Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[sd'sker]

Depends on the round and it's penetration ability. Will it shoot the same amount of rounds? Obviously not, but later on in a seperate post you talk about fully automatic fire. I don't know how many states that's illegal in specifically, but the average person can't own a fully automatic rifle based on federal laws and most state laws. Obviously that's splitting hairs because even if it's semi-auto they can shoot as fast as they can pull the trigger. My issue is, and you can't seem to understand what I'm saying, is that making tighter gun laws WILL NOT stop these types of events. They will occur, so unless the U.S. citizen is ready to give up ALOT of rights, which I know I'm not, there isn't alot we can do about it. How do I know? I've studied active-shooter events, I am an active-shooter instructor, and all the "experts" agree there isn't much we can do to stop it when someone is motivated to do it. All we can do is react to the situation and stop the killing as soon as possible by neutralizing the bad guy. Check out these events and police response before Columbine and then check out our response now. It's a GIANT **** sandwich and we have to take a bite out of it. There's an argument to be made about the mental health care in our country and how we're going about it.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

 

1. Making the background check more in-depth.

2. Limiting what weapons they can purchase.

3. Limiting what weapons they can possess.

4. These are common weapons with not necessarily "high" magazine capacities.

 

Now I will say that it may deter someone who is on the fence about conducting one of these events if the gun laws were tighter, and I use may VERY loosely. It will not deter someone who is motivated to conduct one of these events.

i understand this perfectly well. i am not as dense as you assume and you underestimate my intelligence. i could have claimed that you just seem unable to comprehend my points, but i understand that we are just arguing at each other now out of disagreement, rather than you being incapable of understanding my arguments. again, i just happen to disagree with you; as i have said before, reasonable minds can differ. you believe that no matter what, these tragedies will continue; i believe that if something can be done that might help, it is worth it. you say, loosely, that it may, i think that is worth the chance unless some other solution is determined. what i propose seems to be the least restrictive at the moment. guns for defense and hunting serve a purpose, these other guns do not seem to serve a reasonable purpose for the risks they present.

 

you make compelling arguments and perhaps you are right, but i am not convinced. one reason is because i do not understand the purpose of these guns other than mass murdering and i think these psychopaths are more impulsive than motivated. you have mentioned reforming and strengthening mental health institutions as an avenue to help mitigate these atrocities, i strongly agree with that.

 

p.s. i am pretty barrel chested, buck shot ain't got nothing on me.

I completely understand what you're saying and hold no negative thoughts towards you. The problem with the internet is we can't display our facial expressions or show what our tone of the message may be. I'm all for some sort of answer, there are way too many of these things going on and I would love for there to be no further bled shed because of some moron that can't deal with his problems. I think we are probably on the same page more than we think.

i agree that we are pretty close on a lot of this; i would characterize our disagreement as narrow, but deep. i also understand why you would be frustrated with me, i am stubborn and you are very well-informed and thoughtful. i also hate to admit that you were convincing me a little bit with your arguments, especially in the post which i most recently responded to. there is a lot of common ground here and it is a tougher discussion than we want it to be because the stakes are so high. you did help me better see the other side of the argument and it was a rather productive debate (who would have thought such a thing could exist?).

gbr!

[walksalone]

Just recently the NRA pushed to allow you to get your concealed carry here in Iowa easier than it was before. sd'sker this is where I think you and I are closer on the argument then we know. I'm completely against the idea because you used to have to pass a background check, attend a safety class, then show proficiency with your weapon on the range. Now you have to pass a background check and attend an 8-hour safety class and you've got your permit. You have to show ZERO proficiency with the weapon you are carrying........................that's the dumbest most unsafe thing I've ever heard. My wife can't shoot for ****, but she can get a carry permit without showing proficiency with the weapon. Decisions like those put a sour taste in my mouth. It should be mandatory that you show profiency and you further have to have X number of hours of training with said weapon and continue to show profiency to be allowed to carry it.

 

I think it's asinine to issue a concealed carry permit to someone, without any range time to show proficiency with the weapon. That'd be like letting Helen Keller drive a tank.

 

 

 

The average law enforcement officer during an officer involved shooting, if they are a 90% and above shooter, will drop into the low 20%'s and low teens due to the stress of the situation. Now most law enforcement officers don't get as much time on the range as they should and most people think we are out there every week, but we get more training than the average person. So I can see both sides of the argument for is Joe Citizen gonna be a crack shot when the proverbial **** hits the fan? Probably not!

 

Non combat arms units in the military only go to the range twice a year. Unless your average civilian is a range rat, and takes a lot of time practicing, then I'd think he'd be more of a liability in a critical situation.

[The Dude]

I had forgotten about this incident:

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1450313.html

 

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

Where are you getting this idea that you have to be a police officer to be a marksman?

[walksalone]

Where are you getting this idea that you have to be a police officer to be a marksman?

 

I don't think he means a marksman to the extent of a Navy Seal or a US Air Marshall, but you want to hit what you're aiming at...

[rawhide]

I believe knapp is trying to say that a LEO has advanced training far surpassing the "average Joe Schmoe".

 

Then there are us waco civilians that shoot more than most LEO's. But I've never faced down a person holding a gun. I have gotten instruction from a couple of LEO's that are highly trained/motivated individuals. How would I do in that scenario. I hope and pray I never find out.

 

 

Hey, I want one of those guns that spray a wall of bullets. NFA permits not withstanding I know Uncle Ted has a couple.

 

COME ON is it Football season yet?

[knapplc]

I'm not sure how we jumped to the extreme of "have to be a police officer to be a marksman" from the post I made. I also don't think anyone is going to argue with the concept that the majority of police spend more time training in tactical situations than the majority of Joe on the Street, meaning that shooting at paper targets and hitting the bulls eye is nice and all, but it's an entirely different animal when you're being fired at. Many police, trained for such situations, fail to hit their target under duress. It's entirely reasonable to make the observation that Joe on the Street, not trained to the extent of a police officer, would respond even less accurately.

 

That lack of accuracy (bullets flying everywhere) is a bad thing.

[knapplc]

Hey, I want one of those guns that spray a wall of bullets.

 

Oh, yes. So do I. I would have to get a second job to pay for bullets, but it would be worth it to fire off one of these babies:

 

[rawhide]

Depending on your frequency of firing that "gatling" gun. 3-4 jobs might be required.

I worked on those guns but they were 20mm and fired 6000 rpm. Had AP, HE, and Incendiary. The military gets all the cool stuff. The Warthog upped the ante with a 30mm firing depleted uranium slugs.

 

I have absolutely no use for a fully automatic weapon. Can't even afford the ammo; let alone the purchase price. No one may legally purchase a fully automatic weapon unless is was manufactured prior to, I believe, 1986. So the price of a M-16, AK-47 or other auto weapons is in the 10-50k range. Not financially fiscal responsibility in my case.

 

I'll be the first to admit; I don't need anything that the military fires, other than handguns . For the most part they use the same basic handgun that a civilian would use. The spec-op people use some more advanced tools of the trade that the ordinary citizen may not be able to purchase.

 

Yes, a AR-15 is similar to a M-16 although the former is semi-automatic and the latter is selectable single, 3rd burst and full auto; depending on the model.

The AR has proven to be a versatile weapons system. Hunting, match shooting and home defense are all viable activities with the AR. I guess it's just that gun owners/sportsman don't like to be vilified and put in the same category with a murderer. If that is the case then the drunk driving analogy is much more apt. More people die from drunk drivers than firearm homicides. Wars not withstanding.

[carlfense]

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

I definitely agree with your argument regarding the penetrating power of a 12ga slug vs. a .40 s&w.

 

That said, where I see a potential weakness is how quickly you can reload. You said that you're an instructor. How long does a reasonably experienced person take to swap magazines on a Glock? I think that 2-3 seconds would probably be a reasonable estimate. So you've already shot 16 times . . . and now within 2-3 second you have a fresh 15 rounds in your Glock. Depending on how many magazines you can carry . . . you could keep that pace up for quite some time.

 

Now the Mossberg is a different story. Sure, those 8 rounds of buck or slugs will do a ton of damage. (I'm sure you know the old line about a shotgun being the most devastating close range weapon short of a flamethrower.) But . . . your firepower is seriously limited. How much time does it take for a shooter to grab a single shell and slide it into the tube? 2 seconds? More? And then they have to repeat that 6 more times. That's time when they're not shooting. That's time when people have a chance to escape. (Also, shotgun shells are considerably more bulky. The shooter could be carrying hundreds of rounds of .40 ammo with little difficulty . . . but odds are that he has 25 or fewer rounds of 12ga.)

 

In short, greater power per shot aside . . . I think it's a pretty strong argument that more damage could/would be caused with a high capacity rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine than with a shotgun. (Now again . . . if you want to throw a Saiga or a Striker in there it could be a different result.)

[rawhide]

I am not afraid to admit that weapons are not the only solution:

http://gma.yahoo.com...topstories.html

 

Bravo to the young lady that kept her cool. I am thrilled that there was a peaceful resolution to this situation.

 

 

My son was involved in a 2 hour stand off with a gun man after he fired shots in his yard and allegedly at Deputys. This happened this weekend. It's the freakin' heat I tells ya.

 

He was also arrested after phone negotiators talked him into surrendering.

[sd'sker]

this makes the gun debate a little less important:

 

 

James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting: ABC Exclusive

 

 

The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."

 

he should have been committed before this happened.

[sd'sker]

on a less serious note, hb should schedule a hunting venture. i could go for some venison or pheasant. rawhide, bigrediowan?

[rawhide]

I'll pay for shipping. Trying to save for a Elk trip on my 60th. Now if someone out there wants to loan me a 300 Win Maggie specially left hand bolt

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

I definitely agree with your argument regarding the penetrating power of a 12ga slug vs. a .40 s&w.

 

That said, where I see a potential weakness is how quickly you can reload. You said that you're an instructor. How long does a reasonably experienced person take to swap magazines on a Glock? I think that 2-3 seconds would probably be a reasonable estimate. So you've already shot 16 times . . . and now within 2-3 second you have a fresh 15 rounds in your Glock. Depending on how many magazines you can carry . . . you could keep that pace up for quite some time.

 

Now the Mossberg is a different story. Sure, those 8 rounds of buck or slugs will do a ton of damage. (I'm sure you know the old line about a shotgun being the most devastating close range weapon short of a flamethrower.) But . . . your firepower is seriously limited. How much time does it take for a shooter to grab a single shell and slide it into the tube? 2 seconds? More? And then they have to repeat that 6 more times. That's time when they're not shooting. That's time when people have a chance to escape. (Also, shotgun shells are considerably more bulky. The shooter could be carrying hundreds of rounds of .40 ammo with little difficulty . . . but odds are that he has 25 or fewer rounds of 12ga.)

 

In short, greater power per shot aside . . . I think it's a pretty strong argument that more damage could/would be caused with a high capacity rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine than with a shotgun. (Now again . . . if you want to throw a Saiga or a Striker in there it could be a different result.)

Oh, I agree with you without a doubt, you bring up an interesting point with the Saiga and Striker. That's a quick load shotgun and I don't want to be on the wrong end of it!

[BIGREDIOWAN]

on a less serious note, hb should schedule a hunting venture. i could go for some venison or pheasant. rawhide, bigrediowan?

I still have ALOT of venison in my freezer right now, but plan on giving it a go this next deer season.