"Assault weapons" and school attacks

[rwilson452]

The U.S. is not like this. We may have a huge military, but it is almost entirely geared towards facing distant external threats, and most citizens have never served. IMHO most Americans do not have a sense that securing their community against attack is their personal responsibility, nor that a serious attack by armed fanatics is likely in any place and at any time.

I think some parallel can be seen. It is true that Israel almost everyone serves in the military. I don't suggest all our teachers be armed with submachine guns either. I know that the percentage of people that have a form of carry license is low and that as a class teachers are even lower. I think that it would be good if we had an armed teacher in every hallway of every school. Heck, two would be better. Voluntary of course. I don't think they need extensive training as some suggest. If they can shoot accurately and develop the proper mind set, they will do just fine. We all know that out of those that would carry, a percentage will freeze up when the bullets start flying no matter what the training level. I don't know how you can tell which will and which won't. I do know what we are doing now isn't working. I am certain banning some firearms won't work. We also know the GFSZ is a joke.

[Sharkbite]

The professional literature has not demonstrated a clear link between video games, movies, TV, etc. and violence.

Read Dave Grossmans book “stop teaching our kids to kill”. Quite eye opening. In fact all of Dave’s reading should be read by anyone that carries a gun for self-defense.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Dave's book is his opinion. There are refereed literature debates on this. He has some good stuff in his books but the link is not a slam dunk predictively.

I would note that if you buy the video game linkage, it is also claimed that the simple appearance of a gun (such as the EBR) will lead to you violence. Same theory of priming aggression. Thus, if you buy into the video game linkage as a way of trying to excuse the gun as causal in promoting violence, the literature catches you (if you buy that literature). The conclusion would be to ban both the games, videos and guns. Oops, pesky 1st and 2nd Amendments get in the way.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Dave's book is his opinion. There are refereed literature debates on this. He has some good stuff in his books but the link is not a slam dunk predictively.

I would note that if you buy the video game linkage, it is also claimed that the simple appearance of a gun (such as the EBR) will lead to you violence. Same theory of priming aggression. Thus, if you buy into the video game linkage as a way of trying to excuse the gun as causal in promoting violence, the literature catches you (if you buy that literature). The conclusion would be to ban both the games, videos and guns. Oops, pesky 1st and 2nd Amendments get in the way.

I really could care less if someone can link X to Y or whatever. In a free society, you don't strip away freedoms from law abiding citizens with regulations/laws. You punish the criminals with fines, prison and/or death. It's called personal responsibility.

[44 AMP]

You have to make the case for owning them, not for sport or hunting, but self-defense and defense against tyranny.

The sad part is that while true, these arguments make little ground among the unconvinced, and none at all with the anti-gun bigots.

The simple truth, recognized but never admitted to, is that the ant-gun people are the tyranny that we must guard against.

Both in and out of government. Matters not if their paycheck comes from tax dollars, or Bloomberg or Soros, it is their actions and words that matter.

Just because they don't wear swastika armbands doesn't mean they aren't tyranny.

As to personal protection, many don't recognize that as a right, or that using a gun to do it is a valid option. They believe we should not do it, that is what the police are for. And even the ones that do admit that while we shouldn't have to, we do need to use guns for protection sometimes, they argue that weapons like the AR are neither useful, nor suitable for self defense, and therefore should be banned.

If you want to argue over the effect of violent video games, fine, but don't stop there. Recognize that it isn't just video games, its everything on a screen 24/7.

Don't just look at games, look at everything seen on a screen, in home, in theaters, and today in your pocket and your car. Realize that on a subconscious level (and sometimes a conscious level) our "entertainment" are training films.

The generations in the 1930s and 40s didn't have tv. They had radios, and those well off enough, might go to the movies, once a week, or so. By the 50s and 60s, TV got into many, then most homes, and it ran from around 6am to midnight, and was shut down the rest of the time. In the 70s, and on up, we got TV that never went off the air (cable, at first, now satellite, as well),

Combine that with general greed, and the constant need to go "further" in nearly every aspect, but especially in violence, in order to attract viewers, and we have gotten past just realistic looking violence and into unrealistic fantasy graphic violence. And the public eats it up. People don't just fall down when shot in the movies today, they "splatter".

One doesn't need any study to recognize that with many things, the more you are exposed to something, the more tolerant of it you become.

Back ages ago, about the time we started getting 24/7 tv, someone did a "study", sorry I don't remember who or exactly when, I do remember one of the points they claimed was that the average American child had witnessed some 17,000 (seventeen thousand) murders on TV by the time they were 18. And the point was brought up pondering how this could possibly be a good thing for our society...

Now, today with our 24/7 entertainment cycle (and I include the "news" in that) and video games, I'm confident the number of murders witnessed (and performed in games) is much higher.

Yes, there are many other factors involved, I'm not discounting them, just not addressing them here. Just want to make the point that we have been "training" a couple of generations subtly (and sometimes not so subtly), via the TV & movie screen, and that has to have had an effect.

[croberts]

...Ruger Mini-14 and 10/22 IF they don't have a folding stock. ALL AR and AK pattern rifles, no matter what caliber are declared Assault Weapons...

You can keep your M1 Garand, or M1 carbine (if no folding stock)...

Whenever I am thinking about weapons that nobody needs, I always make the same conclusion that anything with a folding stock is going to be twice as murderous as a weapon without one...

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by carguychris

IMHO most Americans do not have a sense that securing their community against attack is their personal responsibility, nor that a serious attack by armed fanatics is likely in any place and at any time.

To expound on my point a little more, not only do I find the one-per-hallway goal wildly optimistic, but I also foresee that the whole concept will run into unyielding opposition in some geographical areas.

Some people simply do not see armed schoolteachers as a viable solution for this problem, and there is going to be no easy way to convince them otherwise, because they simply won't accept the idea that any teacher's job is to double as an armed guard. They see school security as the sole responsibility of the police (which 44 AMP expounds upon, and I'll get to that shortly).

Someone is likely to point out that the SRO at Parkland didn't intervene, and thus, an armed teacher could have intervened instead. (Future readers please note that not all of the relevant facts about the SRO's non-intervention are known as I write this.) IMHO this is NOT the unqualified propaganda victory for gun rights that some have posited. The counterargument is simple: if a trained cop wouldn't intervene, why should we expect a schoolteacher to do so? What if the teacher runs away too? What if the cops show up and shoot the teacher?

Lastly, forcing intransigent opponents of teacher carry to tolerate it under legal sanction—even if it's voluntary on the individual teacher's level—will run into the same problems that I've argued about at length in the many CCW reciprocity threads: opponents are going to take it to court, where it could be tied up for years, and the end result is going to be a neutered version (e.g. all guns kept in a locker in the principal's office) and/or large-scale federal intervention (i.e. federal permits).

IMHO the best we can hope for is that teacher carry will be allowed in more places under broader circumstances; it's simply not gonna happen everywhere, and there is no clear-cut statutory way to make it so.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The sad part is that while true, these arguments make little ground among the unconvinced, and none at all with the anti-gun bigots.

The simple truth, recognized but never admitted to, is that the ant-gun people are the tyranny that we must guard against.

Both in and out of government. Matters not if their paycheck comes from tax dollars, or Bloomberg or Soros, it is their actions and words that matter.

Just because they don't wear swastika armbands doesn't mean they aren't tyranny.

As to personal protection, many don't recognize that as a right, or that using a gun to do it is a valid option. They believe we should not do it, that is what the police are for.

+1, although I believe that the bar for getting such people to support individual self-defense is lower than it is for fighting against tyranny.

The problem is that it's too easy for said bigots to label our arguments for "fighting against tyranny" as "gun nuts supporting illegal rebellion against a democratically elected government." This will ALWAYS make the insurrectionist argument in favor of the 2A hard to swallow for a large percentage of the U.S. population. Additionally, there will always be a subset of folks in this category who will NEVER accept ANYONE being armed for security reasons except for agents of the state.

Sadly, many folks erroneously conflate tyranny with militarism, nationalism, and electoral suppression. (We see this writ large in the current U.S. political situation.) They fail to recognize that tyranny can exist independently of these things. "We the people" are perfectly capable of freely electing a tyrant and going along with his program when the conditions are right (and ironically, a prime example of this is today's Russia).

[rwilson452]

Carguychris. You said it would be difficult to get it done. True. I don't see you finding fault with the basic idea other than getting it done. You start a "What if" argument". You can play that game until the cows come home. As I stated no one can say who will react correctly. The military gives extensive training and still when bullets fly some cannot perform. Say they need to be highly skilled is a straw man. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE. There is no perfect solution.

[s3779m]

I don't think they need extensive training as some suggest. If they can shoot accurately and develop the proper mind set, they will do just fine. We all know that out of those that would carry, a percentage will freeze up when the bullets start flying no matter what the training level.

I see no law passing that would allow teachers to conceal carry ON THE JOB if it does not include training. Parents are freaking out as it is. I hope our conservative leaders in congress include the training in order to get a law passed and not take the approach that no training is needed. Congress is under intense pressure to get something passed, it can either be something that will work or they can ban something.

[DaleA]

Pond James Pond commented in post #16:

Why isn't there being carried out some serious, comprehensive research into the drivers [reasons] behind school shootings?

Everyone on this forum who is concerned about the risk to their gun rights should be hammering on their keyboards demanding that research be carried out and I don't know why it is not the case. I've heard all the arguments about psychiatric medication, video games, hollywood etc, but that is all conjecture.

At least part of the answer can be found in this thread:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593749

The word 'polarized' is very over used. So is 'left' and 'right'.

To me, it seems there's lots of folk that just want to fight and they want to win. I mean they REALLY want to FIGHT. They want to MAKE SOMEBODY do SOMETHING that THEY want them to do. They want to make SOMEBODY SUBMIT. In the thread above :

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii says he isn't interested in compromising with NRA but wants to "beat them".

So it's come down to that. The adults have left the room. There's no 'common sense' left.

[44 AMP]

There are still adults in the room, trouble is the shouting children do not listen to them.

[Lohman446]

There are still adults in the room, trouble is the shouting children do not listen to them.

I think this is normally the case. You get the screaming 10% (or whatever) on each end of the spectrum and the rest are not able to have a serious conversation. The problem becomes, in politics, when the representatives pander to those extremes

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

You get the screaming 10% (or whatever) on each end of the spectrum and the rest are not able to have a serious conversation.

FWIW this has been coined the radical flank effect.

While we're on the topic of political metaphors, there's also the stalking horse, which IMHO is the role the Parkland victims are currently playing on behalf of Everytown and the gun-control contingent in Congress.