Yeah, I have a few. Well, in Garland an off duty cop took down 2 terrorists with a .45 glock...the terrorists had body armor and assault rifles. As to a 9MM, I don't own one, don't have a use for one. I do have a few handguns and am well trained to use them so if I had to, yeah I could probably take down less trained people with assault rifles....not that I'd ever want to be in that position. I also have a few AR's and I'd like my odds with them much more.
Ah scratch that, I do have a 9MM technically, I inherited a Luger from WW2 but I haven't fired it in forever.
I wouldn't expect that Luger to serve me any better in a combat situation than the first person who dropped it.
No it doesn't. The best example of the scenario you described is two dead terrorists. This was a normal cop who was surpirse attacked.
No, it was a cop on guard at an event where threats had been made and there was an expectation that an attack may take place. This is drastically different from a random CHL holder being ambushed while eating cake at a Christmas party. It's not even remotely the same thing. My goodness.
Well it seems to make a difference to the shooters in these situations because they almost exclusively attack in "gun free zones".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings Article about this myth commonly spilled by NRA and picked up by people.
Sorry kiddo, shooters absolutely do target "gun free zones" or "soft targets" when they go on rampages....it's not just a coincidence that you always see those kinds of targets being hit. It's just logic really. If you target a place that has too much resistance capability, you potentially won't be able to do as much damage so you target a place with less potential resistance capability. Even if they only do so subconsciously, it happens.
The problem that I have with most anti gun people is that they state what they think would be a solution but don't offer a plan to find a solution. "Stronger background checks!" First and foremost, do you know what current background checks consist of? If you do, what changes would you like to make? "Ban assault rifles!" Well you need to get the terminology right, assault is an action, it's just a rifle. What kind of rifles do you want to ban? Or what add on do you think should make a rifle illegal. "Why do you need high capacity magazines!?" Does one have to show "need" to exercise a right? Propose your plans, not everyone that supports the right to bear arms is a "gun nut" (lol we're seriously still using that?), liberal, conservative, 3rd party, if you propose a rational plan, rational people will listen & a compromise will be reached. If you propose an ignorant plan based on emotion and fallacies, then don't expect anything different in return.
There are many many plans on the table - the number of congressional bills blocked on this has probably reached double digits at this point. None of them are perfect, all of them involve drawing lines in places that could be theoretically moved one way or the other. That is what legislation and regulation entail . In the real world there will always be gray areas. Whether you are regulating guns or bullets or carbon emissions or health insurance or highway speeds or nuclear plants or absolutely anything None of these things is an excuse for inaction. The last few bills to strengthen background checks for the mentally ill, criminals, and suspected terrorists, and better regulate the so-called "gun show loophole". seem eminently reasonable adn are supported by the majority of Americans and voters from both parties as well as the majority of gun owners. Yet these are the bills that time and time again are killed by the NRA and the open carry freaks and their death grip on the GOP. We. Are. Not. Even. Trying. Because of these assholes.
You really do not understand. People that go on rampages want to have a fight. That's how they get great press coverage. But they rarely get one because Americans with guns are so overrated. They are good at killing themselves and murdering others. Self defense? Once in a blue moon, although some probably have wet dream on it on a nightly basis. People that want to kill, will kill, free zone or not. How do we know this? Probably 99% of gun violence occurs in gun zones. So, let's be smart about it and make American 100% gun free zones if you are really interested in reducing gun violence.
The technical stuff needs to crafted by experts, not voters. And the technical stuff has been crafted, even in bill form, by experts many times now. I don't see why a voter needs to be able to speak technically on a subject to have an opinion on it. In fact, the premise of democracy is to query the opinions of a voter base that is not expert at anything in particular.
Rational plans? How bout a national waiting period. Right now, there is none. Providing law enforcement sufficient time to check on the gun purchaser seems rational. A waiting period will also act as a "cooling-off" period for those who might do harm to others or themselves. At a minimum of five days, but why not a month? How about limits to the number of guns someone can buy in a specified amount of time? No such federal limit exists. States with limits have shown such laws are successful. How about required trigger locks and/or other safe gun storage regulations. It would help prevent theft of firearms but more important protects children from firearm deaths and injuries. Guns sold by licensed dealers require some form of trigger lock or storage, but private sales don't require locks/storage, and there is no federal standards for such locks or storage.
I don't think any of these proposals would stop mass shootings or gang violence. The only way to enforce locks is to punishbafter an incident unless you are advocating FFL type inspections.
That article totally misses the point. Of course the shooters don't have some insane hatred of gun free zones, and thus targets them for that reason. No one is suggesting that. The fact that their chosen target is a gun free zone allows them to attack more easily and with less resistance. The fact that they expect to die is not an argument against the idea either. While it is true they expect to die, they want to kill as many people as they can first, which is why they want sitting ducks, not people shooting back. You don't see these mass shootings starting down range at the gun range.
I want to kill Robert and his friends. Gun zone, so what. Gun free zone, so what. It's a secondary factor, if it's even one. If killer chooses location that has no tie to them personally, then it might be a main factor. That's often not the case.
You don't pick a location that is likely to fail, the easiest and softest of targets are gun free zones. It's secondary only to the desire to hurt people. People aren't going to pick really difficult targets to attack in almost every case. Sure there might be one crazy guy who attacks a police precinct, but the vast majority will pick targets where they'll face much less resistance...like literally any gun free zone.
