Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Back in the day a lot of British companies had separate alarms for fires and bomb threats. When I was a volunteer fireman I had to explain why they had to be different many, many times.

Why is that spoilered? Anyway, yes, fires call for very different responses relative to shooters and bombs. In my case as a teacher, I had rigid fire protocols I implemented with my students relative to the school's "one big mob goes outside and sorts itself out" process, but it also would have increased our vulnerability as a class to a shooter, which is the kind of situation in a first floor classroom where you have a lot of options that should include plans to circumvent the schools' "channel everyone into hallways" basic design.

Most people's first reaction to gunfire is "was that gunfire?", including even those who've had experience hearing it in other contexts. The alarm is there to allow people who know what is happening to skip the "oh now I see bodies and a guy in a black trenchcoat GOT IT" phase for others. Plus, given the nature of shooting situations, you probably want to have at least two very different immediate action drills available to avoid having students rush into fire, and that's something that should be clearly signaled as well.

We had lockdown drills for emergency incidents like a school shooting. It involved an intercom announcement with some sort of code phrase, followed by the teacher announcing lockdown and locking the door and giving students instructions. Classrooms that were too noisy when the deputy officer walked by would fail the drill. I'm not sure what the consequences of failing were, though.

If the gunfire itself is supposed to trigger the start of the drill at that Chicago school, that definitely wouldn't work very well to roll out in any school that has multiple buildings.

Good points all. However, due to internet law, I still win!

"Motherfucker's got a gun!" is totally not a code phrase.

Dudes, Florida Discount Guns Inc has made all arguments in favor of magazine capacities obsolete:


http://www.thenedg.com/product-details/

The Never-Empty Double Gat (NEDG) puts a gat on your gat, so you can reload one gat while continuing to fire your other gat, thus removing any pauses in your gatting while operating!

I think they're serious, but it's impossible to tell anymore.

HOLY SHIT THAT THING OWNS

I mean uh, uh, fuckin' gun nuts yeah


Seconding the dual alarm protocol, which we have at my school. In case of fire, we evacuate. In case of gunman, we all hide under tables away from the windows and door, and I lock the door.

Firing a gun with blanks is the fucking stupidest idea ever.

How the hell am I supposed to hold that sideways when firing?

So...its basically just a double barreled pistol? I thought those already existed :http://www.arsenalfirearms.com/products/af-2011-a1-double-barrel-pistol

Except that each pistol can be fired independently. That 1911/2011 can only fire both chambers at once.

Holy fucking kickback

And it gets around the magazine capacity limitations by simply just adding another gun.

how is this any different than someone wielding one pistol in each hand? Mind you, this method might increase accuracy and control a bit.

Why not go for broke and wield 2 of these!

Leaves a hand free for the beer.

Just duct tape your weapons together, has Aliens taught us nothing!?

Simpsons did it.

Mother Jones article fact-checking pro-gun myths.

I dislike the appearent changing from per capita to totals in the US/Japan comparison graph. But everything else is solid data from what I can see. Especially the bits about domestic violence, the escalating chance of death in an assault/mugging, and the bit on gun resellers having a shockingly high rate of being shady as fuck and how many of those shady gun sales are used in crimes.

Just to be a devils advocate: The "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" I see, is often argued as: " well, duh, the ones that get stopped don't become mass shootings." For example, that shooting incident at the oregon mall last year, supposedly the shooter committed suicide after being confronted by a guy with concealed a carry permit.

I think the one that was interrupted by an armed civilian was a few years ago (maybe it also happened in the 2012 one, but I can't find a mention of it.) The one which was interrupted by a civililan is a decent argument, but the counter-argument would be that the civilian didn't stop the shooter by killing, disabling, capturing or scaring him. (In fact, the civilian himself says he made a tactical error in confronting, instead of just taking a shot at him. The gunman shot him like 5 times and he's now paralyzed; I don't recall if he fired even once. The story is in the link below, but the internet isn't cooperating with me to let me review it.)

It's just speculation that the confrontation is what triggered the suicide, although if I recall from the story, it's fairly well accepted that an interruption of that kind is a good way to redirect the shooter, so it's not unlikely that your interpretation is at least plausible.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman

The shooting was in 2012, and the confronter was unharmed: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html (Though honestly, it seems a bit dubious to give the guy any credit in this one, but I've seen some more extremist websites hold the guy up as a hero)

I don't think you can really give much credit there. The shooter killed two people and wounded one, had an apparent weapon malfunction, and then strangely decided to stop shooting people. The longer versions of the story all cover that he basically managed to fix his weapon and reload, then pointed it at other people and chose not to fire for no reason.

It seems in this case the casualties were mitigated by the shooter suddenly having an understanding of what the shit he was doing.

Realistically, an armed bystander could help with a shooting. Also realistically, two armed bystanders would have a 50/50 chance of shooting the other armed bystander instead of the actual shooter, which is the problem with Arm Everyone turning into a confusing clusterfuck the minute rounds are fired and everyone draws a weapon. Target identification gets really fucking strange, because they're not all going to be nice and wear a hockey mask.

Yep. Life is surprisingly a little more complicated than an action movie.

A few summers ago I was at a combat pistol course and one of the instructors told us of a story of a CCW permit holder who saw a man in a business suit being chased by two homeless guys. The CCW permit shot the two men, who turned out to be undercover cops pursuing a suspect. I couldn't find this on Google to verify if this story is true.

The story I heard (and linked) is about a shooting in 2005, at the Tacoma Mall in Washington state. Somewhat similar, it sounds like.

I'm gonna play the common card here of "citation needed" :P


And this story from a few years ago:
http://tnsmartgirl.com/2013/01/06/school-shooting-in-tennessee-that-national-media-did-not-report/

And let me guess, you all didn't hear about this story which happened not long after the Batman theater shooter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

Yes, I know both of those were dissolved by non-civilians.

Lastly, I'm assuming you all have seen this before:

And this is a decent summary of incidents: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

Please don't take these as me believing that we need to arm everyone and that everyone needs a gun to make us all safe, just pointing out that there are indeed incidents of armed civilians using their guns to protect others and perhaps even stop a mass shooting in progress that could have escalated to untold amounts of deaths.

Raw security footage of the gunman at Sullivan Central High School confronted by an armed guard. (No shots are fired in the footage). I was surprised that the guard is letting the gunman walk them further into the class towards the library.

Why did the gunman, who had a history of mental and criminal problems according to the article linked above, have access to firearms?

Same with that crazy fuck that shot the group of kids for sitting in his driveway. I don't know what the answer is for getting guns away from the mentally unstable, but I hope there is one out there. I hope that some of the pushes made by Obama in his EO's will address this somehow.

That's why I'm rather disappointed with the NRA's stance against background checks. Sure criminals won't bother buying guns legally (hence they're criminals) but it will deter unstable persons, like the Newtown shooter, from trying to buy one legally.

Citation would be the Giffords incident where the civilians were almost shot by a responder with a CC. The issue is that shooting occurs, you round corner with your weapon. You see an armed person and multiple wounded. Do you fire on the armed person: Yes/No? In the Giffords situation, the person with the gun had disarmed the shooter, and almost got shot for being the one with the gun.

Seriously, we train police and military for this and they still fuck it up, because entering an active shooting scene with multiple shooters is fucking confusing.

But hey, let's go with the highly trained people doing this:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...ice-shoot-and-kill-wrong-man-andrew-lee-scott
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/a...cuevas-police-shoot-man-fleeing-bronx-robbery
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Police-Shoot-Wrong-Suspect-in-Armed-Robbery--132408768.html

The reason Arm Everyone is idiotic is that in the heat of the moment target identification is fucking HARD. And as evidenced prior in this thread, there's also racial fears and such wherein people make shit assumptions and panic shoot. We don't provide nearly enough constantly drilling to teach random civilians to shoot the right target in a confusing situation.

Earlier tonight seven people were stabbed inside an apartment building about eight blocks from my place. Apparently a 33-year-old man, who doesn't live in the building, got inside and randomly stabbed tenants.

Would I take out one of my guns from my safe if I found a deranged person slashing and stabbing my neighbours? I couldn't say until I would be actually faced with the situation. I wouldn't want to hit innocent bystanders and, of course, I don't want to be shot when the police finally arrive.

Hupp's story is very gripping, but her argument is not very persuasive. What's even less persuasive is all the stuff tacked onto the end of the video that, for example, advocates the murder of UN peacekeepers.

Yeah, I don't much care for everything she talks about after the incident talk, but I think she has valid points of wishing she still had her CCW there to maybe have been able to do "something". And that reloading takes literally no time at all, it's not enough time to bumrush someone unless you are already within hugging distance.

Was at the range with my boss the other day, he's very very much a newcomer to gun ownership. Bought himself a .38/.357 revolver, has owned it for a handful of months, and has taken it shooting 4 times (including this most recent time). I was actually quite surprised how quickly he could reload the revolver, and without speed loaders. I'd say it took him 3ish seconds to unload all of the casings and reload it completely, putting in two bullets at a time. It just surprised me as he's amateur and unpracticed to the extreme, but I also don't haven't spent much time around revolvers.

Yeah, this one is always hard to convince gun owners, as they all suffer from that syndrome akin to car drivers, where everyone thinks they are a good driver, but it's different because while they can recognize that most of the population is a bad driver, for some reason they think everyone who has a gun is infallible. Unless they are police officers, for some reason gun nuts think they are all terrible shots -- which could even be true, but the fact that they can't then make the logical leap to seeing that arming everyone would be like having crappy police officers everywhere.