Explosives are used to blow doors off their hinges. Works a treat. And LEOs have had tear gas launchers since way back when. Don't panic.

As for the treaties, what the conditions where the use of tear gas is not allowed?

And, silly boy, the cops don't want to act like the military, marching pretty much sucks.

notimportant1234 Wrote:

wallym Wrote:Ideally, he wouldn't legally be able to get his hand on a pistol.  But I'm not sure what sort of profiling would be necessary, and even possible constitutionally speaking.

---

Do you care that it was a semi-automatic rifle, and not a handgun?  That's where I think gun control advocates come off a bit wonky.  Because nobody believes that him killing 8 people with a handgun would be any more acceptable than killing 14 with an AR-15.   It's a bit of mitigation, but it doesn't really solve the problem in any way.

The point that a semi-automatic rifle is deadlier than a hand gun, that is a fact.

A Glock 17 (as one example) has a standard magazine capacity of 17 and fires just as fast as you can pull the trigger, like almost all semiautomatic firearms. And you can easily carry one each hand, though shooting both at once isn't very effective unless you're trying to hit the same target with both guns. At short range and all other things being equal, I'd rather be shot at by someone with a .223 AR-15. That's probably what the Las Vegas shooter mostly relied on, and less than one in ten of the people he hit died of their wounds. School shooters use the AR-15 because they're copy cats, not because they're tactical geniuses. The Pulse nightclub shooter definitely put thought into his plan, though no rifles. He could have used revolvers and still gotten one of the highest body counts ever because he trapped people in the club first.

I want sensible gun laws for America, but I'm not sure basing them on what is popular with mass shooters instead of firing characteristics will accomplish fewer mass shootings. I don't see a school shooter staying home because if they can't do it with an AR-15 they just won't do it. And there are firearms that you could get a higher body count with, forcing them to get more creative, I think, could easily backfire.

Keeping them from buying firearms in the first place though, ought to be more effective. A requirement that you be at least 21, have no prior violent offenses for at least, say, 10 years; no prison time in the last, say 10 years, and if you have mental health issues, an independent evaluation should be required before you are allowed to purchase a firearm. Any of these would be more effective than 'force them to buy a different gun'. Ideally, we eventually will get to a point where a safety test has to be passed and a license obtained, like in Canada.

Right now, the only thing I think we can find the political will for on the federal level would be to have the FBI treat threats of school shootings like they treat threats to government officials. Pick the person up, interrogate them, search their property for weapons, if they're determined not to be a threat, let them go without charges, but keep any guns found. I think this has a chance of passing. Most shooters aren't stupid enough to announce it, but at least we can do something to keep those who do from falling through the cracks.

I would hope better mental health care would be an option, but I don't think that can happen before 2020.

(February 19, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Explosives are used to blow doors off their hinges. Works a treat. And LEOs have had tear gas launchers since way back when. Don't panic.

As for the treaties, what the conditions where the use of tear gas is not allowed?

And, silly boy, the cops don't want to act like the military, marching pretty much sucks.

Wrong. Since you posted while I was editing my comment I'll quote what I added, below: 
bolding mine

Quote:Even with the interagency working group’s oversight since January 2015, we continue to see unwarranted police militarization post-Ferguson. Just look at law enforcement’s response at Standing Rock, where armored vehicles, automatic rifles, concussion grenades, sound cannons, and water cannons were used against peaceful protestors. Consider Baton Rouge, where those organizing around the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling were met with militarization and excessive force. And we still have SWAT teams detonating flash-bang grenades near a 9-month-old when executing home searches for drugs. Do you remember Baby Bou Bou?

Oh and I'm not a boy. Thanks. 

And the conditions where teargas is not allowed is during warfare. However, that terminology can be subjective. This country has it's own people terrorizing one another. Warfare doesn't have to mean it can only happen in another country. Warfare has been happening in our own backyards for decades now. 

Honestly, how are you this obtuse?

Yeah, that silly boy comment was a bit much. Superiority complex much?

I would have preferred silly girl though.

(February 19, 2018 at 1:32 pm)Joods Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Explosives are used to blow doors off their hinges. Works a treat. And LEOs have had tear gas launchers since way back when. Don't panic.

As for the treaties, what the conditions where the use of tear gas is not allowed?

And, silly boy, the cops don't want to act like the military, marching pretty much sucks.

Wrong. Since you posted while I was editing my comment I'll quote what I added, below: 
bolding mine

Quote:Even with the interagency working group’s oversight since January 2015, we continue to see unwarranted police militarization post-Ferguson. Just look at law enforcement’s response at Standing Rock, where armored vehicles, automatic rifles, concussion grenades, sound cannons, and water cannons were used against peaceful protestors. Consider Baton Rouge, where those organizing around the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling were met with militarization and excessive force. And we still have SWAT teams detonating flash-bang grenades near a 9-month-old when executing home searches for drugs. Do you remember Baby Bou Bou?

Oh and I'm not a boy. Thanks. 

And the conditions where teargas is not allowed is during warfare. However, that terminology can be subjective. This country has it's own people terrorizing one another. Warfare doesn't have to mean it can only happen in another country. Warfare has been happening in our own backyards for decades now. 

Honestly, how are you this obtuse?

Well, you know jack shit about combat use of those items, that's clear. 
Amateurs on the Internet, gotta love 'em.

---

(February 19, 2018 at 1:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yeah, that silly boy comment was a bit much. Superiority complex much?

Yeah, disdain for amateurs lecturing. It's very funny.

Yeah, yeah, salty old vets are the only people allowed to talk about militarization of police forces in the U.S. I don't even fully agree with Joods on the topic, but at least she's not being smug. There are two types of vets. You're the insufferable kind, apparently. That's too bad.

(February 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yeah, yeah, salty old vets are the only people allowed to talk about militarization of police forces in the U.S. I don't even fully agree with Joods on the topic, but at least she's not being smug. There are two types of vets. You're the insufferable kind, apparently. That's too bad.

I'm a working military historian, which is why I have a very low opinion of the crap we're discussing. I don't care if you don't like that.

You're talking to another working military historian. I've provided research content for a vet who owns two WWII blogs. Here's one. http://www.comandosupremo.com/ I also ran three separate columns on American Revolution history (and am also currently writing a book set in Boston during the American Revolution) for roughly a decade. I also provide content for the local historical society. I don't see what any of that has to do with having a low opinion of anything. Gun happy tough guys shouldn't be the only people with a voice in this discussion just because they think they're better than other people. Actually make an argument supporting your position instead of slinging around your vet/police status as if it automatically makes you right.

All bearing in mind of course that I'm pretty gun happy myself. I enjoy playing with guns. I think they're a pretty effective tool for the police. I simply think you're being a dick, which started with your ridiculous strawman pages back. It's interesting because I never noticed you having this type of attitude before. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

notimportant1234 Wrote:2. Your thoughts are also about law. And I wasn't reffering to you , I just explained why I tryed to shut people down.

Of course I look to law to address the issue. What other option is there? However, I'm under no illusions that it would be a quick fix ... or a complete fix, for that matter. I mean, murder is illegal already.

Nor do I think shutting down conversation to be a good course of action. Any possible solution would need to have buy-in from both sides of this discussion. How are you going to achieve that by shutting discussion down? I think it's best that folks speak their views and work towards finding common ground. Perhaps neither side will be thrilled with the outcome, but if it makes headway against the problem, I reckon that's a good thing.

Just a thought: The NRA is a democratically-run private organization with several million members. When I was a kid, they were mostly a gun-safety group, I attended one of their classes in grade school in Florida, not too different in concept from the boating safety class some boat group put on which I also attended. They used to be okay with reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Somewhere along the line, they became a hard-right 2nd Amendment rights group, I believe largely because a few people campaigned effectively to enter positions of power within the group and changed its course.

It's possible for several million gun control advocates to join the NRA and modify its positions considerably by exercising their votes within the group. The drawback is that they would have to send the NRA money and be active in it.