United States & Gun Control discussion.

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,902
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
I want to start by apologizing for bring up political issues in the recent school shooting in CT thread. It was disrespectful on my part and I truly did not mean to offend anyone if I did.

Stepping away from the emotions of this tragic event in CT, along with the many tragic gun related violence events that have been taking place in the United States. I think the subject of gun control, more over POTUS’s comments today regarding putting politics aside and making real change (i.e. new gun control legislation to come), that a level headed discussion on the topic is warranted.

I personally against any and all gun control measures for several reasons, but the primary reason is the United States Constitution. We are a free people, free to defend ourselves and our property and I view gun control measures as limiting the lawful citizen from being able to be free in protection of themselves and property. We obviously have some crazy people in the world, and nobody wants these crazy people carrying guns and killing innocent people. However, the issue really breaks down to either having someone else protect you and your property or taking on the responsibility for providing that protection for yourself.

I think it is pretty clear that historically gun control has not stopped unlawful use of guns to commit violent acts. However, it has also shown that it limits the lawful gun owner from being able to protect his/her self and I think that is enough reason alone to take an out of the box view on how to curve the violence in the United States.

Using this recent shooting as an example, 26 people (20 of whom were children) lost their lives due to one crazy person armed with several guns. A good amount of people believe this to be the guns fault, that a crazy person armed with a gun caused this incident. They are correct that it was a crazy person armed with a gun caused the event, but I think the real question to be asked here is why did it take so long for him to be stopped, how could a crazy person armed with guns make it into a school, in a state know for strict gun control and murder 26 people?

My outside of the box view is that the teachers and school officials did not have the proper means to stop this crazy person. That a false since of security exists in most of our community’s that the POLICE will be there to stop these individuals and that removing guns from the schools, making restrictions on gun ownership and possession makes everyone safer. I believe this to be incredibly false. The only person who can truly protect you, is in fact you. It becomes very hard in the school setting, we obviously can’t allow young children to carry guns and take on the responsibility of self protection. But we can force schools, teachers, security, etc to provide a better blanket of security for our children. I believe that comes from arming our teachers, having more armed security/police in these schools and requiring these schools to provide better protection from outside and internal threats. Will it stop all school shootings? No. Nothing, to include new gun control legislation will stop school shootings from happening. However, we can learn to deal with this threat better, to minimize the effects of these types of attacks and more over, reduce the amount of life lost.

The primary point is that we have implemented many programs to respond to active shooters within schools, training for the school staff, local LE and the students. But clearly these steps have not worked and something better need to be implemented. I believe that comes in training and arming teachers and other school officials, having more (a lot more) trained and well armed security/LE personnel at these schools and changing our response from a lock down, wait for the cops, to a take action and stop the attack model of protection.
 

Lefty375

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
353
Location
US
I think a lot of what you are calling for is going to cost a lot of money we (schools and/or government) don't have. I don't feel the need for the big wonderful federal government to "free" me from things like this either.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,902
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
Lucky 13, I can agree, but I also understand that we need to protect our children better, especially in the school environment. Training teachers and allowing them to carry a weapon is not as costly as you would believe, but to bring it into a clear picture, it could be required for the teacher to seek the training, meet standards, etc. I think teachers would be more willing to do so, to not only protect their students but also themselves.

What do you believe to be a better option?
 

Lefty375

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
353
Location
US
Lucky 13, I can agree, but I also understand that we need to protect our children better, especially in the school environment. Training teachers and allowing them to carry a weapon is not as costly as you would believe, but to bring it into a clear picture, it could be required for the teacher to seek the training, meet standards, etc. I think teachers would be more willing to do so, to not only protect their students but also themselves.

What do you believe to be a better option?
A sense of community again, where people want to protect their own, instead of having the feds come in and try and regulate their lives. I suppose it's the society we live in, where there are too many sheep but not enough sheepdogs. Not that sheep are bad, but I feel like less and less people are willing to look out for each other. I agree with you though, possibly arming teachers would be a step. I really do try and look at it from the other side (teachers might have a bad day and shoot up kids etc etc), but couldn't they do that anyway? So might as well have some trained in these "gun free zones"
 

Marine0311

Marine
Verified Military
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
3,848
(In the same typing and writing spirit of JAB :D)


I am pro gun. I own one firearm. In the future I will own more. I am against any further firearm control measures as it logical to presume that criminals or those willing to commit criminal acts are not going to follow laws. I do not want my 2nd Amendment to be violated. I do not need the Fed/Big Brother to impose more laws or restrictions on me in the name of "security", "safety" or "protection". However I do understand and accept that there must be laws to punish those who break said laws; i.e a gang banger carrying an AK-47 should go to prison for a very long time. The penalty for gun related crime should be so high that the criminals (at least in theory) would think twice.

I do agree that mentally unstable people should not have firearms, much the same as felons should not. That is a recipe for disaster.

I and many others on this forum have been trained by amongst the best instructors out there; i e Army and Marine Infantry, SF and SOF instructors. Our groups has more training than the normal. We of all should be entrusted to carry firearms.

I disagree with arming teachers. I agree with hardened schools yet not turning them into prisons.

I've already had heated conversations with anti gun people. "Ban all guns" or "More gun laws". This, and understandable after an incident like this, is acting on emotion rather than logic.
 

Rampart

New Zealand Army
Verified Military
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
56
Location
Juba or Christchurch
I would like to offer a different perspective. For those who do not know, I an not an American and do not live in the USA. I am a Kiwi and have spent my life in military service and subsequently in Africa in the private military area.

Ever since going private and working in Africa (longer than I like to admit now) one common factor emerges. Those without the tools to realistically defend themselves (Usually subsistence farmers) get subjugated by anyone who so wishes. . Be it bandits, rogue government, militant or cultural groups. The horrors they are subjected to beggar belief. The things that done reduce the hardest men to tears with ease.

Once we have been able to address the immediate issue and neutralise the problem group, we take time to "empower" the victims by way of training to a basic proficiency and "accidentally" leaving a few AKs available these people are not molested again.Many will say we are just exacerbating the issue. I believe that this is not the case. The people we have helped are not interested in anything but getting on with their traditional life style. They have always been this way and have ignored the events around them to the point they have become totally vulnerable to the scum and corrupt .

Why are they left alone?

They can and do defend themselves. That is the only difference. I say again, that is the only difference.

Sadly the next unprepared group will become the object of the attentions of the filth that seek to act against others for no good reason. The absolute tragedy of murdered innocents is abhorrent and despicable and the perpetrators need to be made to pay.

More people are murdered in Africa with knives and axes than with firearms. More die from wild animal attack. All of these statistics change once the potential victim is both prepared equipped. As far as I can see numbers of people killed with non firearms weapons exceeds those killed with firearms the world over.

I can see no good from giving up the basic right to bear arms you have. I can see a lot of potential harm being done to good folk if this right is given up.

Ban guns = bad law.

The issues are not about who has firearms, they are about society and personal responsibility. If someone decides to run amok they will use whatever is to hand. The media seems to want to pump firearms related events way beyond any other type. That is where the danger lies I believe.

How many people die each year in the US as a result of drug overdose or automobile accidents?
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,902
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
Keeping with the primary issue of gun control, I want to post a few common sense questions:

1. Convicted Felons should not have firearms. If we are afraid of a person having a firearm that committed a crime and is now returned to society, why are we allowing them back into society?
2. If a person is mentally unstable and thus we fear them being in possession of a firearm, why do we allow them to remain a part of society?
3. How is making a law against possession of a firearm for a criminal or legally mentally incompetent person actually stop them from getting a firearm or using it to commit violent act?
4. Who is really affected by gun control laws, the person who follows the law, or the person does not follow the law?
5. Is it a bad thing for a person to use a firearm in self-defense, or is it a bad thing for a government to tell that person they cannot defend themselves?
A member sent me this link, it’s loaded with great statistical data that further drives home the point that gun control has never worked.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Rampart, there is nothing like reality at its most basic levels. I think your post speaks volumes to human nature and how the right to self protection via proper training and equipment, is not only an issue in the United States but a global issue as a whole.

A few quotes from history:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)


"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster



"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison



" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
 

SkrewzLoose

Something Clever
Verified Military
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
4,511
Location
SOCAL
It's easier for the gov't to regulate/legislate guns vice trying to do the same thing to citizens, and therein lies the rub. As JAB and others alluded to, it's the nut jobs (who are getting these guns and using them to carry out these horrific crimes) that need to be dealt with, not the guns. Unfortunately, until this society gets past the fear (thank you PC police) of pointing the finger and saying, "hey, my buddy needs help, he's been talking about hurting himself and/or others" these travesties will continue.
I also believe that these criminals will continue to find soft targets. Harden schools, they'll go to malls. Harden malls, they'll go to restaurants. Harden restaurants, they'll go to movie theaters...and on and on. My hope is that if something like this did happen where a law abiding citizen was legally carrying a firearm, he/she would have put in the range time to know how to react and put a stop to the situation instead of making it worse.
As far as the right answer or a good solution, I don't know if there is one. I wish I did. Amlove's signature quote comes to mind though.
 

policemedic

Verified SWAT
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,269
Location
A galaxy far, far away
I personally against any and all gun control measures for several reasons, but the primary reason is the United States Constitution. We are a free people, free to defend ourselves and our property and I view gun control measures as limiting the lawful citizen from being able to be free in protection of themselves and property. We obviously have some crazy people in the world, and nobody wants these crazy people carrying guns and killing innocent people. However, the issue really breaks down to either having someone else protect you and your property or taking on the responsibility for providing that protection for yourself.

It's even simpler for me. I--and many of our members--took an oath (some of us did this several times) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Done deal.

I think it is pretty clear that historically gun control has not stopped unlawful use of guns to commit violent acts. However, it has also shown that it limits the lawful gun owner from being able to protect his/her self and I think that is enough reason alone to take an out of the box view on how to curve the violence in the United States.

Absolutely correct. Gun control only works as a prelude--prepping the battlefield, so to speak--to tyranny. It does nothing for honest citizens but make them more easily victimized.

Using this recent shooting as an example, 26 people (20 of whom were children) lost their lives due to one crazy person armed with several guns. A good amount of people believe this to be the guns fault, that a crazy person armed with a gun caused this incident. They are correct that it was a crazy person armed with a gun caused the event, but I think the real question to be asked here is why did it take so long for him to be stopped, how could a crazy person armed with guns make it into a school, in a state know for strict gun control and murder 26 people?

The answer is because no one shot him dead, but you obviously know that.

My outside of the box view is that the teachers and school officials did not have the proper means to stop this crazy person. That a false since of security exists in most of our community’s that the POLICE will be there to stop these individuals and that removing guns from the schools, making restrictions on gun ownership and possession makes everyone safer. I believe this to be incredibly false. The only person who can truly protect you, is in fact you. It becomes very hard in the school setting, we obviously can’t allow young children to carry guns and take on the responsibility of self protection. But we can force schools, teachers, security, etc to provide a better blanket of security for our children. I believe that comes from arming our teachers, having more armed security/police in these schools and requiring these schools to provide better protection from outside and internal threats. Will it stop all school shootings? No. Nothing, to include new gun control legislation will stop school shootings from happening. However, we can learn to deal with this threat better, to minimize the effects of these types of attacks and more over, reduce the amount of life lost.

It's well-established that the police owe no one a duty of protection. Anyone who believes that the police will save you is living in fantasyland, because unless we happen along at exactly the right time, you're on your own. And you better be prepared.

With regard to schools, I think arming teachers is problematic on many fronts, but as long as it's voluntary and there is sufficient initial and sustainment training I'm ok with it. Of course, the training aspects will likely make this a non-starter. There are also legal issues to consider that are beyond the scope of this post.

Ideally, the taxpayers fund a sufficient amount of full-time commissioned police officers who can be assigned to school resource officer duties. This puts a trained professional in the school who can intervene in many circumstances, and can also provide variety of ancillary services. However, that doesn't mean an attack won't happen. It just reduces response time (although that is also a function of school size, location of the attack, etc.). Nonetheless, putting a cop in every school is a great idea, but it will never happen for financial reasons.

The fact that finances will play a dominant role in a discussion about school safety tells us a lot about society.

I'm leaving aside for now the opposition many liberal groups--including the ACLU--have to putting armed police (are there any other kind :wall: ) in schools.

The primary point is that we have implemented many programs to respond to active shooters within schools, training for the school staff, local LE and the students. But clearly these steps have not worked and something better need to be implemented. I believe that comes in training and arming teachers and other school officials, having more (a lot more) trained and well armed security/LE personnel at these schools and changing our response from a lock down, wait for the cops, to a take action and stop the attack model of protection.

Students and teachers need to be taught that it is OK, and even expected, for them to fight back. With younger kiddos it's harder, of course, but as the kids get bigger the force they can bring to bear against even an armed attacker is both impressive and surprising.
 

policemedic

Verified SWAT
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,269
Location
A galaxy far, far away
3. How is making a law against possession of a firearm for a criminal or legally mentally incompetent person actually stop them from getting a firearm or using it to commit violent act?

Laws were never meant to stop anything, except through fear of consequences. That's all laws do; they proscribe behavior and describe penalties for violating that proscription. Any criminal who wants a gun will get one (in my experience, this has mostly been through theft, straw buyers, or black market sales).

4. Who is really affected by gun control laws, the person who follows the law, or the person does not follow the law?

Gun control laws are enforced in a very imbalanced and unpredictable manner, especially on the federal level. The laws only effect those who follow them, and these folks are good, law abiding people...the very definition of people that should have guns in the first place.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,348
Between 2010 and 2011 alone, China saw at least 7 school attacks, none using a gun, that left at least 21 dead and 90+ injured.

When you have societal issues or mental issues and there is will, there will alsways be a way.

Sadly, it's only a matter of time before one of these animals takes "inspiration" from some methods that have long plagued the Middle East.
 

Etype

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
2,257
JAB, this quote is becoming more and more relevant-
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Andrew Jackson
Since 1794 we've been the world police. We've let ourselves go.
 

walra107

Marine Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
91
This is just plainly my opinion and experiences to follow: In my former high school in New York State, we had a full time State Trooper dedicated to the campus. He was of course armed with the usual workings of what most law enforcement officers usually carry, as well as a 12 gauge in the troop car. In addition to said trooper, the campus had a security detail of at least 3 patrols around the clock...Maybe it was overkill, and certainly looked it in my younger rebellious eyes, however I can only imagine the quick response time and possibly different outcome if said shootings had happened in my former school district, and am very thankful (now) that police presence was always on hand. I can recall numerous times when incidents would occur and would be quickly quelled before things got out of hand...though nothing in the nature of what had happened in CT.

As for Gun laws, I am in full agreement with supporting the Constitution...It is my right to own a firearm and to defend myself from those who intend to do me harm. If its not guns, then its knives..if not knives, then sticks and rocks...People killing people has been around a lot longer than gunpowder and lead. its the human psyche that is the main factor in these events.
 

hoepoe

Verified Military
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
169
Location
Israel
The weapon shouldn't be the issue, guns don't kill, people do. If it wasn't a gun it would have been something else.
I've designed and implemented programs (and physical security) for multiple schools (not in US) against terror attacks and the same methods would work to mitigate the damage done by an active shooter.

H
 

Hitman2/3

Raider
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
308
Location
East Coast
I won't go too deep into this, as I will end up writing an essay. However, the one thing I will say is that in terms of fixing the problem it is an issue with our society. I.E. lets not fix the real problem because that would be too hard instead lets come up with a quick lazy solution.

An example of this would be our military bases abroad, combat zones to be exact. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors were NDing like it was cool. Well clearly the problem is that their guns are loaded so we'll just make them walk around with unloaded weapons in a combat zone. Even though anybody with a little bit of intelligence could look at the situation and say maybe its a lack of proper training and exposure that is causing these issues and thats what should be fixed, they took the lazy/easy way out. Until all these "partnered" forces over here started going Ji'had on everybody, then all of a sudden it was like why are our soldiers walking around with unloaded guns. Even to this day, in the military even the wonderful Marine Corps, the average service members exposure and use of firearms is a joke. I'll shoot more in one day on the range than most will shoot in a four year enlistment.

Getting back on track my point is that the people screaming for more gun laws or just the complete absence of guns are taking that same easy/lazy approach. It won't work because the guns aren't the root of the problem. Now if machine guns were legal and the guy went in their with a M60 then of course I'd be the first one to say hey maybe we should rethink this, but since the issue with a lot of people seems to constantly be all guns are bad I have to think that its once again looking for the easiest/laziest answer. People who have their mind set on killing innocent people will always find a way to do it with or without guns. As Rampart pointed out you don't need a gun to terrorize, as in parts of Africa the machete is even more feared than the gun. Atrocities have always been committed, long before the invention of the gun. Even worse most were and are committed by people who are clinically sane and know exactly what they are doing, so I don't see how removing legally owned guns from the equation will help anyone.
 
Top