Shooting at GOP Baseball practice - page 8

Suspect James Hodgkinson Dies After Shooting At GOP Baseball Practice; Rep. Steve Scalise Is Wounded : The Two-Way : NPR Twitter What a story to wake up to this morning. The FBI is taking... Read More

  1. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    To disagree puts you in the camp of advocating for more dead victims. I don't really think that. But don't make me sound blood thirsty for my attempts to provide some education in an area where I am a subject matter expert.
    The only person who made you sound blood thirsty was you. Please reread your comments, maybe you will then understand the reaction.
  2. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    To disagree puts you in the camp of advocating for more dead victims. I don't really think that. But don't make me sound blood thirsty for my attempts to provide some education in an area where I am a subject matter expert.
    I don't doubt you are a subject matter expert. And yes, the words you chose made you sound blood thirsty. I will never understand those who think the 2nd amendment supercedes all common sense and rationality. Loving guns that much is just strange to me.
  3. by   chare
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    ...in an area where I am a subject matter expert.
    On what experience are you basing this on?
  4. by   PMFB-RN
    Quote from chare
    On what experience are you basing this on?
    I am a US army qualified rifle and pistol expert, an NRA and BSA (Boy Scouts of America) certified firearms instructor, and a certified hunter's safety educator for the state of Wisconsin. I hold state championships in two different shooting events. I teach a class on ammunition reloading at the local technical college adult education department.
    I have used firearms for hunting, sports, and in the military all of my life (and the two times I have used a firearm to defend my own life that I have written about a couple times here). I have built firearms from scratch in my shop, and I regularly manufacturer my own ammunition.
  5. by   PMFB-RN
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    I don't doubt you are a subject matter expert. And yes, the words you chose made you sound blood thirsty. I will never understand those who think the 2nd amendment supercedes all common sense and rationality. Loving guns that much is just strange to me.
    The words I used expressed gratitude that fewer people have been killed by firearms welding murders.
    Is your comment about "those who think the 2nd amendment" aimed at me?
  6. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    The words I used expressed gratitude that fewer people have been killed by firearms welding murders.
    Is your comment about "those who think the 2nd amendment" aimed at me?
    No, just a general statement. I know of those who do feel they are entitled to have as many of whatever guns they want, and openly carry them wherever they want-not subject to any rules, proficiency testing, or regulations Doesn't matter if it's necessary or rational...it's their right!! I think that is a very twisted viewpoint.
    Last edit by BCgradnurse on Jun 24
  7. by   PMFB-RN
    "I can completely understand Lil Nel's trepidation. The idea of having ten or twenty overconfident, undertrained klutzes like this one handling firearms at a neighbor's yard sale would make me extremely uneasy. "

    I guess, but for me that is an unremarkable situation. Probably because I live in a very rural area where guns are like chain saws, everyone has them and uses them.

    "I've fired tens of thousands of rounds, not a single accidental discharge among them. Not one."

    I should hope not!

    "I also know from experience how I respond in high stress situations where my life, a partners' or the lives of innocent bystanders are threatened. I trust myself with a firearm. You've got military background and from your posts you sound sane. That means that I would likely trust you and your judgment and not be concerned if you were armed. Does this trust extend to any number of anonymous strangers with unknown mental status and unknown training (if any!) as well of uncertain capacity to make rational decisions in high stress situations? Hell no. You guys dole out firearms like candy to any joker with the desire to arm himself or herself, and being surrounded by a large number of amateurs with guns scares me a lot more than the risk of being a victim of a violent crime."

    I have written here a number of times about MY ideas for preventing forearms related deaths.

    "Of course he wouldn't. The whole problem is the fact that a background check isn't required. That means you don't know what flavor of crazy or completely incompetent you're arming.

    So my question is, is the goal to increase safety and prevent deaths related to firearms? Or is the goal to fight a huge battle with gun owners where you will, at best end up with a compromise? Telling people that they have to get the government involved with two friends wish to trade revolvers, or a grand parent wished to give a shotgun as a Christmas gift is going to be a hard sell and won't increase safety.


    "Only 50% dead? I'm sorry, but I really can't work up enough enthusiasm to actually be grateful for those numbers."

    How is that not better than 99% dead?

    "All I see is thousands and thousand of human lives lost for no good reason. It's not like 50% dead or 95% dead are the two only available options. That reasoning is a false dichotomy."

    That was (obviously) meant to educate people and dispel some of the false information (propaganda) that people put out there.

    "The high numbers of deaths are unique to the U.S. among all "first world" nations"

    As I have written before. It's in American's nature to slaughter each other (and others around the world) on a regular basis and we will continue to do so, regardless of the tools available. Americans are not like the people of other first world nations. We are among the most devoutly religious people in the first world. Religious people are violent and war like. Secular people are not. Look at the world today. There are currently 10 conflicts that kill >1000 people/year going on. Every single one is in and between devoutly religious countries. Observe how Americans like to kill others around the world, we recently killed between 150,000 and one million Iraqis (depending on whose numbers you believe) for not apparent reason at all. 72% of Americans supported invading Iraq even though it represent pretty much no threat at all. President Trump received widespread approval for his choice to kill people in Syria with a missile attack. Americans like to kill people and aren't very picky about who it is.
    Large number of guns are a fact of life in the USA and will continue to be no matter what laws are passed and no matter how you or I feel about it. Are there things that can be done to reduce the number of accidental deaths related to firearms? Absolutely. Are there things we can do that will reduce the number of people killed by gun wielding murders? Absolutely and I have written about them a number of times on the board.
    But much of what I see proposed will NOT have any positive effect and will increase the burden on law abiding firearms owners. Much of what is proposed is based on ignorance of firearms. When what is proposed is based on ignorance, or will increase our burden without improving safety, expect opposition. Since the pro-gun opposition is very powerful you and like minded people have to decide what's really important to you. Making a positive change, or simply fighting a battle that at best will result in a compromise. A perfect example of this is the 1994 so-called "Assault weapons ban" that in fact banned nothing and had no more affect than to simply raise prices. At no time during the "ban" were magazines and "banned" forearms not available at any local gun store, but they got more expensive.


    "and there are steps you can take so that the number of deaths are significantly reduced. But it takes the popular and political will to stop kowtowing to the gun lobby and a conscious/active effort the stop the promulgation of fear that seems to consume so many citizens. Some seem like they're afraid of their own shadows."

    I agree that there are steps that should be taken. I expect I will disagree with what those steps should be.

    "I personally find it ridiculous that people are so scared that they choose to arm themselves when going out in public."

    You are fooling yourself if you think that most of those who are armed do so out of fear. I don't know what good can come from making inaccurate up motivations and ascribing them to others. What I KNOW will happen is that you will create a lot of enemies who don't trust you and like minded people, and why should they when they have seen you fabricate falsehoods about them?

    "I would refuse to live in that kind of fear and would get involved in whatever effort it took to affect positive change and make society more safe for all."

    The most effective thing you could do is advocate the taxing of churches and discouraging religion.

    "Guns isn't the solution. Joe or Jane Blow who's gone about their everyday business for the past five, ten or twenty years without a single threatening incident is likely not going to perform very well when s/he finally encounters a violent threat. Take Jane (without the benefit of military or law enforcement experience), first she has to process the fact that something really scary is unfolding before her very eyes (provided she isn't attacked from behind), then comes the decision to start rummaging through her purse/handbag for that gun... (why anyone would ever keep a firearm in a purse is beyond me (too darn slow when it counts) but I met several women in the U.S. who did just that), and then some erratic shooting (that might hit the assailant, a third party or air/objects), provided the assailant hasn't punched her lights out first or disarmed her and turned the gun on her. That gun is likely just false security and a risk to others."

    You have imagined a scenario without much basis in reality. We do not have many examples of armed civilians shooting bystanders. We do have many examples of armed civilians using firearms to successfully protect themselves and others, in the vast majority of cases without a shot ever being fired.

    "I find it heart-breaking that so many people, including way too many children, lose their lives in shootings that could have been prevented. When is enough, enough?"

    I agree. But those who propose burdensome regulations that won't have a positive effect are the single biggest enemy of proposals that would have a positive effect.
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    We're mass shooters to instead choose something like a 30-06, the most popular big game cartridge in the USA, and available in all kinds of actions, including semi autos, instead of 10 killed and 10 wounded, we would expect 19 killed and 1 wounded...
    To disagree puts you in the camp of advocating for more dead victims. I don't really think that. But don't make me sound blood thirsty for my attempts to provide some education in an area where I am a subject matter expert.
    I think you've forgotten the rest of the calculation. I'd go along with the claim that each round of 30-06 has twice the lethality of a 5.56/.223, but for there to be twice the dead victims from a bolt-action 30-06 then the number of rounds you can get off with the bolt-action would have to match that of a semi-auto, which isn't the case. You can get off at least twice as many rounds with a semi-auto, which makes it likely more lethal in a mass shooting scenario. (Half the lethality per round but with at least 2 times the number of rounds=more lethal). And I'm not sure that critically wounded doesn't count as inflicted harm.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    The Armalite 15 rifle functions no differently that a variety of other rifled that have been widely available for a 100 years or more in the USA. It's main difference is that it's ugly and looks tactical.
    It's in the same general family as rifles, but it is essentially an M4/M16 without the auto-fire, although you can more closely approximate the rate of fire of an automatic with aftermarket add-ons such as a slide-fire/bump-fire stock.
  9. by   PMFB-RN
    Quote from MunoRN
    I think you've forgotten the rest of the calculation. I'd go along with the claim that each round of 30-06 has twice the lethality of a 5.56/.223, but for there to be twice the dead victims from a bolt-action 30-06 then the number of rounds you can get off with the bolt-action would have to match that of a semi-auto, which isn't the case. You can get off at least twice as many rounds with a semi-auto, which makes it likely more lethal in a mass shooting scenario. (Half the lethality per round but with at least 2 times the number of rounds=more lethal). And I'm not sure that critically wounded doesn't count as inflicted harm.



    It's in the same general family as rifles, but it is essentially an M4/M16 without the auto-fire, although you can more closely approximate the rate of fire of an automatic with aftermarket add-ons such as a slide-fire/bump-fire stock.
    Rounds fired don't count, hits do. One could just as easily arm themselves with a semi auto 30-06, or other moderate power rifle with 20 or 30 round magazines, but if they did, expect far high death tolls.
    The Armalite family of rifles are not special. They don't have any capabilities that dozens of other types of firearms do. They don't shoot faster, hold more rounds, and are not more powerful.
    If one wishes to make the argument that semi auto rifles should be banned, then that, to me is a rational argument. To call for banning one particular type that does nothing other types can also do, is not a reasonable argument to me. It amounts to banning a firearm cause it's ugly or scary looking.
    I can easily provide a list of firearms with the exact same capabilities as the Armalite rifles if anyone wishes.
    I mentioned before that proposing regulations that ignore the reality of firearms, like for example banning Armalite rifles, while ignoring (for example) Ruger mini 14's, makes us question the real motivation of those who make such proposals.
    In the same way that calling for background checks for private transfers does. That tells us the goal is NOT to increase safety, or prevent firearms from being in the wrong hands, but to drastically increase the regulatory burden on the law abiding.
    A firearms license, like I have proposed several times before, would serve the same purposes, without getting the government involved when my friend wants to trade his Colt for my Smith & Wesson.
  10. by   toomuchbaloney
    More legal guns = safer citizens?
    Studies at Harvard and Stanford say no.
  11. by   MunoRN
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    Rounds fired don't count, hits do. One could just as easily arm themselves with a semi auto 30-06, or other moderate power rifle with 20 or 30 round magazines, but if they did, expect far high death tolls.
    The Armalite family of rifles are not special. They don't have any capabilities that dozens of other types of firearms do. They don't shoot faster, hold more rounds, and are not more powerful.
    If one wishes to make the argument that semi auto rifles should be banned, then that, to me is a rational argument. To call for banning one particular type that does nothing other types can also do, is not a reasonable argument to me. It amounts to banning a firearm cause it's ugly or scary looking.
    I can easily provide a list of firearms with the exact same capabilities as the Armalite rifles if anyone wishes.
    I mentioned before that proposing regulations that ignore the reality of firearms, like for example banning Armalite rifles, while ignoring (for example) Ruger mini 14's, makes us question the real motivation of those who make such proposals.
    In the same way that calling for background checks for private transfers does. That tells us the goal is NOT to increase safety, or prevent firearms from being in the wrong hands, but to drastically increase the regulatory burden on the law abiding.
    A firearms license, like I have proposed several times before, would serve the same purposes, without getting the government involved when my friend wants to trade his Colt for my Smith & Wesson.
    Accuracy along with damage inflicted per round is part of what determines the damage it can do, so while the combination of the two makes semi-autos with smaller calibers less damaging per round, half as damaging but firing many times as many rounds equal more damage in total, which his why they are popular.

    If you're targets are at 300 yards and you're not just aiming into a crowd then a larger caliber bolt-action is certainly preferable, but in the circumstances that most mass murders occur in; firing indiscriminately into a crowd as close range, semi-autos are certainly preferable.

    The proposed bans on semi-auto, high capacity detachable magazines are not limited to AR variants, they often used as examples since they are quite common. The criteria for bans such as the most recent federal proposal is based on function, not on appearance.

close