging that there are major political organizations behind your point of view. It's intellectually dishonest. Maybe...just maybe...all the Republicans voted that way because...that's the way all the Republicans feel about the issue.

Gee, who could be behind the Democrats? Someone who want to keep Americans alive and healthy? There must be some secret agenda to that.

Gosh. Soros, Mr. Fossil fuel?

[silverscreenselect]

Here's an editorial in the USA Today about the myth of the "good guy with a gun." Of course, the author of this doesn't have nearly the expertise in actual combat conditions as people like Ted Cruz, Newt Gingrich (who visited a lot of decades-old battlefields but deferred his way out of Vietnam), and BiT. But it's something worth considering:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /77108230/

If a "good guy with a gun" had been in the complex at San Bernardino and tried to use it, the body count could have been even higher.

[TheConfessor]

Jordan Klepper went through the training and is now a good guy with a gun.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... -shootings

[ghostjmf]

In the shootout in Watertown when the police had the Marathon Bombers cornered, one cop was shot & almost bled to death. Quite literally. He lost a massive amount of blood. 80%, something like that, I heard at the time. I should be looking it up I guess. He was transfused & revived & is walking around today. The consensus is that he was a victim of "friendly fire". The only bad guys there were the bombers. The only guys besides the bombers shooting, if they were at all (they were certainly armed, they'd killed an MIT campus cop earlier that night); mostly they were reported as lobbing bombs which did not go off, were various groups of police from Watertown & neighboring towns, all good guys, all highly trained. They managed to hit one of their own, though there doesn't seem to be any desire to prosecute whoever did it, not that it could be easily determined in that hail of bullets anyway.


And as has been well documented, one of the bombers managed to escape, hide in a boat in the neighborhood, write various manifestos, reportedly in his own blood, on the inside of the backyard-parked boat in which he was hiding, & only get captured the next day when the boat's owner noticed stuff looked displaced. Despite a previous massive search of the area by the good guys. The boat was just outside the perimeter they had searched.


A lot of Watertown residents are on record as saying how its a miracle they weren't hit by stray bullets. A lot of property was shot up. None of the Watertown residents, that I have ever heard or read, at any rate, are saying "the police should have cooled it rather than shoot up the neighborhood". They are all happy the bombers were cornered, 1 killed (presumably by his own brother running him over in that brother's escape, though I've never read that that's definitive; sure looks like it), 1 eventually captured.


I don't see how poorly trained amateurs with guns would have helped this situation any.


I am happy the San Bernardino shooters were taken down in an area without bystander casualties. If there had been shooting back by good guys, of any degree of training, in the building where the bad guys were shooting, sad to say there might have been more good guy casualties.

I am sure the people in that building would have liked the quick police response to be even quicker than it was, even so. But a police response is what is needed, not a vigilante on premises.

[flockofseagulls104]

Who we gonna believe?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... s-plummet/

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.

Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.

Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?

[ten96lt]

I don't see how poorly trained amateurs with guns would have helped this situation any.

You're assuming the amateurs do not practice as much as a cop or that the cops maintain their marksmanship better than a civilian.

If you knew how often a typical cop practices, you'd have as much faith in your standard cop as you would a civilian. Marksmanship is a skill that requires practice to maintain accuracy. Cops aren't required to practice their accuracy on a regular basis (except their yearly qualifier). In order to qualify each year, they only have to hit a silhouette target 35/50 times (what about those other 15 rounds?). Guess what the live fire requirement is for civilian CCW in Illinois.

Anecdotal story: Couple years ago, Dad was participating in his yearly re-qualification with around 50 other officers. The instructor asks, "How many of you have fired your gun in the last month?"......No hands
"How many of you have fired your gun in the last 3 months?"......2 hands
"How many within the last 6?".......1 more hand
"How many have only fired their gun since the last time they qualified?".........47 hands

Just because they have a badge, doesn't mean they're any better than a civilian CCW who may see it as a hobby rather than a chore and wants to go practice at the range regularly. I'd rather have a civilian who sees guns as a hobby and goes to the range on a regular basis than a desk cop who just sees his gun as another tool he throws to the side when he gets home.

[silverscreenselect]

Marksmanship is a skill that requires practice to maintain accuracy. Cops aren't required to practice their accuracy on a regular basis (except their yearly qualifier). In order to qualify each year, they only have to hit a silhouette target 35/50 times (what about those other 15 rounds?). Guess what the live fire requirement is for civilian CCW in Illinois.

Just because they have a badge, doesn't mean they're any better than a civilian CCW who may see it as a hobby rather than a chore and wants to go practice at the range regularly. I'd rather have a civilian who sees guns as a hobby and goes to the range on a regular basis than a desk cop who just sees his gun as another tool he throws to the side when he gets home.

I guess you didn't actually read the article I posted, which isn't surprising. It's not marksmanship per se. It's knowing what to do and what not to do in a life or death situation. There's a big difference between taking shots at a paper silhouette and deciding what to do when there are a lot of people running around and screaming and shots actually being fired. It's deciding who's the bad guy and who's just a panicking civilian or another "good guy with a gun." And no matter how many times you go out on a range and take shots at paper targets, that's something for which you're not prepared.

You're right that the police could use better training. The number of civilian shootings we've had in recent years is proof of that. But to say that completely untrained civilians would therefore do a good job is ridiculous.

In San Bernardino, it was the SWAT team that responded, not some desk cop with a gun, and the reason they got there so quickly was that they happened to be conducting training nearby. In these mass shooting scenarios in most medium to large sized jurisdictions, it's the SWAT teams who do get called in, not Barney Fife.

http://abc7.com/news/paramedic-in-activ ... k/1116920/

[silverscreenselect]

Who we gonna believe?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... s-plummet/

You left out a couple of things. In 1993, the Brady Bill passed, the first and to date last comprehensive federal attempt to regulate gun traffic.

Here's a few other stats:

Gun deaths in CT drop 40% after state passes tougher permit law:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/go ... -this-law/

States with the most gun laws have 40% lower firearm mortality rates than states with the fewest laws:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... o/1969227/

Also, the percentage of Americans who own guns has gone down from 45% in the early 1990's to about 33% now. Those who own firearms own more of them than before, but fewer people do so. And a home with ten guns in it is not ten times as likely to have a death occur as one with only one gun.

So, I'm glad you brought up these statistics. They show that more gun laws and fewer people owning guns result in fewer gun deaths. Thanks for the research.

[ten96lt]

Marksmanship is a skill that requires practice to maintain accuracy. Cops aren't required to practice their accuracy on a regular basis (except their yearly qualifier). In order to qualify each year, they only have to hit a silhouette target 35/50 times (what about those other 15 rounds?). Guess what the live fire requirement is for civilian CCW in Illinois.

Just because they have a badge, doesn't mean they're any better than a civilian CCW who may see it as a hobby rather than a chore and wants to go practice at the range regularly. I'd rather have a civilian who sees guns as a hobby and goes to the range on a regular basis than a desk cop who just sees his gun as another tool he throws to the side when he gets home.

I guess you didn't actually read the article I posted, which isn't surprising. It's not marksmanship per se. It's knowing what to do and what not to do in a life or death situation. There's a big difference between taking shots at a paper silhouette and deciding what to do when there are a lot of people running around and screaming and shots actually being fired. It's deciding who's the bad guy and who's just a panicking civilian or another "good guy with a gun." And no matter how many times you go out on a range and take shots at paper targets, that's something for which you're not prepared.

You're right that the police could use better training. The number of civilian shootings we've had in recent years is proof of that. But to say that completely untrained civilians would therefore do a good job is ridiculous.

In San Bernardino, it was the SWAT team that responded, not some desk cop with a gun, and the reason they got there so quickly was that they happened to be conducting training nearby. In these mass shooting scenarios in most medium to large sized jurisdictions, it's the SWAT teams who do get called in, not Barney Fife.

http://abc7.com/news/paramedic-in-activ ... k/1116920/

I wasn't responding to your article, I was responding to the comment about assuming civilians have no better training than cops. I was also never advocating that a CCWer should physically go out and do their own clearing of a building and act like a cop. We actually teach people to try and escape the danger and treat it like a fire (once you're out of the burning building, don't go back in). But if they're put into a dangerous situation, I don't see where having them armed and actually have a chance to defend themselves is any worse than being a sitting duck. You can claim friendly fire, but everyone in San Bernardino got shot anyway, so what good did leaving them unarmed do? If you're in a room and someone walks in and starts shooting indiscriminately (hence why they're called an "active shooter") at everyone or see someone shooting out in the open with a rifle, I think that narrows it down who's a bad guy and who's not. You're just making assumptions to fit your agenda.

But It's also apparent you've never taken a firearms training class or researched the type of training available to the public before giving your uninformed opinion. There are classes that civilians can take that do teach you how to recognize and respond to an active shooter situation. Some instructors include it in their CCW course, some offer it separately.

How often is SWAT going to be the first to respond to an active shooter? 99% of the time, there's not going to be SWAT training nearby that allows them to be first. Before Columbine, it used to be taught in the academy to contain the situation and wait for SWAT. Post-Columbine, they now tell cops to go in whether SWAT is there or not because an active shooter won't stop until they run out of ammo or are stopped. That means, whichever cop is the closest to the call; whether it's SWAT, street patrol, or Barney Fife, they're supposed to go in and try to stop the active shooter. In this situation though, the two terrorists were done and on the run at that point.

[silverscreenselect]

But if they're put into a dangerous situation, I don't see where having them armed and actually have a chance to defend themselves is any worse than being a sitting duck. You can claim friendly fire, but everyone in San Bernardino got shot anyway, so what good did leaving them unarmed do? If you're in a room and someone walks in and starts shooting indiscriminately (hence why they're called an "active shooter") at everyone or see someone shooting out in the open with a rifle, I think that narrows it down who's a bad guy and who's not. You're just making assumptions to fit your agenda.

As usual, wrong again. The shooting did take place in one room in one building in a complex. However, at that time, no one really knew how many shooters there were or what they intended to do. It was quite possible that one or more shooters were going to go to other rooms in the complex and start shooting there. We heard reports for hours that there were three shooters and that one or more of them still might be holed up in the complex somewhere. So, what happens if some "good guy with a gun" who's in one of those other offices mistakes an innocent civilian or a cop for a shooter? And what do the cops do if they see a "good guy with a gun" who panics or freezes or otherwise doesn't react the right way? And that's assuming there's only one "good guy with a gun." Add more and the situation gets even more dangerous.

And I have had admittedly limited firearms training, both with civilian 38s and with military hardware. It was a long time ago, and I certainly wouldn't rely on it today, but I have fired weapons before on multiple occasions. The things I was shooting at were targets that weren't shooting back, which, with or without watching some videos or listening to a lecture, won't help me or anyone gauge what to do in a hostile situation.

[ten96lt]

So, what happens if some "good guy with a gun" who's in one of those other offices mistakes an innocent civilian or a cop for a shooter? And what do the cops do if they see a "good guy with a gun" who panics or freezes or otherwise doesn't react the right way? And that's assuming there's only one "good guy with a gun." Add more and the situation gets even more dangerous.

Rule #3 of the ccw safety rules........know your target and what is beyond.

That's where training identifies a shooter. Is the subject acting in an aggressive manner towards everyone? Is the subject in a low/ready stance or actively aiming for something? Is he/she shooting at every person in an indiscriminate manner? How many active shooters are just going to walk around with their gun drawn but not doing anything if people are around (how are they then an "active shooter" by definition)? Does the person have a $100 Galco holster on their belt to indicate the person is likely CCW? Is the person carrying a full sized Glock with a 30 round magazines or is he holding a revolver (if you're going to shoot up a place, why would you carry a 5/6 shot revolver)?

I could ask the same question with what do cops do if they see a plain clothes officer who panics or freezes or otherwise doesn't react the right way?

You don't seem to be grasping the concept of totality of the circumstances.

We also don't encourage CCW holders to act like police and go room to room looking for the gunman. The point of CCW is to defend yourself if faced with a deadly threat where escaping may not be the safest option or even possible. I don't feel like a cop when I carry anymore than someone feels like a firefighter with an extinguisher in their house. Just because I have one, doesn't mean I should be going from room to room of the house to extinguish all of the flames if my house is engulfed, but I'd rather have one near me if I'm trying to get out of the house or want to stop a kitchen fire from turning into a 5 alarm blaze.

[Estonut]

Also, the percentage of Americans who own guns has gone down from 45% in the early 1990's to about 33% now. Those who own firearms own more of them than before, but fewer people do so. And a home with ten guns in it is not ten times as likely to have a death occur as one with only one gun.

So, I'm glad you brought up these statistics. They show that more gun laws and fewer people owning guns result in fewer gun deaths. Thanks for the research.

You don't even understand your own statistics. Do you really believe that the percentage of Americans owning guns dropping from 45% to 33% is an indication that a third of gun owners got rid of their guns? There are many issues with those numbers. When you say "fewer people do so," are you taking into account the change in population in the last 25 years? Do the numbers include legal American citizens only? Do the numbers include illegal guns, too? How, exactly, do they count those?

[silverscreenselect]

Also, the percentage of Americans who own guns has gone down from 45% in the early 1990's to about 33% now. Those who own firearms own more of them than before, but fewer people do so. And a home with ten guns in it is not ten times as likely to have a death occur as one with only one gun.

So, I'm glad you brought up these statistics. They show that more gun laws and fewer people owning guns result in fewer gun deaths. Thanks for the research.

You don't even understand your own statistics. Do you really believe that the percentage of Americans owning guns dropping from 45% to 33% is an indication that a third of gun owners got rid of their guns? There are many issues with those numbers. When you say "fewer people do so," are you taking into account the change in population in the last 25 years? Do the numbers include legal American citizens only? Do the numbers include illegal guns, too? How, exactly, do they count those?

There are a number of different polls that have essentially said the same thing. The methodologies differ somewhat, but they take a number of people at random and ask them if they have at least one gun in their house. Here's some of the other findings:

The most likely demographic group to own a gun, according to the study, are white males over 55 who have finished high school and are, or have been, married. Unsurprisingly, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to be part of a "social gun culture" in which family and friends often own guns and look down on non-gun owners.

That first statement indicates why gun ownership is decreasing, for the same reason that the percentage of people smoking cigarettes decreased. Older gun owners, like older smokers, die off or move into situations (nursing homes, younger relatives, assisted living) where they don't have guns. And more and more young people are starting households without guns.

Yes, the article appears in Mother Jones, but the study has been referenced many places.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... e-in-three

[Bob Juch]

So, what happens if some "good guy with a gun" who's in one of those other offices mistakes an innocent civilian or a cop for a shooter? And what do the cops do if they see a "good guy with a gun" who panics or freezes or otherwise doesn't react the right way? And that's assuming there's only one "good guy with a gun." Add more and the situation gets even more dangerous.

Rule #3 of the ccw safety rules........know your target and what is beyond.

That's where training identifies a shooter. Is the subject acting in an aggressive manner towards everyone? Is the subject in a low/ready stance or actively aiming for something? Is he/she shooting at every person in an indiscriminate manner? How many active shooters are just going to walk around with their gun drawn but not doing anything if people are around (how are they then an "active shooter" by definition)? Does the person have a $100 Galco holster on their belt to indicate the person is likely CCW? Is the person carrying a full sized Glock with a 30 round magazines or is he holding a revolver (if you're going to shoot up a place, why would you carry a 5/6 shot revolver)?

I could ask the same question with what do cops do if they see a plain clothes officer who panics or freezes or otherwise doesn't react the right way?

You don't seem to be grasping the concept of totality of the circumstances.

We also don't encourage CCW holders to act like police and go room to room looking for the gunman. The point of CCW is to defend yourself if faced with a deadly threat where escaping may not be the safest option or even possible. I don't feel like a cop when I carry anymore than someone feels like a firefighter with an extinguisher in their house. Just because I have one, doesn't mean I should be going from room to room of the house to extinguish all of the flames if my house is engulfed, but I'd rather have one near me if I'm trying to get out of the house or want to stop a kitchen fire from turning into a 5 alarm blaze.

Illinois has far better CCW laws than most other states.

[ten96lt]

Illinois has far better CCW laws than most other states.

Illinois needs to reduce their fee, make the minimum hours lower or instructor discretion (if you're dealing with a rookie, the full 16 hours isn't unreasonable, but when you're training someone who shoots as a hobby, they don't need as much and the class essentially becomes a drag.) They also need to reduce the number of statutory prohibitions (a gang banger doesn't give a damn about no gun signs posted at the park, and neither does an active shooter). It's not the best law, but it's not NYC either.

[littlebeast13]

Illinois needs to reduce their fee...

I can only dream of living to see the day Illinois reduces their fee for anything...

lb13

[mrkelley23]

Considering that I, an absolute gun novice, was not required to do anything other than show my driver's license and get a background check to show I wasn't a felon (and even then I could have been approved if I could "explain" the felony) to get a concealed carry permit and buy a handgun, I think Indiana's laws could stand some improving also, but probably in the other direction of what you're describing.

[ten96lt]

Considering that I, an absolute gun novice, was not required to do anything other than show my driver's license and get a background check to show I wasn't a felon (and even then I could have been approved if I could "explain" the felony) to get a concealed carry permit and buy a handgun, I think Indiana's laws could stand some improving also, but probably in the other direction of what you're describing.

I have no problem with a training requirement to CCW (I even advocate for it in my "thesis" as a requirement for state licenses to have national reciprocity), but I don't think a set hour requirement is proper (nobody is also stopping you from seeking additional training like NRA's personal protection inside/outside the home). In Illinois it's 16 hours; the first day being to teach people about how to use a firearm and shoot one. Day 2 being the legal aspects and the live fire requirement. If you have an absolute novice, it may take them the full 16 hours. If you have someone that knows how to shoot competently and has been around guns all their lives, the majority of day one is a waste of time (a hobbyist doesn't need to spend over an hour needing to learn how to clean a handgun). Personally I would just have it where the instructor certifies that the student has demonstrated competence in those areas (naturally passing the live fire demonstrates you know how to shoot a gun).

[SportsFan68]

In Colorado, an all-day class is required, which I'm sure that I will finding horrendously boring. SteelersFan says that the $99 fee to a certified instructor is probably about right. The next local offering is Dec. 26.

After you pass the class, you take your certificate to the Sheriff's Office, where you write two checks, one to the local Sheriff's Office for an ID card, local background check, and administrative costs, and one to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to run your fingerprints and a national background check. So I'm out more than $200 for something I probably don't need, as well as a day of stultifying boredom for the class when I should be out on Boxing Day buying calendars for 50% off and other necessities.

[Evil Squirrel]

In Colorado, an all-day class is required, which I'm sure that I will finding horrendously boring. SteelersFan says that the $99 fee to a certified instructor is probably about right. The next local offering is Dec. 26.

After you pass the class, you take your certificate to the Sheriff's Office, where you write two checks, one to the local Sheriff's Office for an ID card, local background check, and administrative costs, and one to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to run your fingerprints and a national background check. So I'm out more than $200 for something I probably don't need, as well as a day of stultifying boredom for the class when I should be out on Boxing Day buying calendars for 50% off and other necessities.

You're right! Why waste $200 on something you don't need! I'll happily go shopping with you instead!

[SportsFan68]

The restraining order does not expire, you mangy rodent. I can handle it by myself.

[ne1410s]

Eight hours of training for me as I am a veteran. Last time I fired a handgun was off the fantail of a fleet oiler in the South China Sea. Forty-seven years ago. I could be a bit rusty.

[Bob78164]

The feds have arrested the neighbor of the San Bernardino shooters. The neighbor legally bought the AR-15 assault rifles used in the attack. --Bob

[ghostjmf]

Frankly, anyone asking me to buy assault rifles for them would get reported by me to the feds. You want 'em, you buy your own assault rifles.


As for people buying assault rifles as presents to their nearest & dearest; well, let's see who ya give 'em to.

[Bob78164]

It's not a mass shooting, but a woman heard footsteps in her home and fatally shot their source. It turned out to be her 27-year-old daughter. --Bob