Gun Control Debate #2

[kaen]

I'm not for the repeal of the Second Amendment and banning all guns.

My opinion is that gun control laws on semi auto rifles is not going to stop gun violence.

JMO

I agree it won't stop gun violence but it would stem it. Why not do something that would save lives rather than saying since it won't stop it we can't do anything? No action on gun control is the argument that many gun control opponents use.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Au contraire.

Colt AR-15 ...

BBM

The statement that I bolded is not accurate.



The design of the AR-10/AR-15/M16 had nothing to do with jungle warfare in Vietnam.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/u-s-a-assault-rifles/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-eng/

 

[Spellbound]

BBM

The statement that I bolded is not accurate.



The design of the AR-10/AR-15/M16 had nothing to do with jungle warfare in Vietnam.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/u-s-a-assault-rifles/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-eng/

I don’t understand why we are nitpicking every detail or misuse of terms, as we are likely to all be able to find supporting articles for whatever side we prefer.

But the AR 15 was introduced (not designed for?) in the Vietnam war :

What does “AR” in “AR-15″ stand for, and what are its origins?
“AR” doesn’t stand for assault rifle. It stands for the Armalite rifle, named after the company that developed the weapon. It was first used during the Vietnam War as an alternative to the M-14 rifle, which was heavy, difficult to control and outmatched by the AK-47. In the late 1950s, the gun manufacturer Colt purchased the rights to the rifle but had difficulty selling it to the U.S. military.
Then-chief of the Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay took a liking to the weapon after a Colt salesman offered him a chance to shoot watermelons with the gun at a Fourth of July celebration. LeMay ordered 80,000 of them but was rejected by multiple government agencies as well as Congress, which didn’t want to spend money on a new weapon when the M-14 was already in production. LeMay continued to press for its use and even appealed to President John F. Kennedy (who rebuffed him).
In the 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara halted the production of the M-14, and the rifle finally made its debut on the battlefield in Vietnam as the M-16 assault rifle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tions-about-the-ar-15/?utm_term=.bc677c17e6ed


and from your article linked:
[FONT=&quot]Feeling that the Ar-15 rifle has poor chances to compete with the recently adopted [/FONT]M14[FONT=&quot] in the US Military, in 1959 the Fairchild Corp, a parent company of the Armalite, sells all rights and manufacturing documentation for this rifle to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, which had long-time relations with US Military and proven track of selling military guns both in USA and abroad. Colt instantly begins aggresive marketing campaign for the new rifle, stressing its accuracy, low recoil, light weight and modern design. In the 1962, US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.[/FONT]

 

[Jinkasaurus]

I've noticed a theme in some posts that I'm going to call "the good old days" theme. People saying "it wasn't like that in my day" and that society is much worse now. As a criminologist it is a recognised phenomena called declinism, that people tend to recall earlier times of their lives in a much more positive way than it actually was. I'm at work so I don't have the time or capability to link up to a bunch or empirical evidence, but I have a link here that explains it fairly easily.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo.../declinism-why-you-think-america-is-in-crisis

While school shootings are definitely on the increase, I just wanted to highlight this phenomena since some people have raised the "good old days" thing on here.

Completely agree!!

There is a professor who specializes in history of the family (Stephanie Coontz) and she has a book called The Way We Never Were. Its about the nostalgic generalizations that folks often have about times in the past (often the 1950's) where they believe everyone was living like Ward and June Cleaver in Leave it To Beaver. The research proves this untrue.

Here is a video of her talking about that book

[video=youtube;MIeAnU7_7TA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIeAnU7_7TA[/video]

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I agree it won't stop gun violence but it would stem it. Why not do something that would save lives rather than saying since it won't stop it we can't do anything? No action on gun control is the argument that many gun control opponents use.

I'm for doing things that are effective. In my opinion semi auto rifle gun control measures that I've seen are not. So yes we need to do things to stop gun violence.

Things like training teachers to conceal carry and use firearms to protect themselves and their students if they wish to do so. Make sure that mentally ill people get help and not access to guns. Put convicted felons in prison for 20 to life if they are found in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Enforce all current gun control laws and punish those who violated them to the maximum extent the law allows.

That's just a few things I would like to see before we enact more gun control laws. JMO

 

[rsd1200]

I wonder how many teachers (current, former, studying) are participating in this thread.

How do these events affect themselves and students, although they're not victims of "the" shooting? How has this changed classroom culture?

What are your "top" suggestion to improve safety, and if it includes guns, then how?

Have any here lost students or a teacher to school gun violence?

[emoji813]beat:

Not a teacher but my 17 y/o niece is afraid now, especially w/all the copycats calling in threats.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Spellbound]

I dont like to use Everytown for this rrason:


five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury. Three others appeared to be intentional shootings but did not hurt anyone. Two more involved guns — one carried by a school police officer and the other by a licensed peace officer who ran a college club — that were unintentionally fired and, again, led to no injuries. At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours.



www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.2b0ecbfe4eb0

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thank you, rsd. Although, my reply was actually in response to a post by KaaBoom that cited that and I could not find what the statistic her post referred to in the article. I never heard of “Everytown” before then. Appreciate your insight.

 

[Blef]

I'm for doing things that are effective. In my opinion semi auto rifle gun control measures that I've seen are not. So yes we need to do things to stop gun violence.

Things like training teachers to conceal carry and use firearms to protect themselves and their students if they wish to do so. Make sure that mentally ill people get help and not access to guns. Put convicted felons in prison for 20 to life if they are found in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Enforce all current gun control laws and punish those who violated them to the maximum extent the law allows.

That's just a few things I would like to see before we enact more gun control laws. JMO

I really can't see how having a firefight in a panicked situation would save any more lives. If you have students screaming, crying, running for cover, while bullets are flying from all angles how is that going to help. Instead of having 17 people killed like in Florida you could end up with 25 dead or more.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I think our crisis is about weapons that can take out masses of people, cause mass casualties, at close range, readily available without checks and balances.

To allow that is an irresponsible second amendment. Each amendment comes with responsibility. Freedom comes with responsibility.

I know I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, or shoot game. Do I need it to display my status in an open carry state? No.

So I wonder what is the appeal? Why do mass shooters and responsible guns owners love the AR15?

I talked to my dad, a Marine stationed in South Korea & Japan in the 50's, who sides with the ill equipped with no back up LE's instinct for self preservation.

Schools need matched firepower. They need SWAT teams to take down assault shooters.

Here in the northeast we are looking at solutions like psychology professionals in schools to bridge gaps for "at risk" students. These kids, teachers, coaches, their peers, parents, LE, the FBI, SM platforms need a liaison.

If tech companies, E commerce, the FBIs advanced tech can protect 99% of our identities, our banking and investment information, thwart international terrorist threats, why not a garden variety sociopath, wannabe infamous, with multiple red flag warnings, and an arsenal of guns with bad intentions mass shooter?

Was the Parkland shooter someone who could have been saved? Was he someone who should have been recommended for serious mental care after bouncing around high school, and alternative schools, after repeated calls and tips for help? It is the responsibility of a civilized society to do right by all its citizens.

A well regulated militia was written with responsibility at the forefront because America didn't have an army at the time. The premise was not to bear arms but to protect all citizens of a fledgling nation.

We didn't recognize the enemy on 911 but we sure came together as a nation afterwards.

I worry that we have become so divided, swung so far out, that we can't recognize the enemy killing us from within, can't protect ourselves, have lost our identity as one American.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I really can't see how having a firefight in a panicked situation would save any more lives. If you have students screaming, crying, running for cover, while bullets are flying from all angles how is that going to help. Instead of having 17 people killed like in Florida you could end up with 25 dead or more.

I disagree.

 

[Blef]

I disagree.

Please explain further. How can more bullets flying around in a panicked situation save lives and not cause more fatalities instead?

Especially if you have one or more shooters with something like an AR15 or something with a bump stock spraying bullets around, and a teacher armed with a 9mm? What good is a 9mm against that kind of firepower? Or should teachers have loaded AR15's too?​

 

[kaen]

I'm for doing things that are effective. In my opinion semi auto rifle gun control measures that I've seen are not. So yes we need to do things to stop gun violence.

Things like training teachers to conceal carry and use firearms to protect themselves and their students if they wish to do so. Make sure that mentally ill people get help and not access to guns. Put convicted felons in prison for 20 to life if they are found in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Enforce all current gun control laws and punish those who violated them to the maximum extent the law allows.

That's just a few things I would like to see before we enact more gun control laws. JMO

To know if a ban is effective, let's try a ban and buyback of semi-automatic weapons used in school shootings. If shootings go down, we will know if it is effective. Or, we can look at data from other countries with weapons bans, if the weapons they banned coincide with a decrease in, say, mass shootings then the ban was effective. We can then use that data as part of our ban data. It is simpler to start with a ban, then if we need people in schools to be able to conceal and carry because the ban only stemmed the tide by say 60%, we can.

Yes, on felons in jail. Unfortunately in school shooting scenarios, the shooters are first encountered with a weapon at the shooting. Yes, enforce all gun laws. We can certainly keep people who are mentally ill away from guns but we got a lot of people out there who have no access to mental health care to get that determination until it is too late.

I would like to see the gun control laws enacted, data collected and then start on giving people more weapons. Just my perspective.

 

[MaryG12]

To allow that is an irresponsible second amendment. Each amendment comes with responsibility. Freedom comes with responsibility.

RSBM

And with responsibility comes accountability.

Yet we have become a society where there is no accountability for one's actions - it's always someone else's fault.

That is a recipe for disaster.

MOO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don’t understand why we are nitpicking every detail or misuse of terms, as we are likely to all be able to find supporting articles for whatever side we prefer.

But the AR 15 was introduced (not designed for?) in the Vietnam war :

What does “AR” in “AR-15″ stand for, and what are its origins?
“AR” doesn’t stand for assault rifle. It stands for the Armalite rifle, named after the company that developed the weapon. It was first used during the Vietnam War as an alternative to the M-14 rifle, which was heavy, difficult to control and outmatched by the AK-47. In the late 1950s, the gun manufacturer Colt purchased the rights to the rifle but had difficulty selling it to the U.S. military.
Then-chief of the Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay took a liking to the weapon after a Colt salesman offered him a chance to shoot watermelons with the gun at a Fourth of July celebration. LeMay ordered 80,000 of them but was rejected by multiple government agencies as well as Congress, which didn’t want to spend money on a new weapon when the M-14 was already in production. LeMay continued to press for its use and even appealed to President John F. Kennedy (who rebuffed him).
In the 1960s, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara halted the production of the M-14, and the rifle finally made its debut on the battlefield in Vietnam as the M-16 assault rifle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tions-about-the-ar-15/?utm_term=.bc677c17e6ed


and from your article linked:
[FONT=&amp]Feeling that the Ar-15 rifle has poor chances to compete with the recently adopted [/FONT]M14[FONT=&amp] in the US Military, in 1959 the Fairchild Corp, a parent company of the Armalite, sells all rights and manufacturing documentation for this rifle to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, which had long-time relations with US Military and proven track of selling military guns both in USA and abroad. Colt instantly begins aggresive marketing campaign for the new rifle, stressing its accuracy, low recoil, light weight and modern design. In the 1962, US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.[/FONT]

I'm a history buff. I'm sorry you feel that I'm nitpicking. Air Force General Curtis LeMay didn't order the AR15 in 1960 for use in Vietnam did he?

In July of 1960, Air Force General Curtis LeMay attended a Fourth of July celebration where a Colt salesman placed three watermelons on a firing range at distances of 50, 100 and 150 yards — then gave General LeMay an AR-15 and loaded magazines. Following this hands-on range evaluation, General LeMay ordered 80,000 rifles on the spot. However, Congress put the General’s order on hold.

https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be

 

[Blef]

To know if a ban is effective, let's try a ban and buyback of semi-automatic weapons used in school shootings. If shootings go down, we will know if it is effective. Or, we can look at data from other countries with weapons bans, if the weapons they banned coincide with a decrease in, say, mass shootings then the ban was effective. We can then use that data as part of our ban data. It is simpler to start with a ban, then if we need people in schools to be able to conceal and carry because the ban only stemmed the tide by say 60%, we can.

Yes, on felons in jail. Unfortunately in school shooting scenarios, the shooters are first encountered with a weapon at the shooting. Yes, enforce all gun laws. We can certainly keep people who are mentally ill away from guns but we got a lot of people out there who have no access to mental health care to get that determination until it is too late.

I would like to see the gun control laws enacted, data collected and then start on giving people more weapons. Just my perspective.

RBBM. The UK is an example on how laws passed after a mass shooting impacted on mass shootings in the UK. Yes the laws were extremely restrictive, but hey, we've not had a mass shooting in the UK since then, 22 years later.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Please explain further. How can more bullets flying around in a panicked situation save lives and not cause more fatalities instead?

Especially if you have one or more shooters with something like an AR15 or something with a bump stock spraying bullets around, and a teacher armed with a 9mm? What good is a 9mm against that kind of firepower? Or should teachers have loaded AR15's too?​

No thanks. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

To know if a ban is effective, let's try a ban and buyback of semi-automatic weapons used in school shootings. If shootings go down, we will know if it is effective. Or, we can look at data from other countries with weapons bans, if the weapons they banned coincide with a decrease in, say, mass shootings then the ban was effective. We can then use that data as part of our ban data. It is simpler to start with a ban, then if we need people in schools to be able to conceal and carry because the ban only stemmed the tide by say 60%, we can.

Yes, on felons in jail. Unfortunately in school shooting scenarios, the shooters are first encountered with a weapon at the shooting. Yes, enforce all gun laws. We can certainly keep people who are mentally ill away from guns but we got a lot of people out there who have no access to mental health care to get that determination until it is too late.

I would like to see the gun control laws enacted, data collected and then start on giving people more weapons. Just my perspective.

BBM

I would like to see my ideas tried first. Then lets talk about more gun control. Seems fair to me. JMO

 

[kaen]

I am amazed that people want to train teachers to carry while the same teachers have to shut the door, keep the kids safe and quiet and, then, take on a shooter. If a teacher has kids in the crossfire and kills those kids by mistake, what do we do and what does the teacher do? Highly trained officers are not accurate shots but teachers in classrooms with terrified kids and in a threatening situation are not going to do better. The idea that the answer is to make classrooms like the OK Corrale is an anathema to me. As a teacher, I would rather have my building as an armed fortress and be able to concentrate on teaching.

The president said arming teachers is a low cost solution. We should not be thinking about cost but effectiveness. There is no data that says an armed teacher is better than a well-secured, police protected building. But, we do know that one scenarios is low cost. Again, as a teacher, I have experienced lots of low cost solutions which have not really been low cost. No textbooks in classrooms. Not enough budget to help kids who are struggling. Fewer counselors/social workers and psychologists to help identify at risk students and work with all students to ensure healthy school social climate. Buildings in disrepair.

 

[Blef]

I am amazed that people want to train teachers to carry while the same teachers have to shut the door, keep the kids safe and quiet and, then, take on a shooter. If a teacher has kids in the crossfire and kills those kids by mistake, what do we do and what does the teacher do? Highly trained officers are not accurate shots but teachers in classrooms with terrified kids and in a threatening situation are not going to do better. The idea that the answer is to make classrooms like the OK Corrale is an anathema to me. As a teacher, I would rather have my building as an armed fortress and be able to concentrate on teaching.

The president said arming teachers is a low cost solution. We should not be thinking about cost but effectiveness. There is no data that says an armed teacher is better than a well-secured, police protected building. But, we do know that one scenarios is low cost. Again, as a teacher, I have experienced lots of low cost solutions which have not really been low cost. No textbooks in classrooms. Not enough budget to help kids who are struggling. Fewer counselors/social workers and psychologists to help identify at risk students and work with all students to ensure healthy school social climate. Buildings in disrepair.

I totally understand and support your argument. We saw the guard in the Florida case criticised for not going into the school and taking out Cruz. Would teachers also be criticised if they froze and didn't shoot at rampage shooters in school too? I think it's a horrendous idea to put that on teachers.

 

[Blef]

This from

experts, including​

Harvard professor, Dr David Hemmingway, on Trump's proposal to arm teachers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...panned-experts-colossally-stupid-idea-n850286