CT school shooting

[stoneaxe]

If someone used a shotgun with buckshot in a room the size of a typical elementary school classroom I doubt very much you would be picking any pellets. Birdshot in a theatre....sure.

[TEX_SUP]

This senseless tragedy could have been prevented if restrictions were placed on the CRIMINAL, who was known to be mentally unstable.

Clearly you are not speaking about the CT tragedy; he had no prior criminal record.  I understand that we have not heard everything in this case, but since we have free press, we will eventually.  So far we have heard that his mother is alleged to have advised the baby sitter not to turn his back on him.  Do you know anyone like that in your "circle"?  If so, what will you do today to help the situation?

Yes, the CT mass murderer is who I'm talking about.  I've only read a few articles on it but each quoted people from that town saying the same thing "that kid had big problems".   His family knew it, the teachers knew it, the school administrators knew it, etc.  He had been removed from several schools because of his issues.

No, I don't know anyone who is mentally unstable enough to fall into that category.  If I did I would seek help for them. 

[JakeSupTX]

If I may, on the shotguns....... With the notable exceptions of break action to pump and pump to semi/full auto actions, the shotgun has changed very little over a hundred years. Bottom line it is a tube , designed for huge power at short range with wide spread. (obvious variables exist with longer barrels, rifling and slugs but even so, precise accuracy is not often requested of a shotgun).

At the risk of nitpicking Pono ( not my intent here), a shotgun in close quarters  combat is a the best choice if the shooter is completely indiscriminate in his targets. Those choosing to only eliminate certain targets in a close quarters mess will choose a semi-auto sub or standard rifle.....accuracy matters and shotguns cannot be counted on in this situation. No one with even a shred of sense, experience or tactical thinking would ever choose full auto, unless of course there was no intent to discriminate targets.

Regardless of shotgun, rifle, pistol, whatever mass casualties are POSSIBLE. It depends on the mindset, determination and drive of the shooter, AVAILABILITY of effective intervention and luck in either direction.

Again, both sides of the gun control argument have valid points. The biggest failure is that both sides, regardless of how passionately they want the killing to stop, focus more on being ALL right and winning the argument....therefore, stalling accomplishing nothing and losing the real fight. If both sides could live with being partly right, acknowledging the partial rightness of the other side and working out a true path to action something might actually get done. In this society of my way, right now and to hell with anybody else......good luck.

Still not ready to throw up? Check into your respective state's mental health programs, spending and spending cuts......speaking for my state, deplorable, embarrassing and just plain sad sum it up.

Be safe

[TEX_SUP]

  

The type of weapon is irrevelant, he probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.

He probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.  So old school shotguns are the weapon of choice for shooting lots of people?   Is that what the SEALS take on their missions, old school shot guns? No one gonna challenge Tex on this one?  All you gun guys gonna just let this go?   Probably.

You are making it very easy to make you look stupid.  Please at least try to have a cogent argument.

Seals and shotguns:

[kneecap]

Yeah my buddy who's a SEAL says the shotgun is pretty standard for room clearing. First guy through the door when it's not a rescue mission.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

[TEX_SUP]

In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

How many new fashion or old fashion shotguns can a person shoot numerous 30-round magazines at a rate of 45 rounds per minute?

It's hairsplitting, but once again, you take a hacksaw to grandpaws pump or auto 12 gauge, cut the barrel down to five inches. Load it with #4 buckshot, point the gun at a wall 30 feet away and pull the trigger once. 41 pellets hit the wall in a pattern ten feet in diameter. Rack it and shoot all five rounds (meaning you took the plug out that limits the magazine tube to three shots) and you've put 200 pellets into the wall in five seconds. After the fifth shot the loading port stays open so you can stick one round in the tube, and four in the magazine. If you're slow that takes ten seconds, about the time it takes to drop a clip,  stuff in a new one, and cycle the action on an assault rifle.

If you used the assault rifle you fired 30 rounds, with the shotgun you fired 200 pellets. Being hit by such a weapon at 30 feet would paralyze anyone.

What he said^^^^^

Hundreds of deadly quarter inch pellets spread around a room at high speeds would have been worse than 1 bullet at a time.  

The weapon is irrelevant, focus on the CRIMINAL.

[JeanG]

The biggest failure is that both sides, regardless of how passionately they want the killing to stop, focus more on being ALL right and winning the argument....therefore, stalling accomplishing nothing and losing the real fight.

One side says to ban certain weapons. The other side says banning weapons is irrelevant, allow teachers or school officials to carry or install guards.

What's the happy medium here? How is compromise possible?

[greatdane]

"So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day...... "

I'd wager yes, if they were given the chance.  Female or not.  1950 called....

[TEX_SUP]

One side says to ban certain weapons. The other side says banning weapons is irrelevant, allow teachers or school officials to carry or install guards.

What's the happy medium here? How is compromise possible?

Before you ask for a happy medium answer this:

Is there any way to prevent deranged individuals from going bonkers and murdering innocents?

[Weasels wake]

Sorry you guys, but debating about shotguns in light of the origin of the discussion, is like debating the color of blood.
What a senseless sidetrack, IMO. 

[lucabrasi]

But an old school shotgun.  You've got to constantly reload.  One of the adults would have tackled that kid and there would have been many fewer casualties.  That's the entire point of the discussion related to gun control.  If you can't concede that then there is no conversation.   No one is going to walk into a building planning to shoot a bunch of people with an old fashioned shot gun if they also have the option of using a high capacity magazine rifle.  

Pull both triggers at once and 80 rounds of #4 shot comes out the end of the barrell. All at once. Use #6 it's way more. 150?  Particurally horrific damage in close quarters.  Both triggers at once or not. Reload and it is easily done at least once more before someone figures out what is going on and tackles him. Probably more as it would be a lunatic doing this.

Someone would probably choose a high capacity rifle but I really have to disagree (again) that it is the whole point of the discussion.

Automatic shotguns have been around since 1880. I got one for Christmas when I was 20. From Sears. I'm 65.

Semi?
I always thought the ones with a 22 on top and the 410 on the bottom were pretty nifty.

That’s exactly what they intended
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"- -Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers

 Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."

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

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.--- James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a “collective” ― not an individual ― right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
--- James Madison

here's one for nit pickers, arguing what gun kills the deadest
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]  (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)

yeah... it's come up before.

These guys weren't forward thinking? Who said that? "These dudes got together......" Makes me want to read more.

[Kevin]

Ban old fashioned shot guns!

[JakeSupTX]

JeanG - I'd use the analogy of conflict with your husband, wife, etc whatever applies (General terms for anybody, not pointing at you personally). In the context of your relationship you have strong feelings about, say, money. You spend, the other saves......your fight gets worse and more polarized until one day you have lost sight of the fact that the marriage and the financial health of the marriage are no longer the important topics....it is save vs spend, winner take all........so the marriage fails, you both throw out an f you to the other and leave.....and piss away your assets on lawyers and court costs.  The key issue is compromise and understanding the value of both sides. It isn't guns vs no guns, it is finding a balance between the two. Neither side wants more innocent bloodshed but they are so embroiled in winning the argument that the war is doing what it wants on its own.

Effective use of a weapon? It isn't a job title that dictates that, it is individual mentality and ability. The most important key to effective weapon use is mindset......if you have the mindset of a warrior, killer, hero, you name it you will likely be effective. If you don't, you simply don't. Not a bad thing at all. Most teachers are mistakenly lumped in as not having the guts, this is simply just WRONG....I know some teachers who are absolute badasses and can handle the role of fighter just fine. I also know police officers, soldiers, etc that are major p@ssies and completely ineffective. I am a police officer and have been for many years. Trust me, job title does not dictate fortitude automatically. That being said, you cannot force a warrior mindset on someone who doesn't have or want it. Allowing SOME teachers to be armed, the ones that show the desire, ability, mindset, etc to take on the responsibility is a reasonable compromise. Forcing all of them to is a mistake.

TEX SUP - that answer is no. You cannot sterilize this world to such a degree that more mindless acts like this ever happen again. It just isn't possible. Becoming more effective and direct may greatly reduce it but it will never go away. Humans pretty much suck.

I'm sorry for the long winded rant. I could go on forever, as I am truly passionate about this stuff, especially mental health. My apologies to those offended.

[Bean]

Sorry you guys, but debating about shotguns in light of the origin of the discussion, is like debating the color of blood.
What a senseless sidetrack, IMO. 

No, apparently it can have a great deal of relevancy in an argument about 2nd amendment rights.  Although the Court seemed to look more closely at the frequency of misuse of a particular weapon as opposed to effectiveness in the Heller decision.

[stoneaxe]

"So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day...... "

I'd wager yes, if they were given the chance.  Female or not.  1950 called....

Dane...I realize that sounds sexist but its simply true. I'm not questioning the bravery of women. I'm questioning their ability to take down a guy with a gun....any gun. The average guy isn't going to be able to do much nevermind a women. Tell me something...your injured and trapped in a burning building. Would you prefer someone with the physicality of the average male to come pull you out or the average woman? I raised two girls to be independant self reliant women. I'm anything but sexist. Reality called.....