Active shooter thread

[fattyflattie 4640]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No "very likely" needed.  It's not even a horse race.  0.5*m*v2 is going to go to the far heavier bullet over a pellet every time if the muzzle velocities are reasonably close.

The “pellet” in this case is actually heavier than your standard .223/5.56 bullet, but comparable (60 vs 55 grain).  But the velocity is 1/2, which is obviously huge in the equation.  It’s hard to imagine, but we aren’t talking bird shot.  .33 caliber “pellets”. 

40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is this just a question of tradeoffs; e.g. a particular shotgun might be an even better killing machine than an M-15 but we're not gonna ask soldiers to lug the added weight around?

A soldier needs something that can reach out much further, for starters. Shotgun isn’t going to do you much good outside of a close environment.  Also would limit your abilities if you were trying to kill a particular person vs a crowd (picking an absolute target). But yes, weight would be a factor too (but not the driver).  One major reason we went from Garands to .30 carbines a long long time ago. 

 

[wildcat09 29582]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah I know huh, that’s why we use rifles for fleeting targets. Wait. 

What weapon did the Vegas shooter use?

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

f you were tasked with going into a target full of people (and let's say they were all bad guys -- it is the ISIS neighborhood Wal-Mart - so we're talking about a bona-fide, legitimate mission), and your job was to kill as many as possible....an AR-type weapon with a good-sized mag (15-25 rounds) would be your choice.  You know that.  And more importantly, the fuckers who like to murder big groups of people know that.  It's not like they're selecting the SECOND most effective way to slaughter people with a gun.*

Maybe. I’m not advocating for AR’s, so you can get off that hill if that’s what you think. 

But I’ve killed a shit load of sounders with both, and firing 00 is more effective 90% of the time.  

Its a macabre discussion to have, but if you want me to concede 1a and 1b, fine.   You are a wingshooter iirc and I’m certain you’ve pattern tested before. You know what an open choke looks like at 30-40 yards. And I’m certain you know that there’s situations that work better for rifles (las Vegas sniper dick) vs the assholes that shot up the small cafe a year or two ago.  Fuck I have pellets in me from my thighs to my sinus (#8), I know exactly what a mod will do at 35 yds. 

[immamac 44371]

1 hour ago, tchookem said:

 

 

Tie all gun ownership to militia membership. The states could give militia members ratings that allow different levels of gun ownership. If a state so chose they could let you register online, show up for drills twice a year, and you get to own hunting-level firearms. Meeting more stringent requirements and attending more frequent training gets you a higher-level of weapons.

Add in a clause that says the state militia assumes liability for any crimes committed by a member with a gun (after all, the militia did sign off on the guy), and watch how stringent guns laws become.

It would also satisfy the 2A's actual intent of being a check on federal government tyranny.

 

holy fuck a solution.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Are we really debating shotguns vs high powered semiautomatic rifles?

Here’s the litmus test:  

You get to defend the Alamo alone with a shotgun OR an AR-15.  Unlimited ammo for each.

[fattyflattie 4640]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What weapon did the Vegas shooter use?

Lots of rifles, actually, and I qualified that event. But I don’t expect a modicum of honesty in your argument, so this post is not surprising.  

Do I need to qualify Whitman’s as well?  Long range sniping doesn’t appear to be the common method in these events, but if you’d like, we can talk about how successful a campaign with a hunting rifle was. 

The point still remains, many “non-scary” guns can do devastating harm, nearly as easily. Some more than others.    Also, I was replying to JJ who through several mass shooting threads (god we suck), I’ve had conversations with.  I was discussing just another piece of data for him to consider.

And there’s the rub. There’s a lot of sane people with model 70’s and 1100s in this country.  Ban every AR if you want, I could literally not give a shit.  But the danger is still there. It might slow down, which is great, but this is something we are going to have to work from many angles. Because someone going to do work on a cafe/school/church and while  “only” killing 10 will still suck, and it’ll be “progress”, I think you would agree it’s still a major fucking issue in the US. 

[immamac 44371]

We aren't going to debate what kinds of guns are better for killing people on this website. Get back to relevant discussion.

[Brisketexan 106907]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe. I’m not advocating for AR’s, so you can get off that hill if that’s what you think. 

But I’ve killed a shit load of sounders with both, and firing 00 is more effective 90% of the time.  

Its a macabre discussion to have, but if you want me to concede 1a and 1b, fine.   You are a wingshooter iirc and I’m certain you’ve pattern tested before. You know what an open choke looks like at 30-40 yards. And I’m certain you know that there’s situations that work better for rifles (las Vegas sniper dick) vs the assholes that shot up the small cafe a year or two ago.  Fuck I have pellets in me from my thighs to my sinus (#8), I know exactly what a mod will do at 35 yds. 

I do indeed.  And I know that kinetic energy matters a lot when putting a target down.  Hell, my uncle was an ATF agent, and he carried a 1911 instead of a 9mm, because he'd been in two firefights where a fella with 9mm rounds in him kept shooting back.  Whereas a fella with a 1911 .45 round in him, anywhere, went down.

If you want to "down" people, the 00 is probably more effective.  If you want to kill them, the 5.56 is.  These folks aren't going for "targets hit."  They are going out to rack up kills.  And they're pretty damned efficient at it.

I'm pretty confident that in places on the web you and I never, ever, want to go, these assholes discuss this exact issue, and they didn't arrive at their chosen weapon and mag size by accident.  If they want to kill a lot of people with a firearm, a rifle with serious kinetic energy and a big mag is what they'll use.

Which takes me back to my thought a while back - get rid of large-capacity mags.  Kinetic energy plus being able to put a lot of bullets on target quickly is a recipe for mass murder.  We should take one of those ingredients away.

Of course, I also don't think that better gun laws are the cure-all for what we've got going on.  We have systemic problems that are a LOT deeper and more complex.  But it's a piece of the puzzle, and a real one at that.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Brisketexan

[fattyflattie 4640]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are we really debating shotguns vs high powered semiautomatic rifles?

Here’s the litmus test:  

You get to defend the Alamo alone with a shotgun OR an AR-15.  Unlimited ammo for each.

It didn’t start as a debate. It started as, “great, fuck AR’s”. Now, what as a nation do we do about “grandpas guns” that most of us own, and are still lethal af? 

Then of course it went CR. 

[Brisketexan 106907]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

It didn’t start as a debate. It started as, “great, fuck AR’s”. Now, what as a nation do we do about “grandpas guns” that most of us own, and are still lethal af? 

Then of course it went CR. 

It did.  But I have several bolt-action rifles (usually with a capacity of 1 in the chamber, 3 in the magazine).  While a single shot from any of them is plenty lethal, the fact is that they are not efficient at putting a lot of rounds on target in a short period of time.  That ingredient is missing from the mass-murder recipe.  We should consider restricting that ingredient.

[JBJ 3828]

In the same way that the first amendment protects against censorship as opposed to creating a right of speech, it's useful to think of the 2nd amendment as protecting against disarmament instead of creating a right of armament.  This avoids stupid arguments rooted in the definitions of certain words.  Congress is restricted in creating a law for the purpose of or leading to disarmament.

To continue this analogy: Congress can create laws that censor speech in limited ways (fire in a theater).  Likewise, Congress can create laws that disarm people in reasonable and limited ways if there are compelling enough public concerns.  None of the amendments are absolutes.

As for the original purpose of reinforcing non-disarmament, the evidence is stacked in favor of placing military power in the hands of the people.  From dissenting protestants being disarmed in England, to colonial constitutions, to our own 2A, the common factor is a goverment attempt to create a military monopoly over a growing civilian threat.  I really don't know how we reconcile that ideal with the reality of modern military forces.  So at least in that sense, the 2A is defunct. 

However, I also wouldn't use that as an excuse to trample the 2A wholesale.  Even back then no one expected a colonial militia to suddenly have the warships, cannons, and navigational prowess of the Royal Navy.  It is more that they should be able to keep whatever military power that they already do have - even if that power has been greatly diminshed by increasingly powerful militaries.

Edited August 6, 2019 by JBJ

[fattyflattie 4640]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which takes me back to my thought a while back - get rid of large-capacity mags.

Aside from “fun”, anything over 5 (hell 3 really) is useless. Wont get an argument from me (or many others).   Problem is, and you know this, there’s 12355223567421356 of them in the US.  How you you get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

[Brisketexan 106907]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Aside from “fun”, anything over 5 (hell 3 really) is useless. Wont get an argument from me (or many others).   Problem is, and you know this, there’s 12355223567421356 of them in the US.  How you you get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

Ban them.  Grace period for a buyback.  Then, possession is a crime.  I have two such mags (both for a Ruger 10/22).  If they are banned (that is, if the ban covers all mags, not just centerfire), I'll turn them in, and be fine with it.

[jimmyjazz 47219]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Aside from “fun”, anything over 5 (hell 3 really) is useless. Wont get an argument from me (or many others).   Problem is, and you know this, there’s 12355223567421356 of them in the US.  How you you get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

Well, you make them illegal, with serious consequences for ownership after a specific date.  Up until that time, you offer a reasonable buyback program.

MADD has systematically gotten BAC levels reduced for DUI.  Seatbelts are now the law in most states.  Laws change.  

EDIT:  Brisket basically said the same thing but has quicker, more feminine fingers than I do

Edited August 6, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Aside from “fun”, anything over 5 (hell 3 really) is useless. Wont get an argument from me (or many others).   Problem is, and you know this, there’s 12355223567421356 of them in the US.  How you you get the toothpaste back in the tube. 

Still not an argument against the prohibition of the sale of high capacity magazines. 

Imagine if we banned the sale of cars.  Would it reduce car accidents?  Yes, over time, without a doubt despite the fact we would still have cars everywhere.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
I suck

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

1 hour ago, tchookem said:

 

 

Tie all gun ownership to militia membership. The states could give militia members ratings that allow different levels of gun ownership. If a state so chose they could let you register online, show up for drills twice a year, and you get to own hunting-level firearms. Meeting more stringent requirements and attending more frequent training gets you a higher-level of weapons.

Add in a clause that says the state militia assumes liability for any crimes committed by a member with a gun (after all, the militia did sign off on the guy), and watch how stringent guns laws become.

It would also satisfy the 2A's actual intent of being a check on federal government tyranny.

 

Are you running? I'd vote for you.

[wildcat09 29582]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Lots of rifles, actually, and I qualified that event. But I don’t expect a modicum of honesty in your argument, so this post is not surprising.  

Do I need to qualify Whitman’s as well?  Long range sniping doesn’t appear to be the common method in these events, but if you’d like, we can talk about how successful a campaign with a hunting rifle was. 

The point still remains, many “non-scary” guns can do devastating harm, nearly as easily. Some more than others.    Also, I was replying to JJ who through several mass shooting threads (god we suck), I’ve had conversations with.  I was discussing just another piece of data for him to consider.

And there’s the rub. There’s a lot of sane people with model 70’s and 1100s in this country.  Ban every AR if you want, I could literally not give a shit.  But the danger is still there. It might slow down, which is great, but this is something we are going to have to work from many angles. Because someone going to do work on a cafe/school/church and while  “only” killing 10 will still suck, and it’ll be “progress”, I think you would agree it’s still a major fucking issue in the US. 

Why not?

[F250 29201]

8 hours ago, Homercles said:

I just imagine this guy running to his machine gun nest, spraying bullets all over the place while his children run, screaming, near his field of fire with hot brass flying and ricochets rebounding off rocks, yelling about the libs.  

Sounds like madeup bullshit to me...so his yard is constantly full of rotting pig carcasses?  Maybe build a strong fence that encloses the play area?  If I lived somewhere that had feral hogs running out every time my kids stepped foot outside, I would take a different approach.  

It actually sounds reasonable. I've done this a number of times myself. Had a discussion about having to do it on ToS a few years ago.

Not everyone lives in tract housing.

[JimmyJames 12271]

The entire second amendment debate is a red herring propped up by the NRA designed to distract. 

Nothing the house has passed would come close to violating the second amendment. So the entire constitutional debate is moot. 

It’s just an NRA excuse to oppose any regulation at all by hiding behind the constitution so a bunch of yahoos can help oppose any and all regulations with a simple talking point even the yahoos can understand. 

Muh Guns! Constitutional mamendments! 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We should probably rewrite the second amendment too.  Under the NRA interpretation I should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, tanks, militarized aircraft, anti-aircraft canons, and fully functional surface-to-air missiles.

We’re is the NRA on that shit?  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Sorry if I missed this stat, but how many of the 250 mass shootings this year were ended by someone with a CC? Honest question.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

As someone who has been a hunter and gun owner since I was a kid, I used to attend gun shows.  Back in my high school days -- think mid 1980s -- they were largely "outdoors" affairs.  Most booths had what we would all recognize as hunting weapons -- shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.  Others would have general outdoors gear (tents, backbacks, etc.).  A few would have handguns, but back then, semi-autos were maybe 25% of the inventory, and many of them were Model 1911s and whatnot.  A few booths had some old military surplus -- you could buy an M-1 Garand or an M-1 Carbine, for example.  Maybe some WWII history books, too.

Then, by the late 80s to early 90s, the atmosphere changed.  More modern military-style weapons showed up.  Lots of booths on "home-defense" and even "prepper" type themes.  I remember a booth selling customized shotgun shells filled with flechettes, or mini-bolo balls with razor sharp wire connecting them.  And then another booth with other various "weapons" - like a cane that with a push of a button would show four sharp blades along the bottom.  And a display case with various commemorative knives, including one with a KKK logo on it.  As I saw the cane, I couldn't help but ask the booth owner "what the hell do you need that thing for?"  He answered with a grin "it's good for fighting off dogs.....of ANY color."

And....that was the last gun show I ever went to.  I don't know why it all changed, but it sure as shit did.

Talk radio + grift. Scare the sheep. Drive them to be consumers of inanimate objects that make them safe from whatever boogeyman de jur is being hyped up on AM790. While those sheeps new purchases actually made them less safe, their checks still cashed so the grift thrives. 

[HRSchenker 2341]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm....in your post.

So, you used, like, words and stuff to say exactly that - the 2nd amendment doesn't provide for gov't intervention, and doesn't "allow  the government to tell the public how they can fight back." 

That's in reference to the post saying that "well regulated militia" refers to government regulations which it does not. It simply states a purpose of the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You're a few posts behind, please catch up. You're trying to connect the NFA to the phrase "well regulated militia" in the second amendment and that's nonsense. Even US v Miller doesn't support that idea and it was a case in what, the 1930s?

[hayden_horn 11402]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

It actually sounds reasonable. I've done this a number of times myself. Had a discussion about having to do it on ToS a few years ago.

Not everyone lives in tract housing.

there could be special exemptions for special circumstances. england doesn't have ZERO guns. there is still a not insignificant sporting culture there.

i think licensing is the best way to go. i know this drives the pro-gun nra people fucking crazy, because they think a central database means the brownshirts will come get your guns, but we have to do something, because this shit is insane.

i have to register my car and have it inspected every year. my 9mm and 410 are subject to no regulation at all. i can buy as much ammunition as i want. nobody really even knows i have them.

this argument is insane to me now. and i used to be a very pro-gun dude. things have changed, and they have changed drastically. 

we cannot keep doing nothing, or all these bodies and all this blood are/is on our hands.

i've said it before, and others have said it here, but if you like your guns, it's best to come to the table before it is too late or you just may find yourselves shut completely out of the discussion altogether when the time really comes.

you want your long rifle? agree to take steps now, and you might just get to keep it. 

but i'm telling you, if this shit continues, people are, at some point, going to reach a real tipping point.

and suddenly, it could look a lot like this for the UK:

Quote

Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 with the exception of Northern Ireland. Dunblane was the UK's first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, the Cumbria shootings in June 2010, which involved a shotgun and a .22 calibre rifle, both legally held. Prior to Dunblane, there had only been one mass shooting carried out by a civilian in the entire history of Great Britain, which took place in Hungerford on 19 August 1987.[5][6]

which, as far as results go, is fucking amazing. australia had a similar situation, and that country would be more in line with our typical gun enthusiasts here.

get it together people.

[HRSchenker 2341]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I assumed that was by operation of statute, not that it is unconstitutional.  Has the Court held that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the resale of older fully automatic weapon? 

That would require the court to rule the NFA as unconstitutional. A decision like that would be even more controversial than Roe v Wade. Take that to the bank.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

40 minutes ago, immamac said:

We aren't going to debate what kinds of guns are better for killing people on this website. Get back to relevant discussion.

that's it, i'm starting 16chan.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Sorry if I missed this stat, but how many of the 250 mass shootings this year were ended by someone with a CC? Honest question.

i'm assuming the answer is 0. which means we don't have enough guns out in the streets.

[F250 29201]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I do indeed.  And I know that kinetic energy matters a lot when putting a target down.  Hell, my uncle was an ATF agent, and he carried a 1911 instead of a 9mm, because he'd been in two firefights where a fella with 9mm rounds in him kept shooting back.  Whereas a fella with a 1911 .45 round in him, anywhere, went down.

If you want to "down" people, the 00 is probably more effective.  If you want to kill them, the 5.56 is.  These folks aren't going for "targets hit."  They are going out to rack up kills.  And they're pretty damned efficient at it.

I'm pretty confident that in places on the web you and I never, ever, want to go, these assholes discuss this exact issue, and they didn't arrive at their chosen weapon and mag size by accident.  If they want to kill a lot of people with a firearm, a rifle with serious kinetic energy and a big mag is what they'll use.

Which takes me back to my thought a while back - get rid of large-capacity mags.  Kinetic energy plus being able to put a lot of bullets on target quickly is a recipe for mass murder.  We should take one of those ingredients away.

Of course, I also don't think that better gun laws are the cure-all for what we've got going on.  We have systemic problems that are a LOT deeper and more complex.  But it's a piece of the puzzle, and a real one at that.

This also coincided with the proliferation of Eastern bloc military surplus hitting the market. So many inexpensive semiautomatic rifles floating around back in the early 90's. Buying a MAK-90 with a case of East German ammo at a gun show was like buying a poncho at the mercado in Matamoros, I'll give you $2 for that AK or $5 if you throw in that case of ammo.

 

[Brisketexan 106907]

2 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

That's in reference to the post saying that "well regulated militia" refers to government regulations which it does not. It simply states a purpose of the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You're a few posts behind, please catch up. You're trying to connect the NFA to the phrase "well regulated militia" in the second amendment and that's nonsense. Even US v Miller doesn't support that idea and it was a case in what, the 1930s?

Well, if your point was to discuss the "well regulated militia" clause, then I am indeed having a different discussion.  My discussion is for a bigger, but clearer point: the 2nd amendment is 1) not unlimited and 2) does not establish a right to "keep and bear arms" without any government regulation or restriction.

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

there could be special exemptions for special circumstances. england doesn't have ZERO guns. there is still a not insignificant sporting culture there.

i think licensing is the best way to go. i know this drives the pro-gun nra people fucking crazy, because they think a central database means the brownshirts will come get your guns, but we have to do something, because this shit is insane.

i have to register my car and have it inspected every year. my 9mm and 410 are subject to no regulation at all. i can buy as much ammunition as i want. nobody really even knows i have them.

this argument is insane to me now. and i used to be a very pro-gun dude. things have changed, and they have changed drastically. 

we cannot keep doing nothing, or all these bodies and all this blood are/is on our hands.

i've said it before, and others have said it here, but if you like your guns, it's best to come to the table before it is too late or you just may find yourselves shut completely out of the discussion altogether when the time really comes.

you want your long rifle? agree to take steps now, and you might just get to keep it. 

but i'm telling you, if this shit continues, people are, at some point, going to reach a real tipping point.

and suddenly, it could look a lot like this for the UK:

which, as far as results go, is fucking amazing. australia had a similar situation, and that country would be more in line with our typical gun enthusiasts here.

get it together people.

I am on board with both sentiments.  And here's the thing -- I will admit that part of my reasoning is selfish.  I have guns.  I LIKE my guns.  I USE my guns.  I am a dove, duck, and deer hunter.  I like going to the skeet range with the kids and with my friends.  And I KNOW that if I want to keep them, we need to act like damned grownups and participate in a discussion about a reasonable path forward.

It's like an earthquake coming -- if the fault doesn't give a little bit soon, it's going to give a WHOLE lot later, and be messy as hell.  The "pro-gun" side of this taking the position of "no, nada, NOTHING" is going to work....until it doesn't.  And then we'll be locked out of the room, because nobody is going to negotiate with intransigent children.

[fattyflattie 4640]

6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

i'm assuming the answer is 0. which means we don't have enough guns out in the streets.

Sutherland.  Not any past that that I recall. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by fattyflattie

[jimmyjazz 47219]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i've said it before, and others have said it here, but if you like your guns, it's best to come to the table before it is too late or you just may find yourselves shut completely out of the discussion altogether when the time really comes.

you want your long rifle? agree to take steps now, and you might just get to keep it. 

but i'm telling you, if this shit continues, people are, at some point, going to reach a real tipping point.

I'm pretty observant on this issue.  I regularly discuss it with people of all stripes.  Up until recently, I've argued with the NRA crowd that "nobody wants to take all your guns", because for all intents and purposes that was true.

Well, things are starting to shift.  Not for me, and it's nowhere near a majority, but I'm hearing more and more vocal cries of "ban 'em all", and certainly more people are on the bandwagon for no semi-auto OR handguns.  This is a relatively new thing.

So, as you say, come to the table and compromise or watch what happens.  It might not be next year, but opinions are changing.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Sutherland. 

[Brisketexan 106907]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

This also coincided with the proliferation of Eastern bloc military surplus hitting the market. So many inexpensive semiautomatic rifles floating around back in the early 90's. Buying a MAK-90 with a case of East German ammo at a gun show was like buying a poncho at the mercado in Matamoros, I'll give you $2 for that AK or $5 if you throw in that case of ammo.

 

I do remember that.  And I kinda remember that at 18, I was intrigued -- I mean, they looked cool and fun to shoot, and at that age, we spent a fair number of weekends cruising around in a jeep on a ranch shooting jackrabbits, which would be fun as hell with one of those.

But then I saw the kinda guys buying them, and talking about them, and I didn't want to be one of those guys -- mostly fatass losers.  Back then, I wasn't a fatass, and I was trying to avoid "loser" status.  

[RomaVicta 30599]

I've got to say that these gun conversations bore the shit out of me. I think we're focusing on a detail. I think we're taking the facile path.

I wish I could be more convinced that background checks would reduce the number of these events, but I'm not convinced at all. There are likely other benefits such as maybe helping lower garden variety murder which is fine.

The phenomenon of a suicidal person wanting to take as many people with him as he can is another aspect of all of this. Most of these killers seem to know that there is only one ending. That seems to be the case with the Dayton killer. Where does that inclination come from? These people do appear to want to make a statement about the environment they attack: high school, church, ethnic group. They also appear to know that what they are doing is wrong.

The shooters who seemed determined to survive in both New Zealand and El Paso, find mass murder to be a political statement and see themselves as heroes. They're soldiers in a war in their own minds. They imagine they are part of an army. They're probably right. How do we defuse that? I don't know. 

When I was boy in the 1960s, I grew up with wonderful things but also regular assassinations and riots. As a child, you think that this must be the way the world will be. It was alarming but also began to seem normal. I was relieved of that perception by the time I got to college. The Viet Nam War was over for us, and minorities were being forcefully introduced to the white world.

Now here we are again. This shit seems like it actually will become the norm. A few more Mexicans or Blacks get killed and there will be revenge. Who could blame them? The president seems to be trying to get some of his political opponents killed. He erodes confidence in systems that rely on confidence to exist.

I watch the Dem debates. I read the discussion about the race. The news looks standard for this time in the cycle, but I hear noises. Loud voices. Popping. Running footsteps. I see the reflected light of torches off distant walls. What I am doing seems increasingly inapt and irrelevant. 

My gut tells me there will be bombs in crowds of Dems. 

My latest concern, and I'm shocked to have it, is where do the rank and file of the Army stand in all of this? At the time of the Tim McVeigh attack, there were credible stories that many skin head extremists were going into the army for training. In a banana republic, it's the key question. Which way does the Army lean?

This is a banana republic.

Edited August 6, 2019 by RomaVicta

[Bama Chick 28596]

Seriously, if there had been scads of CC holders taking out mass shooters the NRA and Fox News would have been ALL OVER that shit.

And since they haven’t been.......

[F250 29201]

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

i'm assuming the answer is 0. which means we don't have enough guns out in the streets.

Or that registration, background checks, mandatory training and waiting periods make a difference.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Well most don’t carry into churches and schools. But the point is valid, not many CHL saving the day.  Unless you count the gentlemen carrying the kids to the door in El Paso. 

[Brisketexan 106907]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I've got to say that these gun conversations bore the shit out of me. I think we're focusing on a detail. I think we're taking the facile path.

I wish I could be more convinced that background checks would reduce the number of these events, but I'm not convinced at all. There are likely other benefits such as maybe helping lower garden variety murder which is fine.

The phenomenon of a suicidal person wanting to take as many people with him as he can is another aspect of all of this. Most of these killers seem to know that there is only one ending. That seems to be the case with the Dayton killer. Where does that inclination come from? These people do appear to want to make a statement about the environment they attack: high school, church, ethnic group. They also appear to know that what they are doing is wrong.

The shooters who seemed determined to survive in both New Zealand and El Paso, find mass murder to be a political statement and see themselves as heroes. They're soldiers in a war in their own minds. They imagine they are part of an army. They're probably right. How do we defuse that? I don't know. 

When I was boy in the 1960s, I grew up with wonderful things but also regular assassinations and riots. As a child, you think that this must be the way the world will be. It was alarming but also began to seem normal. I was relieved of that perception by the time I got to college. The Viet Nam War was over for us, and minorities were being forcefully introduced to the white world.

Now here we are again. This shit seems like it actually will become the norm. A few more Mexicans or Blacks get killed and there will be revenge. Who could blame them? The president seems to be trying to get some of his political opponents killed. He erodes confidence in systems that rely on confidence to exist.

I watch the Dem debates. I read the discussion about the race. The news looks standard for this time in the cycle, but I hear noises. Loud voices. Popping. Running footsteps. I see the reflected light of torches off distant walls. What I am doing seems increasingly inapt and irrelevant. 

My gut tells me there will be bombs in crowds of Dems. 

My latest concern, and I'm shocked to have it, is where do the rank and file of the Army stand in all of this? At the time of the Tim McVeigh attack, there were credible stories that many skin head extremists were going into the army for training. In a banana republic, it's the key question. Which way does the Army lean?

This is a banana republic.

And yes, I believe this is the sad truth.  In fact, in the wake of El Paso, I'm not really comfortable with the conversation being SO focused on guns.

The issue isn't guns (although guns make the body counts easier to rack up).  It isn't mental illness (that's an issue sometimes, but not that often).  It isn't video games (well, not video games in a vacuum).

The issue is that we as a nation, we are a selfish, individualistic, anti-community death cult.  We have mythologized "the individual" so much that to even mention "the community" is heresy, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM.  As a result, giving a shit about anyone else is an anti-American value.  Expecting people to think of others before they act is being a socialist pussy.  And, as a result of all of it....a shitload of us are desperately alone and lonely.

Human beings long for community.  It is our natural order -- we're as communal a creature as ants are, damned near.  And to the extent that our nation offered progress, it has done so when it acts in a communal way.  Read de Tocqueville - in our earliest days, the essence of our country was one of community and society.  Our greatest flaws have been those of separation -- the separation of slavery, the separation of Jim Crow, etc. 

We need each other.  All of us do.  But we live in greater and greater isolation.  We live in echo chambers, so there is no communal ethos common to us all.  We separate into hateful tribes.  When all of these things happen....humans will become sad, angry, hateful, and murderous beings.  We can limit the availability of instruments of death, and that may improve one ugly symptom of this illness.  But we will still be very, very sick.  And the disease will end up killing us, one way or another.

[Brisketexan 106907]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Well most don’t carry into churches and schools. But the point is valid, not many CHL saving the day.  Unless you count the gentlemen carrying the kids to the door in El Paso. 

I count the hell out of him.  Fantastic man.  But his actions didn't require a CHL -- he never shot back.  The parents who died shielding their 2 year old were just as heroic.

A quick counter-reaction CAN keep the toll from being worse (see Dayton).  But we'll never arm enough people to create a true blanket of protection, nor should we.  

The way I look at it, that's a way of treating a problem that is its own problem.  For example, I don't golf much....and as a result, I have a HORRIBLE slice.  I try to work on it every time, and sometimes it gets better -- mostly it doesn't.  So, when I play a scramble, sometimes I just give up and play my slice -- I line up pointed 30 degrees off being in line with the hole, and let my slice carry the ball back to the fairway.  It solves the problem...for that hole.  But it doesn't change the fact that I'm still a shitty golfer with a wicked slice, and because of that, I won't every be competitive.

Socially, we have a wicked slice (random shooters).  We can play the slice (have more armed folks to take them out), but we're still shitty golfers.

[F250 29201]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I do remember that.  And I kinda remember that at 18, I was intrigued -- I mean, they looked cool and fun to shoot, and at that age, we spent a fair number of weekends cruising around in a jeep on a ranch shooting jackrabbits, which would be fun as hell with one of those.

But then I saw the kinda guys buying them, and talking about them, and I didn't want to be one of those guys -- mostly fatass losers.  Back then, I wasn't a fatass, and I was trying to avoid "loser" status.  

Yeah, I was about 16 when I was at a gun show checking out a booth with a large display of knives and my eyes scrolled up to an assortment of Swastika accessories... The guy might as well have had a sign that said "Get away Mexican." So I walked off pretty quickly.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Seriously, if there had been scads of CC holders taking out mass shooters the NRA and Fox News would have been ALL OVER that shit.

And since they haven’t been.......

How many do you think were carrying in the Walmart in El Paso?  Probably more than one.

[retread 2951]

42 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Sorry if I missed this stat, but how many of the 250 mass shootings this year were ended by someone with a CC? Honest question.

I haven't seen a stat itt, but I think it's pretty low. I know one was cited.

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We need each other.  All of us do.  But we live in greater and greater isolation.  We live in echo chambers, so there is no communal ethos common to us all.  We separate into hateful tribes.  When all of these things happen....humans will become sad, angry, hateful, and murderous beings.   

Word! So true.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

31 minutes ago, F250 said:

Or that registration, background checks, mandatory training and waiting periods make a difference.

Wat.

[TexArcher 39074]

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How many do you think were carrying in the Walmart in El Paso?  Probably more than one.

I heard a broadcast say there were between 2,000 and 3,000 shoppers in that Walmart.  And this being Texas, it's a safe bet there were dozens of people carrying.

The problem is that no one is going to pull his Glock .40 and get into a firefight with that asshole's AK-47.  All this NRA tough guy talk about "if only someone had been carrying" is bullshit.  When you're that outgunned, you're going to cower and run like everybody else. 

The gun manufacturers and dealers must get hard as a rock every time they see one of these mass shootings on tv.  "Well, jeez, it's a shame that this is what the world's come to, but all we can do is level the playing field at least.  An AR-15 can be had for as little as $500, or more like $1,500-$2,000 if you really love your family.  Try this one in your hands and see how it feels..."

Guns in the hands of bad guys = good guys who feel the need to buy guns to defend themselves.  And the gun dealers get to profit from all of the above.  And the NRA has neutered the entire Republican Party so there won't be much resistance from lawmakers.  Hail profits.

It's all so fucking ridiculous.  

[Ted Lange 16415]

 

2 good guys with guns!

[retread 2951]

If the third guy had a gun, he could have stopped it.

[RDCanecutter 26895]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

As someone who has been a hunter and gun owner since I was a kid, I used to attend gun shows.  Back in my high school days -- think mid 1980s -- they were largely "outdoors" affairs.  Most booths had what we would all recognize as hunting weapons -- shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.  Others would have general outdoors gear (tents, backbacks, etc.).  A few would have handguns, but back then, semi-autos were maybe 25% of the inventory, and many of them were Model 1911s and whatnot.  A few booths had some old military surplus -- you could buy an M-1 Garand or an M-1 Carbine, for example.  Maybe some WWII history books, too.

Then, by the late 80s to early 90s, the atmosphere changed.  More modern military-style weapons showed up.  Lots of booths on "home-defense" and even "prepper" type themes.  I remember a booth selling customized shotgun shells filled with flechettes, or mini-bolo balls with razor sharp wire connecting them.  And then another booth with other various "weapons" - like a cane that with a push of a button would show four sharp blades along the bottom.  And a display case with various commemorative knives, including one with a KKK logo on it.  As I saw the cane, I couldn't help but ask the booth owner "what the hell do you need that thing for?"  He answered with a grin "it's good for fighting off dogs.....of ANY color."

And....that was the last gun show I ever went to.  I don't know why it all changed, but it sure as shit did.

Yeah, probably a good bit of overlap between the gun/prepper/bullion nut crowds. I was at a coin show a few years back where the bumper stickers in the parking lot were too outrageous to make it on Alex Jones.

A common fantasy is what they'll do WSHTF (when shit hits the fan)-- a future where only your present-day wise acquisition of lead, brass, silver, gold, and maybe a laminated pocket copy of the Constitution will see you through. Make sure you have Mercury dimes so you can barter.

I guess a full SHTF scenario would be like a bad day in Somalia. I don't see these guys doing well in Somalia. To walk it back to semi-SHTF, I thought maybe Honduras would stand in for that. So I went on Mercado Libre (Messkin eBay) for Honduras to see what my Mercury dimes would get me. They were buying and selling costume jewelry, minibikes, blouses, none of it for silver dimes. At first I was astounded, but then I realized that our Serpent Man masters had set up a fake internet and "Honduras" probably doesn't even exist.

(Buy powdered water.)

[bolverk 30334]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

As someone who has been a hunter and gun owner since I was a kid, I used to attend gun shows.  Back in my high school days -- think mid 1980s -- they were largely "outdoors" affairs.  Most booths had what we would all recognize as hunting weapons -- shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.  Others would have general outdoors gear (tents, backbacks, etc.).  A few would have handguns, but back then, semi-autos were maybe 25% of the inventory, and many of them were Model 1911s and whatnot.  A few booths had some old military surplus -- you could buy an M-1 Garand or an M-1 Carbine, for example.  Maybe some WWII history books, too.

Then, by the late 80s to early 90s, the atmosphere changed.  More modern military-style weapons showed up.  Lots of booths on "home-defense" and even "prepper" type themes.  I remember a booth selling customized shotgun shells filled with flechettes, or mini-bolo balls with razor sharp wire connecting them.  And then another booth with other various "weapons" - like a cane that with a push of a button would show four sharp blades along the bottom.  And a display case with various commemorative knives, including one with a KKK logo on it.  As I saw the cane, I couldn't help but ask the booth owner "what the hell do you need that thing for?"  He answered with a grin "it's good for fighting off dogs.....of ANY color."

And....that was the last gun show I ever went to.  I don't know why it all changed, but it sure as shit did.

I'm probably too late to the party here, but I was given a .22 rifle when I was in the fourth grade and used it for hunting at my grandparents' place outside of Brownwood quite frequently as a kid, so I was accustomed to guns being around growing up.

A few years later, I was over at a new friend's house and he showed me his dad's arsenal and exposed me to Soldier of Fortune magazine for the first time, and I was like wtf?

I'm just spitballing hear, but I'd bet publications like that, along with the shift in the NRA into a right wing political organization had something to do with it (and I'd bet the former was a response to Pentagon up frustrations over Vietnam by vets and the latter might've had something to do with a backlash to Civil Rights).

[4th&Five 42008]

So when do the buy back programs for video games start? I mean, if that’s what the GOP has concluded the problem is then let’s start banning them and getting them out of people’s hands. Otherwise it sounds a tad disingenuous. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

The soldier in El Paso was NOT a good guy with a gun.

What he did has fuck all to do with a gun.

He’s a good guy with strong arms and fast feet. THAT is what saved those kids.