Mass shooting ar Cali bar

[freyguy 4,364]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

 

Half?  Which half?

[Gene Parmesan 4,062]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

 

Craig Rosengarden reads that as the Anals of Internal Medicine...

 

[Beau Vine 55,824]

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I'm a gun owner and I believe the NRA sucks.

STAY IN YOUR LANE!

[Fondren & Main 6,871]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

There's nothing stopping that right now, yet we don't see Americans use this form of violence very often (if at all).  If we have stricter gun control laws and these people still kill using other forms of violence, then we will need to address that as well. But I don't think conjuring up other ways to kill people in "what if" scenarios is productive at all, or has any basis in fact at the moment.

I don't know the exact psychology behind it obviously, but it definitely seems like gun violence is preferred in the psyches of these murderous fucks.  Maybe burning down a building or using a box truck is too impersonal. I don't know. But the vast majority of Americans are for stricter background checks and age restrictions, and our government is ignoring it. We need action, not what if scenarios that basically serve as a stalling tactic.

Right, we have people using guns instead of trucks like what happened in Nice where 86 people died.  So, my point is the guns are not the root cause.  Ban all guns is not the solution, but it seems to be time to add more regulations to make it a little more difficult to acquire them.  We also need law enforcement to start doing their jobs better.  Cruz and this guy both had huge red flags that went ignored.  That is a complete failure on law enforcement’s part and it needs to be investigated.  Whoever fucked up should be held accountable.

[irishtexan 11,692]

7 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Right, we have people using guns instead of trucks like what happened in Nice where 86 people died.  So, my point is the guns are not the root cause.  Ban all guns is not the solution, but it seems to be time to add more regulations to make it a little more difficult to acquire them.  We also need law enforcement to start doing their jobs better.  Cruz and this guy both had huge red flags that went ignored.  That is a complete failure on law enforcement’s part and it needs to be investigated.  Whoever fucked up should be held accountable.

This is an entirely disingenuous way to frame this discussion, although I don't think you had any ill will in saying it that way. There is no "solution" to mental health and murder. People have been going crazy and killing people since the dawn of humanity. What we're trying to accomplish here is a reduction in mass murder by crazy people. That we will never eliminate murder by crazy people is not a valid excuse to do nothing. We are simply arguing for proactive (although really, at this point, reactive) preventative measures to reduce the possibility that a single person can kill a lot of people all at once. Right now the very easiest way to do that is with a gun and a high-capacity magazine. Statistical evidence seems to suggest reducing mentally unstable people's access to those two things might be effective in accomplishing that goal.

[Armybrat 41,320]

Ban it all you want, but there are already hundreds of millions of those magazines out there - not to mention the 3D printing thing is going to make any such move a futile gesture.

[irishtexan 11,692]

6 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Ban it all you want, but there are already hundreds of millions of those magazines out there - not to mention the 3D printing thing is going to make any such move a futile gesture.

That's not a reason to do nothing.

[Dark Horse 2,407]

Yet other countries are somehow able to make it work. It’s so peculiar. 

[texashorne 1,185]

41 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Right, we have people using guns instead of trucks like what happened in Nice where 86 people died.  So, my point is the guns are not the root cause.  Ban all guns is not the solution, but it seems to be time to add more regulations to make it a little more difficult to acquire them.  We also need law enforcement to start doing their jobs better.  Cruz and this guy both had huge red flags that went ignored.  That is a complete failure on law enforcement’s part and it needs to be investigated.  Whoever fucked up should be held accountable.

I have no issue with an extensive background check before obtaining the right to purchase firearms. However, all of my firearms are for hunting and all of them are family guns. I have never purchased a single one of them. If I ever decide to buy one and had to wait 2-4 weeks for a background check to come clean I would have no issue. 

[4th and 5 4,997]

Y'all are just pissing in to the wind. With respect to firearms, nobody's going to do anything. And there's nothing anyone can do.

You can replicate this bar shooting with any common firearm. Multiple "normal" capacity mags, multiple firearms, where there is a will, there is a way. ARs aren't going anywhere. 30 round PMags or extended Glock mags aren't either. Wouldn't matter if they did. A crowd and your grandpa's semi-automatic shotgun loaded with buckshot will still fill the morgue.

There is a mental health crisis in this country, and we've done literally nothing to address it.

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The lame deflections that essentially boil down to “Well, we cannot stop a harm completely so it’s not even worth it to try and stop some of the harm” is becoming so gross and offensive with every number added to the body count.

We ALL happily give up some small measures of liberty daily in the name of safety and the greater good. But for some reason when guns get added to the equation, some people act like it’s the end of the republic.

One guy ATTEMPTS to bomb a plane with his shoes = we all accept having to remove our shoes and give up some privacy in the name of safety.

We don’t want predators around kids so we all accept a background check and invasion of privacy if we want to work in schools.

Seatbelts. Helmets. Laws to protect seniors and the mentally incompetent.

None of the above stop all harm but they do reduce harm, save lives, and promote the general welfare.

Just because banning a certain magazine or this weapon or that accessory won’t stop all mass shootings doesn’t mean they won’t reduce their numbers or reduce the number of victims when they do happen.

Writing off all suggestions that could make these incidents less deadly and less frequent as non-starters because they won’t eliminate the incidents is the most lazy type of cowardice.

[irishtexan 11,692]

22 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Y'all are just pissing in to the wind. With respect to firearms, nobody's going to do anything. And there's nothing anyone can do.

You can replicate this bar shooting with any common firearm. Multiple "normal" capacity mags, multiple firearms, where there is a will, there is a way. ARs aren't going anywhere. 30 round PMags or extended Glock mags aren't either. Wouldn't matter if they did. A crowd and your grandpa's semi-automatic shotgun loaded with buckshot will still fill the morgue.

There is a mental health crisis in this country, and we've done literally nothing to address it.

 

OK. How do you propose we address the mental health crisis in this country with respect to mass shootings? Because whenever Second Amendment advocates say that the rash of mass shootings has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of firearms, magazine capacity, ARs, etc., and instead say that this is 100% a mental health issue, they seem to lack specific proposals on how to address the mental health component of this. We should have a serious discussion about it, because you're right in that this absolutely is a mental health issue. That being said, in my experience, the political leanings of Second Amendment advocates typically don't align with dedicating public resources to issues like mental health.

[Fondren & Main 6,871]

I don’t think anybody is writing things off.  I think they’re just offering counterpoints.  The fact is that high capacity mags are banned in California, but the killer used them anyway.  Now, we could ban them nationwide, but another counterpoint was offered.  What stops someone from buying ten magazines and walking in to start the carnage?  I’ve already suggested making the age to own weapons 25.  That’s a band aid solution at best though.  Why is law enforcement not being held accountable for abject failure either in this instance and in the case of the Florida school shooting?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

5 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

Because whenever Second Amendment advocates say that the rash of mass shootings has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of firearms, magazine capacity, ARs, etc., and instead say that this is 100% a mental health issue, they seem to lack specific proposals on how to address the mental health component of this.

'specific'?  they lack any kind of proposals.  they just don't care.  they want to be able to interject a talking point to distract from anything blaming guns.

[GringoSalado 1,652]

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Just because banning a certain magazine or this weapon or that accessory won’t stop all mass shootings doesn’t mean they won’t reduce their numbers or reduce the number of victims when they do happen.
 

Yes but the ban (of high cap magazines) didn't work in this case did it? Meanwhile a bunch of otherwise law-abiding people are now instant criminals because they have the wrong kind of pistol magazine. So your response to that law being totally ineffectual  is to pass another one (or ten)?

From that perspective it doesn't seem like you particularly care about this murder as much as you are excited about making more firearms owners into criminals for no good reason.

[Trey3216 15,450]

9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

'specific'?  they lack any kind of proposals.  they just don't care.  they want to be able to interject a talking point to distract from anything blaming guns.

A lot of gun advocates have offered a myriad of solutions on this and TOS before.   Honest ones. I could get behind the idea of requiring a concealed carry type course for people to buy a firearm.   It’s not unreasonable.  I could get behind a 14 day wait.   Several other items.   But the constant maniacal rants about mag size is almost funny to me.  Very few have the courage to encounter a gunman when they aren’t armed similarly.    Someone trained with a firearm isn’t delayed by more than about 3.5 seconds changing mags, especially with a pistol.  I have a pistol with 10 rd mags.   I can fire accurately while holding 2 mags in my non-firing hand.  It’s easy to change.   That’s 30 rounds I can fire, highly accurately, in less than 15 seconds.   Does it matter if I have 20 round mags or 10?   

[SameSame 1,745]

2 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

 this guy both had huge red flags that went ignored.  That is a complete failure on law enforcement’s part and it needs to be investigated.  Whoever fucked up should be held accountable.

Guess I don't agree.  I don't see the red flags.  Which really sucks on different levels.  

I mean he was a dude who liked to hang out get drunk, got loud sometimes, had a couple few run ins with the law.  Happened to be a gun owner and a vet.

If those are red flags, then let's just shut down everything.

 

[Brisketexan 106,621]

35 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I can fire accurately while holding 2 mags in my non-firing hand.  It’s easy to change.   That’s 30 rounds I can fire, highly accurately, in less than 15 seconds.   Does it matter if I have 20 round mags or 10?   

It wouldn't matter much for you.

It likely would matter for a much less experienced shooter, which several of these guys have been.

No measure prevents EVERY incident.  Just like seatbelts don't prevent EVERY death (you have a head-on with a truck at 100 mph, seatbelts aren't going to matter).  But just because in SOME accidents, seatbelts won't help, doesn't mean seatbelts are a bad idea.

I think there's a lot we could try, and some ideas that we probably shouldn't because they either go to far or would be mostly worthless, which we could perhaps figure out if we could have a meaningful discussion about reasonable gun control.  But we can't.  Not at all.  Hell, look on this thread, how ANY mention of gun control is met with the straw man response of "you can't just ban all guns!"

I think we the people have thoroughly demonstrated that we cannot have a productive conversation about guns.  Ever.  At all.  So nothing is going to happen.  That's the way it is.

[4th and 5 4,997]

1 hour ago, irishtexan said:

OK. How do you propose we address the mental health crisis in this country with respect to mass shootings? Because whenever Second Amendment advocates say that the rash of mass shootings has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of firearms, magazine capacity, ARs, etc., and instead say that this is 100% a mental health issue, they seem to lack specific proposals on how to address the mental health component of this. We should have a serious discussion about it, because you're right in that this absolutely is a mental health issue. That being said, in my experience, the political leanings of Second Amendment advocates typically don't align with dedicating public resources to issues like mental health.

As to your last statement, you are absolutely correct. You'd also be correct if you said the political leanings of advocates for anything typically don't align with dedicating public resources to issues like mental health. Mental health care is wildly underfunded. I deal with people who have MH issues every day in the context of the criminal justice system. If you have a substance abuse problem, they've got all kinds of resources and places to treat you. Inpatient, outpatient, short term, long term. There is no place for people with mental health issues. Some places have dual diagnosis treatment centers for SA + MH issues. But for MH issues alone, there's barely a fucking old band aid to stick on the problem. The court system does not have the resources. I didn't say they don't have the funding for more resources. I'm saying there are NO RESOURCES AT ALL. Probation conditions are "go see your mental health provider, make 2 appointments with your local mental health authority. Take your meds as directed." If these people could follow directions like that they wouldn't be MH people!

My clients may sit in jail because their parents won't bond them out for their own safety, and then they sit in jail for months before a bed opens at Austin State Hospital (ASH). A fucking county jail is about the worst place to put these people. I've had two clients attempt suicide in jail this year while waiting for ASH. And one come real close a few weeks ago. They get sent to ASH, where they try to hurry them out and coach them up to competency so they can get rid of them and bring in someone else. Just rub some dirt on it and get back out there.   

1 hour ago, Fondren & Main said:

I don’t think anybody is writing things off.  I think they’re just offering counterpoints.  The fact is that high capacity mags are banned in California, but the killer used them anyway.  Now, we could ban them nationwide, but another counterpoint was offered.  What stops someone from buying ten magazines and walking in to start the carnage?  I’ve already suggested making the age to own weapons 25.  That’s a band aid solution at best though.  Why is law enforcement not being held accountable for abject failure either in this instance and in the case of the Florida school shooting?

 

Every fucking time there is a warning sign. Law enforcement had prior contacts. EVERY FUCKING TIME. Whether it's mental health or terrorism.

 

1 hour ago, GringoSalado said:

Yes but the ban (of high cap magazines) didn't work in this case did it? Meanwhile a bunch of otherwise law-abiding people are now instant criminals because they have the wrong kind of pistol magazine. So your response to that law being totally ineffectual  is to pass another one (or ten)?

From that perspective it doesn't seem like you particularly care about this murder as much as you are excited about making more firearms owners into criminals for no good reason.

 

It's not the mags. This happened in CA, where they are banned, as you pointed out. There's millions of them now. The horse is out of the barn. 

 

59 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

A lot of gun advocates have offered a myriad of solutions on this and TOS before.   Honest ones. I could get behind the idea of requiring a concealed carry type course for people to buy a firearm.   It’s not unreasonable.  I could get behind a 14 day wait.   Several other items.   But the constant maniacal rants about mag size is almost funny to me.  Very few have the courage to encounter a gunman when they aren’t armed similarly.    Someone trained with a firearm isn’t delayed by more than about 3.5 seconds changing mags, especially with a pistol.  I have a pistol with 10 rd mags.   I can fire accurately while holding 2 mags in my non-firing hand.  It’s easy to change.   That’s 30 rounds I can fire, highly accurately, in less than 15 seconds.   Does it matter if I have 20 round mags or 10?   

 

Gun safety classes would be a great idea. I think it would be constitutional. Background checks for every sale. Fine. Database for MH people. Fine. It's already on form 4473!

I'd agree with all those things. But it don't mean shit, it'll never pass. They couldn't even pass a safety class.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It wouldn't matter much for you.

It likely would matter for a much less experienced shooter, which several of these guys have been.

No measure prevents EVERY incident.  Just like seatbelts don't prevent EVERY death (you have a head-on with a truck at 100 mph, seatbelts aren't going to matter).  But just because in SOME accidents, seatbelts won't help, doesn't mean seatbelts are a bad idea.

I think there's a lot we could try, and some ideas that we probably shouldn't because they either go to far or would be mostly worthless, which we could perhaps figure out if we could have a meaningful discussion about reasonable gun control.  But we can't.  Not at all.  Hell, look on this thread, how ANY mention of gun control is met with the straw man response of "you can't just ban all guns!"

I think we the people have thoroughly demonstrated that we cannot have a productive conversation about guns.  Ever.  At all.  So nothing is going to happen.  That's the way it is.

 Brisket, any idiot can swap a mag in short order. Crowds don't require aim. Mass murder is not a skill, it is a state of mind.

The only way to stop deaths caused by firearms is to ban firearms, and that's not going to happen.

[Brisketexan 106,621]

14 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Brisket, any idiot can swap a mag in short order. Crowds don't require aim. Mass murder is not a skill, it is a state of mind.

In this shooting, a man saved dozens of lives by busting a window and getting people out during a magazine swap.

In the Waffle House shooting, a man took out the shooter after he'd killed only four...hitting him during a magazine swap.

Every mag change is an opportunity to change the course of the shooting event.  It is proven that magazine changes offer a chance to save lives.  The smaller the magazine, the more magazine changes are necessary, creating greater opportunity to save lives.  We have actual, undisputed evidence of that occurring.  I just picked two of the most recent.  There's a lot more.  Every reload is a window of opportunity to live.  We should do what we can to maximize the number of those windows.

[Trey3216 15,450]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In this shooting, a man saved dozens of lives by busting a window and getting people out during a magazine swap.

In the Waffle House shooting, a man took out the shooter after he'd killed only four...hitting him during a magazine swap.

Every mag change is an opportunity to change the course of the shooting event.  It is proven that magazine changes offer a chance to save lives.  The smaller the magazine, the more magazine changes are necessary, creating greater opportunity to save lives.  We have actual, undisputed evidence of that occurring.  I just picked two of the most recent.  There's a lot more.  Every reload is a window of opportunity to live.  We should do what we can to maximize the number of those windows.

And that takes someone on site thinking about saving other lives while fully risking their own.   These are extraordinarily brave people, people who react before they think.    That’s not always the case, but obviously is more likely with a greater # of people.   Unfortunately, so are the # of potential casualties.   I know that I’ve been through enough Things that I’m always cognizant of exits, impromptu weapons if needed, and areas to defend myself/family.   I hate being that way, but it’s a thing that always goes through my mind whererver I am 

[Tired of Lurking 637]

Bump stocks, extended magazines, anything that makes a gun fire dozens of bullets in seconds need to be eliminated. They serve no purpose other than in the military.

[mycox 587]

On 11/8/2018 at 9:03 AM, bernorange said:

How did you determine that the Cali bar shooter had no motive?  According to the witness statements in the news report I posted earlier, it seems like the shooter was trying to rob the place.

I have never negged anyone on this site or the other. Congratulations! 

[Helobious 9,755]

10 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

A lot of gun advocates have offered a myriad of solutions on this and TOS before.   Honest ones. I could get behind the idea of requiring a concealed carry type course for people to buy a firearm.   It’s not unreasonable.  I could get behind a 14 day wait.   Several other items.   But the constant maniacal rants about mag size is almost funny to me.  Very few have the courage to encounter a gunman when they aren’t armed similarly.    Someone trained with a firearm isn’t delayed by more than about 3.5 seconds changing mags, especially with a pistol.  I have a pistol with 10 rd mags.   I can fire accurately while holding 2 mags in my non-firing hand.  It’s easy to change.   That’s 30 rounds I can fire, highly accurately, in less than 15 seconds.   Does it matter if I have 20 round mags or 10?   

That's cute. Where'd you learn to reload that fast? At some gun range with ear muffs and safety goggles on, shooting at a paper target? Maybe out on a ranch somewhere?

How fast and easy could you change mags surrounded by screaming people with blood everywhere, and smoke alarms blaring? The air thick with smoke? How fast could you do it if you knew someone might charge and attack you while you were reloading? While you knew someone (law enforcement or armed citizen) could pop up any second trying to kill you? How accurate would your shooting be in such an environment? 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Bevo 13,825]

Was it an ensalada again?

[Trey3216 15,450]

4 hours ago, Helobious said:

That's cute. Where'd you learn to reload that fast? At some gun range with ear muffs and safety goggles on, shooting at a paper target? Maybe out on a ranch somewhere?

How fast and easy could you change mags surrounded by screaming people with blood everywhere, and smoke alarms blaring? The air thick with smoke? How fast could you do it if you knew someone might charge and attack you while you were reloading? While you knew someone (law enforcement or armed citizen) could pop up any second trying to kill you? How accurate would your shooting be in such an environment? 

Don’t know as I’m not a wannabe serial killer.   But this guy was a marine, so he was a trained killer.  

[phdhorn 6,224]

At the only gun shop in Thousand Oaks, fearful residents decide it's time to buy a gun

Gus Garcia-Roberts, USA TODAYPublished 9:29 p.m. ET Nov. 9, 2018 | Updated 9:49 p.m. ET Nov. 9, 2018

 

Mother of Thousand Oaks victim calls for gun control after he survived the Las Vegas shooting only to die a year later in another mass shooting. USA TODAY

(Photo: Rob Schumacher, The Arizona Republic-USA TODAY Network)

The Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, site of the nation's latest major deadly mass shooting, rests just north of a residential neighborhood in this normally placid California enclave.

The horror that erupted there late Wednesday night brought out Brandon Simone and his neighbor, Molly, who live in apartments down the street from the bar. 

Molly, who asked that her last name not be used for her own safety, opened up her apartment and meager first-aid kit to survivors suffering broken bones, open gashes and mental anguish while they awaited medical treatment.

Following that sleepless night, Simone and Molly drove together three miles down the road to VC Defense, the only brick-and-mortar gun store in town.

Simone, 35, is a single father who previously vowed never to have a gun in the same home as his kid. But while his teenage son Ethan skateboarded outside, he asked the shop's owner what he needed to do to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

Molly filmed VC Defense’s handgun display with her phone and sent the video to her boyfriend, insisting that he immediately buy one.

For John Von Colln, VC Defense’s proprietor, the duo were among an unusually steady stream of customers that day. Many of them expressed the same sentiment: they had come to the gun store because no place feels safe anymore, and they felt ill-equipped to confront the next mass shooter or armed home invader.

There’s a documented phenomenon in America following mass shootings in which gun enthusiasts stream to dealers to buy up contested accessories like bump stocks before they are made illegal. Von Colln’s customers on Thursday didn't appear to be those types, at least not during the couple of hours he allowed a reporter to hang out in his store and speak with customers.

They weren’t driven by a collector’s desire to hoard guns and accessories, but by raw fear.

Some were small business-owners suddenly feeling vulnerable. Many were first-time buyers suddenly seeking weapons for self-defense. Von Colln had to turn at least one customer away because he didn’t have proper paperwork fulfilling California’s stringent identification requirements.

A banker wearing business casual, designer glasses and a gold Rolex inquired about concealing a sidearm under a tucked-in dress shirt.

“I need more holsters because I am not going anywhere without my piece now,” he announced.

More: What we know about Thousand Oaks gunman Ian David Long, a Marine veteran

Related: Tracking apps offer hope, dread for families in Thousand Oaks shooting

3 minutes of terror: How the Thousand Oaks shooting unfolded

Asking only to be identified as John for his safety, the banker said his son was outside the bar during the shooting, and that two of his son’s friends were killed. His own fear, he said, is being caught unprepared at a mall targeted by another madman with a gun.

Von Colln’s salesman, a burly long-haired man in a black beanie who stood before a wall of rifles, counseled him on an ankle holster. If he ever found himself in a shoot-out at the mall, the banker could quickly unholster and unload while lying on his back.

Von Colln said he knew he was in for an unusual day at the office when he threw on his work outfit of a “Don’t Tread on Me” t-shirt and cargo shorts Thursday morning, less than twelve hours after gunman Ian Long opened fire on the crowded bar. The crime scene just up the 101 Highway was still a chaotic carnival of law enforcement and media as several helicopters buzzed overhead.

A television reporter called to ask whether he had sold Long his weapon of mass murder. Von Colln found, to his relief, that a check of his database showed the former Marine had never been a customer.

Von Colln allows customers into his small gun shop by pushing a button which releases a heavy front gate. By noon Thursday, he could barely finish paperwork on a previous sale or bring out a new gun for a customer to handle before having to return to the button to let somebody else in.

As new customers cycled through the store, the constant chatter—besides general expressions of hatred for the shooter—was about the six unarmed, off-duty law enforcement officers who were reportedly at the bar during the shooting. Their lack of weapons was a presumed consequence of a California law barring firearms in bars.

“At least there could’ve been a chance” of preventing the shooting if they were armed, said Von Colln.

A former engineer who turned his gun hobby into a livelihood, Von Colln described California’s ever-tightening gun laws as the work of out-of-touch politicians creating a labyrinth of irrational rules so complicated even his clients in law enforcement can’t follow them.

A relative of police officers, he teared up while describing his cousin’s shooting death on duty. “I take this very seriously, what we do,” said Von Colln. “Some people would love to have all gun shops done, but without a legal way people are going to be doing it illegally.”

Residents have long regarded this city as a serene little community forty miles away from the crime and blight of Los Angeles. But the shooting this week drove home a creeping feeling that the outside world is encroaching on Thousand Oaks.

Mike Rowan, a former corrections officer who teaches gun handling courses at nearby Trigger Burst Training Center, said he fielded calls all Thursday from potential clients motivated to get gun permits following the bar shooting.

Some of his teaching focuses on fending off an active shooter, and Rowan said he expected an uptick in business similar to the one he experienced after the Las Vegas concert massacre last year.

“They’re just frightened,” Rowan said of this new client base. “Unfortunately these mass shootings are good for business, and I say that very solemnly.”

Rowan described a discreet, and distinctly Californian, clientele. They pull up to his range in Priuses and Teslas and never tell their friends they own a gun.

“I get a lot of closet liberals, people who normally would never want anything to do with a firearm, and I train them and they secretly own firearms,” Rowan said.

Simone, who drove with his neighbor to VC Defense following the shooting, would have previously counted himself among the anti-gun crowd. He used to believe that the danger of having a gun in his home with his son outweighed any protective value, but the shooting shifted his thinking.

Residents near Thousand Oaks, California already reeling from the shock of a mass shooting were confronting wildfire dangers Friday as a fast-moving blaze swept through the area - threatening homes and forcing evacuations. (Nov. 9) AP

His neighbor Molly was less equivocal. She openly questioned her boyfriend’s manhood if he continued to hesitate to buy a gun. She was ready to buy one herself.

“Thirteen people would have not died” if people who were trained with firearms were armed on Wednesday night, she said.

Simone described gun-opposing friends and family who were also “coming around” to this line of thinking, asking him to keep them posted on the process of buying a firearm in California.

He believes that the real issue behind gun violence isn’t the ease of buying firearms but the lack of ready treatment for mental health problems.

Simone used himself as an example. He said he has recently sought counseling following the deaths of several loved ones, but has been stymied in receiving help by delays and bureaucracy.

“What if I was that guy?” Simone said of Long, the shooter. “I’m the farthest from those guys. But I empathize with them.”  

For his teenage son Ethan, who skated around in the parking lot, it had been a surreal and frightening twelve hours in Thousand Oaks. He had been awoken by gunshots and then evacuated from school following a gun threat there, while just northward huge smoke clouds billowed from a raging brush fire in the hills.

He chimed in with his opinion on gun control. “No matter how hard they make it to get a gun, they’re going to get one,” Ethan said.  "I'm a kid and I don't know anything but I know that."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/09/thousand-oaks-following-ian-long-shooting-borderline-bar-and-grill-fearful-residents-buy-guns/1947476002/

Edited November 10, 2018 by phdhorn

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

6 hours ago, Helobious said:

That's cute. Where'd you learn to reload that fast? At some gun range with ear muffs and safety goggles on, shooting at a paper target? Maybe out on a ranch somewhere?

How fast and easy could you change mags surrounded by screaming people with blood everywhere, and smoke alarms blaring? The air thick with smoke? How fast could you do it if you knew someone might charge and attack you while you were reloading? While you knew someone (law enforcement or armed citizen) could pop up any second trying to kill you? How accurate would your shooting be in such an environment? 

I’m gonna suggest to you that a person committing a mass shooting isn’t experiencing reality at that moment like those around them and that he or she likely isn’t even registering the screaming and blood and or is experiencing extreme time dilation. 

You’re trying to paint a rational response to an irrational situation as though the shooter was just surprised at the dinner table. 

And you don’t understand the point of practicing motions repeatedly to perform them under duress if you think a shooter, particularly a trained one as in this instance, is worried about fumbling with a mag while getting rushed. 

In fact, you don’t seem to understand that victims in most cases like this just freeze and stare dumbly at their assailant, or the fact that the shooter has likely already accepted that they too will die shortly. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

This guy is fumbling and bumbling, and gets a new shot off in just under 5 seconds average

Place your mags strategically, train a little bit to switch out, and you can do it in half that time.  My best is about 3 seconds (blanks, I ain't no dummy).  
It ain't hard for someone with just a few sessions training and prep to switch 'em out in an eyeblink.  Especially someone with military firearms training.

[SquishMitten 10,493]

Yes but the ban (of high cap magazines) didn't work in this case did it?

You can’t prove a negative. We don’t know how often a restriction prevents something from happening. Maybe this guy tried to buy an AR, but the glock with an extended mag was the best he could do. If he’d been able to use an AR, the death toll could be higher. Maybe some other shooting never occurred because a crazy guy couldn’t get any type of gun. Saying things like “regulation didn’t prevent anything here” is lazy, and it’s likely false in a general sense.

[SquishMitten 10,493]

I have a pistol with 10 rd mags.   I can fire accurately while holding 2 mags in my non-firing hand.  It’s easy to change.   That’s 30 rounds I can fire, highly accurately, in less than 15 seconds.   Does it matter if I have 20 round mags or 10?   

You’re asking if it would matter if you could fire twice as many rounds in roughly the same amount of time? Unless you’ve already killed everyone in the room with your 30 rounds, I think the next 30 could probably do additional damage.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 hour ago, phdhorn said:

This guy is fumbling and bumbling, and gets a new shot off in just under 5 seconds average

Place your mags strategically, train a little bit to switch out, and you can do it in half that time.  My best is about 3 seconds (blanks, I ain't no dummy).  
It ain't hard for someone with just a few sessions training and prep to switch 'em out in an eyeblink.  Especially someone with military firearms training.

How many seconds do you believe it takes for someone 10 feet from you to reach you while you're reloading?   An eye blink is 3/10 of a second.  The only thing you can do with a gun even close to that fast is pull the trigger.  Every other action you take with that firearm is going to allow people who are nearby to react.

[phdhorn 6,224]

45 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How many seconds do you believe it takes for someone 10 feet from you to reach you while you're reloading?   An eye blink is 3/10 of a second.  The only thing you can do with a gun even close to that fast is pull the trigger.  Every other action you take with that firearm is going to allow people who are nearby to react.

My guess is if you come in with 2-3 loaded guns and fire away around your perimeter before you need to reload, there isn't going to be anyone within 20 feet of you.  Or 50 feet.  95% of them would be dead or running away from you as fast as you can, unless you poorly (for yourself) chose a small room.

The best athletes in the world, who train exclusively for the event, run the 100 meters in just under 10 seconds.  That's just over 10 meters a second, averaged, and of course much, much faster in the last 10 meters than the first, at the start.  So world-class sprinters would take just about 2/3 of a second to get to you from 20 feet, maybe, in the best conditions (don't have to go over bodies, don't slip/trip, etc.).  The average person it would take a little over 3 seconds, and again, that would probably be one in a thousand people, judging by the way people react to a shooter (most of them, correctly trained, are trying to get away from you.  Anyway, after 5 seconds, You're almost ready to go again with another.  A typical high-capacity mag for my .45 would contain 25 rounds.  You probably had at least that to start, and could easily fire 70 rounds at least with 3 guns.

To disarm someone in between loads is possible, but it would have to take someone who 1) has had extensive training and/or instantly, in a terrorizing event, is able to not get shot within 20 feet, 2) who would anticipate the reload, and start running after that, and 3) would have the ability to disarm the shooter.  Plus this guy used smoke bombs to mask himself.  It would be almost impossible to run at someone like that, and he could reload easily in the fog.  I find it interesting that there were 5 off-duty officers there that night, and at least 1 ex-Marine (besides the shooter), who all helped save lives by helping people away from the shooter and out another way, and used their training to do some triage to stop bleeding/save lives.  None of them, probably with a firearm, didn't rush the shooter.  And they likely had the training. 

Could it happen that someone could be that near/survive the first barrage/run at the guy in an obscured curtain of smoke and subdue him?  Sure.  Would it happen?  Not likely.

I'm not saying that high capacity mags shouldn't be looked at/regulated, but it's no guarantee to prevent more deaths - I have no problem with it but neither do I see it as much of a solution, and people who shoot for sport (like me) do like the high-capacities simply to be able to shoot more than reload.  Someone who would use them for evil probably has shot a lot with them and planned out the killings.  I don't object to the regulation, but it's not going to solve the problem (plus as 4th and 5 said, there are millions of them out there anyway - it would take decades to get them out of circulation).  The only thing I'm saying is that if this were legislated, fine, great, whatever, but it would be absolutely foolish to think it was in any way a primary problem.  it probably wouldn't make much of a dent whatsoever in preventing deaths.
 

Edited November 10, 2018 by phdhorn

[Tired of Lurking 637]

2 hours ago, phdhorn said:

This guy is fumbling and bumbling, and gets a new shot off in just under 5 seconds average

Place your mags strategically, train a little bit to switch out, and you can do it in half that time.  My best is about 3 seconds (blanks, I ain't no dummy).  
It ain't hard for someone with just a few sessions training and prep to switch 'em out in an eyeblink.  Especially someone with military firearms training.

Hey douchebag, nice shirt, but this doesn't enlarge your cock by 2 inches. 

[Helobious 9,755]

26 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

My guess is if you come in with 2-3 loaded guns and fire away around your perimeter before you need to reload, there isn't going to be anyone within 20 feet of you.  Or 50 feet.  95% of them would be dead or running away from you as fast as you can, unless you poorly (for yourself) chose a small room.

The best athletes in the world, who train exclusively for the event, run the 100 meters in just under 10 seconds.  That's just over 10 meters a second, averaged, and of course much, much faster in the last 10 meters than the first, at the start.  So world-class sprinters would take just about 2/3 of a second to get to you from 20 feet, maybe, in the best conditions (don't have to go over bodies, don't slip/trip, etc.).  The average person it would take a little over 3 seconds, and again, that would probably be one in a thousand people, judging by the way people react to a shooter (most of them, correctly trained, are trying to get away from you.  Anyway, after 5 seconds, You're almost ready to go again with another.  A typical high-capacity mag for my .45 would contain 25 rounds.  You probably had at least that to start, and could easily fire 70 rounds at least with 3 guns.

To disarm someone in between loads is possible, but it would have to take someone who 1) has had extensive training and/or instantly, in a terrorizing event, is able to not get shot within 20 feet, 2) who would anticipate the reload, and start running after that, and 3) would have the ability to disarm the shooter.  Plus this guy used smoke bombs to mask himself.  It would be almost impossible to run at someone like that, and he could reload easily in the fog.  I find it interesting that there were 5 off-duty officers there that night, and at least 1 ex-Marine (besides the shooter), who all helped save lives by helping people away from the shooter and out another way, and used their training to do some triage to stop bleeding/save lives.  None of them, probably with a firearm, didn't rush the shooter.  And they likely had the training. 

Could it happen that someone could be that near/survive the first barrage/run at the guy in an obscured curtain of smoke and subdue him?  Sure.  Would it happen?  Not likely.

I'm not saying that high capacity mags shouldn't be looked at/regulated, but it's no guarantee to prevent more deaths - I have no problem with it but neither do I see it as much of a solution, and people who shoot for sport (like me) do like the high-capacities simply to be able to shoot more than reload.  Someone who would use them for evil probably has shot a lot with them and planned out the killings.  I don't object to the regulation, but it's not going to solve the problem (plus as 4th and 5 said, there are millions of them out there anyway - it would take decades to get them out of circulation).  The only thing I'm saying is that if this were legislated, fine, great, whatever, but it would be absolutely foolish to think it was in any way a primary problem.  it probably wouldn't make much of a dent whatsoever in preventing deaths.
 

I think you overestimate the skill of many of these mass shooters. Ex-military ones like this guy and the Dallas shooter were better trained than law enforcement or CHL carriers, they know how to handle the stress of such situations, despite their mental illness. Most of these shooters don't have that expertise. Adam Lanza was in such a panic during his shooting that he was reloading his 30-round mags after firing only 15 rounds sometimes. Several children escaped one of the classrooms he was shooting in while he was fumbling around trying to reload. He even ditched one of his weapons the second it got an easily clearable jam. And that was all while being surrounded by 6 year olds, in case anyone had any doubts about how big of a pussy he was. The waffle house guy was also slow on his reload, which is why that guy was able to charge and overpower him. 

I don't know why it's such an evil idea to give victims in these situations a better chance to live, no matter how small. I don't know why it's important to make things as easy as possible for the mass shooter. Why it's so terrible to make them train enough to be robotic at reloading, make them prove they can switch out mags in 3 seconds & fire accurately, and make them jump through some extra hoops to illegally get a high capacity magazine. Every time they have to reload is one more chance, even if it's just a small one,  for people to get away or attack, or for the gun to jam, or for the magazine to slip from their hands, etc. All the extra time they have to spend training to get great at reloading and shooting is more time for their plot to get foiled, more time even for them to die in a car wreck on the way to the range, or a million other things that can go wrong for someone when they have to delay taking action on a plan. 

[immortal13 4,059]

2 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

 

Maybe this guy tried to buy an AR, but the glock with an extended mag was the best he could do. 

 

Why would he not have been able to buy an AR?

[GringoSalado 1,652]

3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:



You can’t prove a negative. We don’t know how often a restriction prevents something from happening. Maybe this guy tried to buy an AR, but the glock with an extended mag was the best he could do. If he’d been able to use an AR, the death toll could be higher. Maybe some other shooting never occurred because a crazy guy couldn’t get any type of gun. Saying things like “regulation didn’t prevent anything here” is lazy, and it’s likely false in a general sense.

 

Yes but the ban (of high cap magazines) didn't work in this case did it?

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, phdhorn said:

My guess is if you come in with 2-3 loaded guns and fire away around your perimeter before you need to reload, there isn't going to be anyone within 20 feet of you.  Or 50 feet.  95% of them would be dead or running away from you as fast as you can, unless you poorly (for yourself) chose a small room.

The best athletes in the world, who train exclusively for the event, run the 100 meters in just under 10 seconds.  That's just over 10 meters a second, averaged, and of course much, much faster in the last 10 meters than the first, at the start.  So world-class sprinters would take just about 2/3 of a second to get to you from 20 feet, maybe, in the best conditions (don't have to go over bodies, don't slip/trip, etc.).  The average person it would take a little over 3 seconds, and again, that would probably be one in a thousand people, judging by the way people react to a shooter (most of them, correctly trained, are trying to get away from you.  Anyway, after 5 seconds, You're almost ready to go again with another.  A typical high-capacity mag for my .45 would contain 25 rounds.  You probably had at least that to start, and could easily fire 70 rounds at least with 3 guns.

To disarm someone in between loads is possible, but it would have to take someone who 1) has had extensive training and/or instantly, in a terrorizing event, is able to not get shot within 20 feet, 2) who would anticipate the reload, and start running after that, and 3) would have the ability to disarm the shooter.  Plus this guy used smoke bombs to mask himself.  It would be almost impossible to run at someone like that, and he could reload easily in the fog.  I find it interesting that there were 5 off-duty officers there that night, and at least 1 ex-Marine (besides the shooter), who all helped save lives by helping people away from the shooter and out another way, and used their training to do some triage to stop bleeding/save lives.  None of them, probably with a firearm, didn't rush the shooter.  And they likely had the training. 

Could it happen that someone could be that near/survive the first barrage/run at the guy in an obscured curtain of smoke and subdue him?  Sure.  Would it happen?  Not likely.

I'm not saying that high capacity mags shouldn't be looked at/regulated, but it's no guarantee to prevent more deaths - I have no problem with it but neither do I see it as much of a solution, and people who shoot for sport (like me) do like the high-capacities simply to be able to shoot more than reload.  Someone who would use them for evil probably has shot a lot with them and planned out the killings.  I don't object to the regulation, but it's not going to solve the problem (plus as 4th and 5 said, there are millions of them out there anyway - it would take decades to get them out of circulation).  The only thing I'm saying is that if this were legislated, fine, great, whatever, but it would be absolutely foolish to think it was in any way a primary problem.  it probably wouldn't make much of a dent whatsoever in preventing deaths.
 

Its nearly always close quarters in these situations.  There were 100s of people at this place. They were in each other's way as much as they were all trying to get away from the shooter.  Lots of injuries occur from the stampedes even absent shooters.   Also they were in every direction from the shooter including behind him.  If you're ducking behind a table while he is shooting another way.  Your chance to make a move on him happens when he is changing magazines.  He likely doesn't even see it coming and is still focusing in the direction of the majority of victims.  That is basically what happened at Waffle House.

Edited November 10, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[phdhorn 6,224]

Not necessarily... the Paris shooting was in a small arena.  The Phoenix shooting was in a movie theater.  The San Antonio shootings were in a fairly large church.  The Tree of LIfe Synagogue was this:


Hardly small.

But it doesn't really matter.  Large or small, it's not going to make a difference for the most part.  I mean in the College Night bar shooting, the guy had stopped to post on Instagram before shooting again.  I mean again, he stopped shooting to post.  That's a lot longer than 5 seconds.  He pretty much probably cleaned out the place or at least had so many people hiding in terror that he could do that and no one ran up to him (although I don't know the details like most of us yet, so I won't assume why he had all that time to post).

You always hear it, but it's true.  The guy probably broke something like 27 Federal laws alone.  While there is evidence that some laws (and it's foggy which ones do) might prevent shootings, the majority of them just seem to be "paste another coat on" laws.  And the "well the more laws you have the harder it gets so keep adding them" has proven to be fallacious at best.  I don't think a high-magazine law is going to do anything.  I wouldn't go around/against it if it became law again (it expired on the Federal level in 2004. many states and localities have them).  

Sorry to say, if you want to prevent mass shootings, the only real way to do it is to ban all guns from non-military/law enforcement/other authorized carriers.  That's about it.  Much of anything else to me isn't going to do much, as we're seeing, except essentially punish the good people (99.9999999999% of gun owners).

Since that is never going to happen, there are some good places to start with common sense laws that could possibly help without being intrusive to good folks' enjoyment.  It's worth a read:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/4-laws-that-could-stem-the-rising-threat-of-mass-shootings/

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

23 hours ago, Dark Horse said:

Yet other countries are somehow able to make it work. It’s so peculiar. 

Are you going to support a ban of private ownership of guns, and confiscatory policies ?  That's what it's going to take at this point.

The genies out of the bottle, so using the other counties argument is a bit moot at this point in time.   And I would wholeheartedly support a ban on the sale of semi auto weapons and any magazine holding more than 4-6 rounds, but there are already how many million semi autos out there now ?.

[Dark Horse 2,407]

24 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Are you going to support a ban of private ownership of guns, and confiscatory policies ?  That's what it's going to take at this point.

The genies out of the bottle, so using the other counties argument is a bit moot at this point in time.   And I would wholeheartedly support a ban on the sale of semi auto weapons and any magazine holding more than 4-6 rounds, but there are already how many million semi autos out there now ?.

Of certain guns and magazine sizes? Sure. 

We’re going to have to unfuck this situation somehow. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

5 minutes ago, Dark Horse said:

Of certain guns and magazine sizes? Sure. 

We’re going to have to unfuck this situation somehow. 

At this point it's confiscation/buy back as the only way to get them out of the hands of most citizens.

[Dark Horse 2,407]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

At this point it's confiscation/buy back as the only way to get them out of the hands of most citizens.

Yes, I get that. It’s ok to admit we made a mistake by allowing them to be owned in the first place. 

 

It don’t add add inches to your dick  

 

 

[bernorange 8,385]

15 hours ago, mycox said:

I have never negged anyone on this site or the other. Congratulations! 

Of all the posts on the board, much less this thread, that's the one you chose?  Discussion when news is breaking and limited facts are available?  That's really special.

[mycox 587]

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

Of all the posts on the board, much less this thread, that's the one you chose?  Discussion when news is breaking and limited facts are available?  That's really special.

Well it was 1:30am and got home drunk. I happened to stumbled across this thread and didn't realize your post was over 24 hours old. Thought someone was trolling.  Neg rep taken away 😉

[Brisketexan 106,621]

My guess is if you come in with 2-3 loaded guns and fire away around your perimeter before you need to reload, there isn't going to be anyone within 20 feet of you.  Or 50 feet.  95% of them would be dead or running away from you as fast as you can, unless you poorly (for yourself) chose a small room.

The best athletes in the world, who train exclusively for the event, run the 100 meters in just under 10 seconds.  That's just over 10 meters a second, averaged, and of course much, much faster in the last 10 meters than the first, at the start.  So world-class sprinters would take just about 2/3 of a second to get to you from 20 feet, maybe, in the best conditions (don't have to go over bodies, don't slip/trip, etc.).  The average person it would take a little over 3 seconds, and again, that would probably be one in a thousand people, judging by the way people react to a shooter (most of them, correctly trained, are trying to get away from you.  Anyway, after 5 seconds, You're almost ready to go again with another.  A typical high-capacity mag for my .45 would contain 25 rounds.  You probably had at least that to start, and could easily fire 70 rounds at least with 3 guns.

To disarm someone in between loads is possible, but it would have to take someone who 1) has had extensive training and/or instantly, in a terrorizing event, is able to not get shot within 20 feet, 2) who would anticipate the reload, and start running after that, and 3) would have the ability to disarm the shooter.  Plus this guy used smoke bombs to mask himself.  It would be almost impossible to run at someone like that, and he could reload easily in the fog.  I find it interesting that there were 5 off-duty officers there that night, and at least 1 ex-Marine (besides the shooter), who all helped save lives by helping people away from the shooter and out another way, and used their training to do some triage to stop bleeding/save lives.  None of them, probably with a firearm, didn't rush the shooter.  And they likely had the training. 

Could it happen that someone could be that near/survive the first barrage/run at the guy in an obscured curtain of smoke and subdue him?  Sure.  Would it happen?  Not likely.

I'm not saying that high capacity mags shouldn't be looked at/regulated, but it's no guarantee to prevent more deaths - I have no problem with it but neither do I see it as much of a solution, and people who shoot for sport (like me) do like the high-capacities simply to be able to shoot more than reload.  Someone who would use them for evil probably has shot a lot with them and planned out the killings.  I don't object to the regulation, but it's not going to solve the problem (plus as 4th and 5 said, there are millions of them out there anyway - it would take decades to get them out of circulation).  The only thing I'm saying is that if this were legislated, fine, great, whatever, but it would be absolutely foolish to think it was in any way a primary problem.  it probably wouldn't make much of a dent whatsoever in preventing deaths.
 

A lot of hypothetical analysis.

Real-world data from multiple shootings tells us that reloading has offered chances to 1) take out the shooter, or 2) escape. Every reload is a chance for survival. Real world experience tells us that. It’s not hypothetical.

[phdhorn 6,224]

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

A lot of hypothetical analysis.

Real-world data from multiple shootings tells us that reloading has offered chances to 1) take out the shooter, or 2) escape. Every reload is a chance for survival. Real world experience tells us that. It’s not hypothetical.

Actually, considering the number of shootings where that didn't happen, it's pretty much as hypothetical.  The only way this guy stopped shooting is to kill himself.

Hi-cap mags are not a real solution in my opinion.  If they want to ban them again, I can live with it.  But "real world data" doesn't show what you're saying.

By the way, here's an example of "real world data" from my perspective.  Feel free to post something from yours.

https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-policy-bulletin/losing-count-empty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions

Edited November 11, 2018 by phdhorn

[Helobious 9,755]

10 hours ago, phdhorn said:

Actually, considering the number of shootings where that didn't happen, it's pretty much as hypothetical.  The only way this guy stopped shooting is to kill himself.

Hi-cap mags are not a real solution in my opinion.  If they want to ban them again, I can live with it.  But "real world data" doesn't show what you're saying.

By the way, here's an example of "real world data" from my perspective.  Feel free to post something from yours.

https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-policy-bulletin/losing-count-empty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions

Thanks for the link, got a few good chuckles from browsing. Was it written by a pre-law sophomore? 

Quote

Although it is true that black-market access to restricted magazines will always be easy

"Always" and "easy". Not a good combo for a sentence in any legit study. 

Quote

Instead of discouraging criminal conduct using certain weapons and magazines, current magazine bans draw an arbitrary line that can ruin lives and tear families apart with little to no countervailing benefit.

Actually loled here. 

Quote

A ban on high-capacity magazines is likely to reduce ownership more among law-abiding people than among criminals (because lawabiding people tend to follow the law); thus, the use of such magazines would be disproportionately reduced in defensive uses.

Lets ban laws then. 

Quote

the fact remains that an unknowable but large number of would-be victims of crimes use their guns in defense of themselves and their property every year.

If it's unknowable how do you know it's large?

Quote

For example, in 2015, two armed men (one with a gun, one with a fake gun) attempted to ambush a group leaving a Houston bar. The assailants attacked one member of the group, prompting a would-be victim to draw his gun. The would-be victim fired twice at the first robber and then 10 times at the second. The first robber was hit twice, and the second was hit seven times. Despite those hits, the second robber continued to run, only to be apprehended at a hospital some time later. Both survived.⁵¹

His big example is a guy getting 9 hits? What was the effective bonus of the 2 extra shots he got out of his higher capacity mag? 

[Goredho 17,627]

...four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

• Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

   

• A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

   

• 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

Why didn’t this guy use a machine gun in his attack?  Hint: it’s not because everyone is packing one.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html