What "meaningful action" would suggest to prevent more mass shooting in the US?

[JT]

Please check this out. This is one reason I don't agree with arming teachers.



Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One

Joey, the Airsoft dude and concealed carrier, clearly got smoked by the "deranged gunman," who ambushed the classroom with gun already drawn.

What I want to know (and see filmed) is what happens to the deranged gunman when he proceeds to the next classroom, where one or more armed participants have already drawn their weapons and taken cover before anyone makes it through the door. I think the outcome might be different and more relevant.

Hardened cockpit doors, armed pilots and random air marshals seem an accepted protocol on airplanes for this post 9/11 world. I'm not sure I'd want to see the exact same protocol at my kids' school (or other "soft" targets), but I don't think we should summarily reject such thoughts without significant consideration.

[pdxmike]

To me, concealed weapons are like IRS audits, unmarked highway patrol cars, speed traps and random drug testing.  Their value isn't in how many people they catch, it's that they create the possibility of being caught. 

Personally, I don't like the idea that a criminal is basically told upfront that he's entering a gun-free zone, where he knows if he doesn't see a policeman or armed guard, he's safe from being shot himself.  Or as another example, armed plainclothes air marshals.  The deterrent effect is great because the hijacker doesn't know who the marshal is.

I know people who have stopped crimes (against themselves) with concealed guns.  One actually shot a bank robber, the other pulled his gun and scared a guy off who came at him with a knife. 

My own daughter came home and had a burglar barricade himself in the bathroom and call 911 himself after believing the dog was vicious and she may be armed. 

People can argue about the pros and cons of concealed weapons, but the deterrent effect is clear, and it doesn't require someone pulling the trigger.  It doesn't even require anyone carrying a gun--just the possibility that someone MAY have one is a deterrent. 

[PonoBill]

I didn't watch the video, given the title I assumed whacky bias. After all the comments I watched it and discovered how idiotic it is. Could this be just slightly more contrived??? Nope, there's no room for improvement here, they've set the bar for manipulation about as high as it goes.

[NoSaltSuper]

Yes, this is rural Texas, but some teachers there have been carrying for 5 years, in school. They started after the Amish school shooting.

Guess what, no problems and certainly, no mass shootings.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns-081017416.html

Could this work everywhere? Maybe not. But as PDX just said:
"just the possibility that someone MAY have one is a deterrent. "

Advertising/requiring gun free zones, just invites Theatre shootings and this most recent tragedy.

These shooters are certainly mentally imbalanced, but they're not stupid. They carefully planned their events, bought the necessary protection and arms, drove to the site without attracting law enforcement attention.

Yes I'll keep saying this, soft unprotected areas like schools are soft targets and appeal to these shooters.

The shooters want to inflict maximum damage, they aren't going to select a school where it's known (or believed) there are armed staff. That minimizes the chances of their "success".

Yes it's a sad state of life where we have to think about arming teachers and/or staff, but it's the last, best line of defense and prevention, IMO.

[Bean]

Or utilize SRO's

[skibike]

From a school perspective I think the only way is preventing entry from happening in the first place. I just dont see that much difference of an outcome by having random teachers carrying. Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt. The CC solution does nothing to solve all the other potential targets, movie theaters, malls etc. And thats why I think this solution is flawed. You paranoid about the government wanting to take over........ Im more paranoid about Tommy sitting 3 rows behind me that gets pissed off with Mikey for talking during a movie, words are exchanged and the next thing a gun battle ensues. No thanks.

We'll just see what comes from this and what politicians are going to do. If nothing, sadly we will be talking about this again in the not so distant future.

[pdxmike]

From a school perspective I think the only way is preventing entry from happening in the first place. I just dont see that much difference of an outcome by having random teachers carrying. Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt. The CC solution does nothing to solve all the other potential targets, movie theaters, malls etc. And thats why I think this solution is flawed. You paranoid about the government wanting to take over........ Im more paranoid about Tommy sitting 3 rows behind me that gets pissed off with Mikey for talking during a movie, words are exchanged and the next thing a gun battle ensues. No thanks.

We'll just see what comes from this and what politicians are going to do. If nothing, sadly we will be talking about this again in the not so distant future.

The thing is, having teachers (or my preference--police) even occasionally being present with weapons does affect entry, and it doesn't require weapons to be fired.  To a shooter, it means he may be shot if he attempts anything there.  That doesn't prevent entry, but it certainly could discourage it.  Almost all the recent shooters have targeted places where the presence of other guns was unlikely.

The same with all other potential targets--the fact that a shooter knows he may not be the only armed person there is a deterrent.  And I agree there is a possible issue with gun fights breaking out among people with concealed weapons permits, but it hasn't happened yet to my knowledge anywhere.  And those would be the only gun carriers affected by a ban.  The other carriers are already breaking the law.

And as I've posted twice before--with no comment from anyone--the recent Clackamas mall shooting here DID have a legal concealed weapon carrrier present.  He aimed his gun at the shooter, and the shooter then stopped shooting others, fled, and shot himself.  It could very well be that the ENTIRE reason that happened was due to the concealed weapon holder aiming at him.  Again, that didn't require a shot to be fired.

[lucabrasi]

And as I've posted twice before--with no comment from anyone--the recent Clackamas mall shooting here DID have a legal concealed weapon carrrier present.  He aimed his gun at the shooter, and the shooter then stopped shooting others, fled, and shot himself.  It could very well be that the ENTIRE reason that happened was due to the concealed weapon holder aiming at him.  Again, that didn't require a shot to be fired.

Ok, I won't let it go three times.
I would leave out the word "could" and change it to:
"Most likely the ENTIRE reason......."

[Celeste]

To build on my early suggestions.  Yes admin's mandatory reporting of stolen guns is an excellent idea.  How about adding another class of licensed gun owner, similar to the current C&R, but required to have to own semiautomatic guns, rifles or handguns.  I am going to add large capacity magazines as well, and define large as above 20, because long range shooters have competitions that require more then 10 shots and needing to change magazines in middle of a match hurts your group size.  Unlike a C&R, still require all transfers to go through a third party, a FFL, to insure the validity of the buyers license.  Now to get controversial, require liability and theft insurance on them, and let the insurance companies set the standards of security storage.


EDITED to change automatic to semiautomatic because right now owning automatic long rifles requires a very expensive ($8500) version of what I am suggesting now.

[spookini]

Support the original intent of the Founders..  Allow unlimited ownership of single-shot black powder muskets and kentucky long rifles.

Would make drive-by's more interesting, at least.

[Bean]

In CA under CARB, would you be limited to smoke-less powder?

[Celeste]

In CA under CARB, would you be limited to smoke-less powder?

would you have to take it in to have it's emissions checked?

[lucabrasi]

Support the original intent of the Founders.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

They did think of gun control back then. I am sure there are more examples. I don't think anyone here really thinks that there doesn't have to be some sort of control to help keep things in check.
Someone is going to have to come up with a definition for what an assault rifle is tho. I am pretty sure it is like porn....."I know it when I see it" but perhaps not as clear as that.
Do you grandfather in existing clips....can you plug a clip like a shotgun?

[Admin]

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

I am all for peaceable citizens keeping there own arms (won't even joke about seperating out the non-peaceable ones).  No right is an unlimited right including the two mentioned above.  It has been mentioned here a number of times but the founders recognized that they could not possibly have the foresight to know the details of what would come centuries later or what that might require in terms of regulatory law or even change and they left mechanism to do just that.  The constitution predates early auto weapons by 80+ years.

An off point quote aboute that:

It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.

— Dr. Richard Gatling

[Bean]

Even back then, there was an apparent need to create a positive spin. Could Dr. Gatling have been the original spin-doctor?