Active Shooter Situation.

Active shooter=what would you do?

  • Try to run/hide

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Fight back if possible

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Total voters
    14

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
27,544
20,367
Weirdo
Yes. And to me, I'm willing to listen to gun control ideas... but not just pile pointless restrictions on as some sort of a show of pretending to fix our problem of mass shootings. Here is a rifle that shoots the same round as an AR15:



But it doesn't get the same attention because it doesn't look the same. It's still a semi auto rifle. It still accepts an external magazine. It's dressed differently, but provides the same capability, and yet it's not considered an assault rifle.
I have "a friend" who owns an SKS. It looks similar to that, ie; not "military looking" at all. It is capable of firing 30 (7.62) shots with legal gear - but would not be a part of the "AR roundup" so many propose. At least I don't think so.
 

johnflesh

Former Staff
Feb 2007
27,544
20,367
Weirdo

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
66,583
13,571
315 bowery/DMS
Truth be told, if AR's are taken out then that leaves a lot of rifles and handguns out there.
Then it'll be non-hunting gear.
Then it will be large handgun mags.
Then it will be handguns.
Then it will be sharp corners on desks (sort of kidding on this last one).


They already have warnings on sharp desk corners! hahahaha assault desks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian Jeffrey
May 2019
136
228
Arizona
Active shooter=what would you do?

Does it really worry you? you are more likely to die from falling down, or hit by a car going into the store you realize this right>?



  • Try to run/hide
  • Fight back if possible
  • Other
  • That's because you disarmed the good guys.
    If you're a member of Congress you do nothing. The standard thoughts and prayers of course, but nothing else. Besides it's too soon to talk about it so Rev, please, for the sake of the victims we all need to stop talking about mass shootings, until the next 20 kids are murdered. Then it will be shh again. Too soon.
  • VIVA NRA, USA, NRA.
 
Sep 2019
19
11
UK
Now you're posts sound like whacko Right wingers.
Well, I am a whacko Right Winger, which explains it, although I would have thought that my post on that point was just saying what everyone knows to be true. (And I actually think of myself as an FDR/JFK 1960 liberal, but liberalism has changed since then. In fact, they don't even seem to call it 'liberalism' any more, but 'progressivism', and even, lately, 'socialism'. God knows what will come after 'socialism' ... I dread to think.)

That is, the weekly kill rate is far higher among the Black lumpenproletariat than anywhere else, and mainly accomplished with handguns, but we don't see strong pressure to ban .38s (yet). Why? If it were white children being killed by the dozen every weekend, there would be huge pressure to do something about it -- but it's only young Blacks killing each other, so no one really cares. Isn't that obvious? [I know we're supposed to care, but I'm talking about what we really feel, not what we're supposed to feel.]

Now on your other post replying to me. Thank you for the welcome. I hope I can bring something to the table, discussion-wise. I do appreciate arguing/discussing with people who have actual practical experience, and since you were with DEA, your opinions are especially of value. [Quick irrelevant side question: how realistic is Breaking Bad?]

I reluctantly agree with you about psychiatric checks, although I would like to read something about the mentality of these crazy loners who suddenly decide to kill a lot of people -- and I divide them into two types: the ones who hate gays, or Jews, or Blacks, or policemen, or people they think are illegal immigrants. They're crazy, but motivated by an ideology. And then there are the ones who just want to kill a lot of children, or country-western fans, or just anyone. Surely research has been done, is being done, on these two types? But you're right ... in practice, we probably could catch very few.

My general approach is

(1) I don't care about the Second Amendment, except as a legal issue. The Constitution once permitted human slavery. So what? Either gun ownership should be regulated or it shouldn't. If it should -- and I believe it should, like every person I've ever met save one, then what should we permit and what should we not permit? (I did meet one fellow, about 15 years ago, who was for the right to own even nuclear weapons. Everyone else would draw the line somewhere. We just argue over the 'where'.)

(2) I really don't understand your argument that the definition of a military weapon should be whatever Congress says it is. (If that is what you meant.) The Indiana state legislature once voted to define pi as equal to 3.2 [ they couldn't even round off properly!] , but that didn't make it so. You do provide a definition -- something capable of killing scores of people within a matter of seconds. I might agree with you there -- for example a Claymore mine (do they still make these?), or any sort of bomb, or a .50 calibre belt-fed weapon, a Light Anti-Tank Weapon, a grenade launcher, a mortar. If someone wants to play around with those -- and they're great fun, as I recall -- then join the National Guard, which we all should anyway if we're 35 or under.

The devil is in the details here: as I am sure you know -- you've probably had more recent experience with weapons than I have, my extensive experience being fifty years out of date -- your AR15 typically has a 20 round magazine (although you can get higher capacity ones) and is semi-auto. I think all the recent mass killings were with 20 round magazines although I may be wrong. What should we forbid? Semi-auto? Magazine capacities greater than _______? What would you say?

The problem with Congress is that a lot of them are ignorant. They seem to think an "assault rifle" is something that is black and scary looking and has a bayonet lug or a forward hand grip or a bipod mount. I'm looking for 3 criteria:

--- (a) calibre (more precisely, effective kinetic energy transferred to the target I suppose, which is why we ban dum-dums and exploders [we do, don't we?]) -- it's possible to kill someone firing .22 shorts, but much more difficult than with higher velocity and larger bullets;
--- (b) length of time between firing of successive rounds (we already ban, effectively, automatic weapons, and I would be happy if the 'bump stock' exception were included in that ban); and
--- (c) magazine capacity, which should really be included in (b) but I will make it separate for purposes of discussion. (It should be in (b) because the real question is how long a time passes between rounds... If we could design a weapon that paused for five seconds between rounds, magazine capacity and even automaticity wouldn't matter .)

What do you think should be the limitations on these three things?

This is already so long that no one besides you will read it, and maybe not even you, but I would also like to tell you, and other people in favor of bans, what really agitates most of the people on my side ... and, knowing this, you might be able to come up with a proposal that a lot of us would accept, because it would meet our main concern, while severely limiting the possiblities of maniacs (ideological or otherwise) getting their hands on serious military-style weapons. But that's for another post.

Thanks for taking the time to read my screed.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
19
11
UK
I do care though, and I have proposed actual solutions that do not intefere with the rights of law abiding citizens that would clearly lower our gun crime rate. they don't even want to discuss it. all they do is scream "assault weapons"....
Maybe they don't pay attention to you because they can read Russian and fear being manipulated by a paid troll... but seriously, what are your solutions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rev. Hellh0und

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
66,583
13,571
315 bowery/DMS
Maybe they don't pay attention to you because they can read Russian and fear being manipulated by a paid troll... but seriously, what are your solutions?


1. release all non violent drug offenders.
2. expunge thier records.
3. increase penalties for using an illegal gun in a crime by 10 years or more no parole, no plea bargaining.
4. increase penalties for knowingly being involved in a "Strawman purchase" to 15 years no parole, no plea bargaining for dealer, buyer and seller for each count.
5. 20 year for crossing state line (federal) with an illegal gun or for selling a stawman gun (knowingly) that is transported across state lines.
6. use money saved by above on investment into inner city business development and scholarships for trade schools or college for those areas most affected.
7. work with local larger businesses to invest in inner city startups like my company does.
8. Pressure city mayors to waive fees for licensess and permits for new start ups in economically depressed areas.
9. legalize marijuana.


I have more, but thats off the top of my head.


10. most important and not something you or I can do, is change the culture that celebrates violence.