Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Everyone's cultural love of guns is all fine and dandy, but a look at the actual numbers may be useful here. And this is from the Washington Post mind you, a rightwing paper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... n-control/The actual facts say that as gun ownership has gone down, so has the murder rate. The actual facts say that states with stronger limits have lower murder rates.
Yes, there is already this huge number of guns out there, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done. That argument is refuted by the numbers is this article if you read it.
Sorry, but I'm underwhelmed by that article. Don't get me wrong though. If I thought there was some magic solution I would be all for it. Murder rates were sky high in the mid-late '70s and through the mid '80s because of the cocaine and crack trade. Those rates have had no option but to steadily decline ever since. Gun ownership has nothing to do with it. The article specified the stats show correlation, not causation.
Legal owners and legal CCW holders are not the main cause of murders by firearm. Criminals get these weapons through burglary, robbery, or fraudulent purchase. The laws that should be looked at are more towards what Squanto mentioned - restricting supply and access, not what legal owners and CCW holders can do once they have a firearm. There are already a ton of laws though that simply cannot be enforced effectively enough. It's not much different than marijuana laws, and until there is a decrease in supply and availability people will get them if they want them.
People throw around the term "assault rifle" like it's a hand held nuke. A shotgun, depending on the model and shells, can be more devastating than an AR-15 or other firearm using .223 ammo. The biggest difference is the ability to use high capacity magazines with semi-auto rifles, and this retard in Colorado had a 100 rd drum that thankfully jammed up. Cracking down on the sale of these items could be a right step, but like everything else, criminals can purchase them if they really want them.
Squanto, as for what would LEOs do in that scenario, it's not an easy answer. I wouldn't trust at least half of my co-workers to act effectively in that situation. They have a hard time hitting a paper target, let alone a human in adverse conditions. I can only speak for myself and a handful of officers I know, but there's two options. One is if visibility allows, attempt a shot at distance regardless of body armor. The stunning effect could be enough to make the guy hurt or scared enough to stop. A shot like that can only work if the officer has a CLEAR shot, preferably while aiming high. Getting on the floor can allow a better angle so that a miss goes high into the wall or ceiling. Getting low could mean seats are in the way.
The option I would prefer is to get down but keep the head up and looking. Once he gets close or starts looking or shooting the other way, close distance asap and pop him in the head once your literally on him. The officer could die, but odds are high of dying anyway so at least you can take the guy out with you, with little room for error. I'll bet some victims died of head shots, primarily because they were laying still and hoping, or protecting someone and hoping. A mass shooter isn't expecting a return of fire, and likely isn't mentally prepared or skilled enough to handle that. Once he sees a threat, the ability to shoot accurately and inflict instantly fatal wounds goes WAY down. Anyone who has the mental makeup to attack the guy could take him down before dying, possibly without getting hit, even if the only had a knife. There's a big mental hurdle to make in only a few seconds in order to accomplish that and only a few officers could manage it, especially when you just plan on sitting down for a movie with no expectation of danger what-so-ever.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
