First off, what the heck is going on here? The source on Pixiv doesn't explain why this person is shooting up all these unarmed (high school?) students. Did the woman have some kind of personal grudge, or was this more random in nature? Is the shooter a student at the school?
But what I was really trying to get at is weapon tagging. The rifle being used is an AK-74 vice an AK-47. The main distinguishing features are the (often tan-colored) plastic magazine for the 5.45x39mm ammunition, and the longer flash suppressor (that uses ports rather than a sloped muzzle opening to redirect the muzzle flash). The 7.62x39mm AKs tend to use stamped metal magazines that are usually black.
I don't know if I'd want to hang around that guy! :-D
These mass-killer guys wouldn't be as much of a problem if people had some kind of emergency defense and weren't caged in like sheep to the slaughter.
People (at least the teachers) should be armed. When I was in schooling I was known as the "gun/combat nut" and unofficially labeled as the most likely to do a school shooting (People found out when I got hospitalized after getting stabbed and stabbing a robber with his own knife [his wounds also ended up being non-lethal, he is in county jail now] who came on campus after he kept pressing towards me after I gave him my wallet). However because of this no one screwed around with me or any of my friends and we didn't have any big fights in the department. Of course nothing happened, but a couple months after I graduated, one of the underclassmen went on a stabbing streak injuring several and killing a few until one of my old professors cut him down with a handgun that he secretly carried (against university policy). The worst part? My professor got fired and almost had criminal charges pressed by the university board and the whole department apparently made a public fuss to the students in classes about what a "threat" he was to the student's and the stabber's welfare.
The only one who stops a bad guy is a good guy (and usually only if the good guy is armed!)
Hey, funny thing is, school shootings are more frequent in the United States, where the 2nd Amendment is active. Things get worse once you adjust for population.
Not necessarily. The mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. That is the problem.
I mean, even in this picture, if a teacher was shooting at this AK girl, the girl would be eliminated or be focusing her fire on the teacher at the minimum, creating time for the students to flee. It's a basic military principle of fire, suppress/fix, and move to eliminate/break contact. Unfortunately most first world individuals have never seen the horrors of warfare and don't understand these basic survival skills for the world beyond our society's influence.
I mean, you could also look at it simply as if someone is attacking you with a gun, would you rather have a weapon also, or not? Criminals don't follow the laws. Another basic military concept: the enemy doesn't follow our ROE and in warfare if you aren't cheating, you aren't winning!
Around the same time as the Newtown killings (the morning of the 14th, December 2012) a similarly deranged assailant made an attempt on Chinese schoolchildren in Chenpeng, Henan with only a knife. Needless to say, while 20+ children were needlessly destroyed in Connecticut, not a single person nor child was killed in China that day, where it is illegal for civilians to own a firearm.
Around the same time as the Newtown killings (the morning of the 14th, December 2012) a similarly deranged assailant made an attempt on Chinese schoolchildren in Chenpeng, Henan with only a knife. Needless to say, while 20+ children were needlessly destroyed in Connecticut, not a single person nor child was killed in China that day, where it is illegal for civilians to own a firearm.
China also had several mass stabbings on public transportation, so that really doesn't prove anything. The main thing it boils down to is logic. Gun control does not affect criminals because they have their own supply methods since they don't follow the laws. The argument is made that "it won't stop all, but it reduces some attacks." Well, that is ignoring millions of cases yearly that are stopped by citizens owning firearms. The reality is that gun crime is lower than vehicle accidents. The reason weapon restriction is always brought up is because people can be controlled like in China when people are defenseless. I mean, North Korea doesn't have citizen firearm ownership and they don't have mass shootings... except those done by the government... The statistics number game can be played since we don't have enough and will never have enough information for a conclusive number if more or less people are killed by firearm ownership. Of course, you may be willing to play the statistic game since you assume you won't be the poor helpless guy who gets cornered by an assailant. I rather put my fate in my own hands rather than praying to RNG-sama.
All you have to ask yourself is this: would you willingly bring a knife to a gunfight?
China also had several mass stabbings on public transportation, so that really doesn't prove anything. The main thing it boils down to is logic. Gun control does not affect criminals because they have their own supply methods since they don't follow the laws. The argument is made that "it won't stop all, but it reduces some attacks." Well, that is ignoring millions of cases yearly that are stopped by citizens owning firearms. The reality is that gun crime is lower than vehicle accidents.
I would rather have a gun than not in any confrontation... IF the other guy has a weapon besides his body. Otherwise it only increases the risk of me going to jail for escalating the confrontation (and shooting him) or getting shot by some "good guy with a gun" who will of course be white (because any other race having a gun out in public and not wearing a uniform is shoot on sight for cops).
On the other hand, if there was an option to restrict the random nutcases (NOT criminal elements, JUST people randomly going nuts, such as most random mass shootings) from having more than five rounds in a clip and only bolt-action weapons, it would result in fewer deaths than giving everyone an M60 with a 100-round box and telling them to "suppress each other".
You are welcome to campaign to implement such a thing to "suppress crime rates at US universities", since I graduated already and don't plan on going back later on.
If you need more than five shots in under a minute to hunt anything, then that prey clearly has two legs, or you are bad enough to shoot your own foot, repeatedly.
Also, gun deaths are FAR more likely to be family members and accidents than actual defense in the United States, there are statistics on this subject. And then there's Florida, where you can legally shoot at a wooden board target in your backyard and if it hits a neighbor you are not legally liable--though if I lived in Florida and knew there was a gun nut next door I'd buy a gun myself and "Stand my ground" first, as commented by many fathers after seeing an article on one such case.
You will not get shot by a "good guy with a gun" shooting a bad guy, nor is using more than 5 rounds a sign of a "bad shot". The problem about the gun debate is that most people with opinions about it have zero knowledge on firearms or modern combat in general, and very few have even had any LE or Mil service to even understand how gunfighting works. The best way for a citizen to learn about firearms is to read the works of the big trainers in the industry (the late) Louis Awerbuck, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, etc.
For one, the 4 rules of safety specifically tell the user that you must identify a target before you shoot. As an officer arriving on scene to a shooting, I would not just shoot the first person with a gun as people erroneously believe from hollywood movies. Rather my first response would be to yell "Stop!", identify myself, and if the person complies (as a law abiding citizen would do), I would go through the compliance line until I am certain he is not a threat and I can talk to him.
As far as magazine capacity, my favorite challenge is to invite gun banners to the LE range I work at and give them a handgun and a full size static IPSC target that is not moving and ask them to put all 10 rounds on target. Usually only half will hit the target. Then I turn on the motorized walker and ask them to shoot the erratic target. Only one out of those 10 shots will hit, if any. A shooter does not have a crystal ball, and movement by the hostile will cause you to miss no matter how good of a shooter you are. Not only that, rarely will a few shots incapacitate a hostile in time. This is something the general public still fails to understand. There is a difference between killing and stopping. Any single shot on target has a high potential to kill if not given treatment. However, death is due to blood loss which is extremely slow (relative to the speed of combat) means that an approaching attacker could actually kill you before he dies even while shot. This is why you see officers emptying their magazine into a single target. Handguns are handguns, rifles are rifles. Handguns are very weak relative to other firearms, and you need a lot of rounds to stop a hostile in that one second before he can attack you.
And again, none of these restrictions have ever decreased crime. Sure it decreased gun violence, since the criminal non-affiliated with criminal organizations are not armed with a firearm, but people still die from beatings, stabbings, and other means of assault. Does it matter that gun crime lowers when the person dies from a knife instead of a gun? Not only does it not lower crime, but it increases it since people cannot defend themselves. As far as statistics on defense, you can't use that as definitive proof that firearms are not used to defend since most cases of firearm defense that were reported, do not involve a shooting. Simply presenting the firearm is enough to dissuade most criminals and so a report is not filed.
Again, it comes back to logic. A criminal will be armed, and if you have to face an armed criminal, would you rather be unarmed? People assume the criminal will attack and kill someone else not them so they play the statistic game, but if you were the one in a pinch, would you really gamble your life away so easily? I would doubt it.
You are still legally liable if your shot hits a neighbor in Florida. Also stand your ground wouldn't help you unless the neighbor is continuously shooting at you, in which case he is trying to kill you and the homemade range makes no difference in your defense. Even with castle doctrine you are not allowed to engage unless there is an IMMEDIATE threat to life, limb, or property.
You will not get shot by a "good guy with a gun" shooting a bad guy, nor is using more than 5 rounds a sign of a "bad shot". The problem about the gun debate is that most people with opinions about it have zero knowledge on firearms or modern combat in general, and very few have even had any LE or Mil service to even understand how gunfighting works. The best way for a citizen to learn about firearms is to read the works of the big trainers in the industry (the late) Louis Awerbuck, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, etc.
Your argument falls apart the moment world isn't perfect. Not all legally allowed to own a gun have training. Any (untrained) family member isn't exempted to borrow and misuse your legal firearm, that includes the criminal themselves before you can make use of it. Americans have the worst spoiled child rage ever known to misuse a gun, at least you can run away from a knife or a beating.
However take it from an external view. I don't live in wooden houses without window protections and my (back)yard isn't accessible without a key and lots of steel nor concrete. In the end everyone gets what they deserve, second amendment tells about how much you trust your government. But you know what? even if that remotely possible were to happen your government (or the enemy your government couldn't avoid to get through) has more ways to eradicate you without firing a single shot, destroy infrastructure or you noticing their attack so you can then grab your false and apparent only solution of security. This is not the pre World War era anymore unless of course most citizens can also own a tank, an AA gun, a subterranean bunker or a biohazard facility.
One more thing. Most USA school shootings don't come from already registered criminals but unknown students that snap (in the spoiled child rage sense) and then turn registered criminals. You know, those the second amendment allows them to buy guns.
@rom_collector I hope you don't mind me using the notification, but I would like to continue unless I am being annoying. EDIT: ah shit, I bumped. Mods are free to delete if they deem inappropriate.
I hold my beliefs because I see that the world isn't perfect. Definitely I do not promise that an armed citizen will always "win". Combat is a matter of probability where good strategy and tactics only alter that coin flip. However, an unarmed citizen against an armed aggressor is far more likely to lose. Training is absolutely important, which is why if this is the missing factor it should be a normal part of our public education. People need to know how to treat a weapon safely, and proper use of it. Knowledge should be our key to protecting people, not restricting it. Combat is a life skill that so long as the citizens have freedom, conflicts such as crime will arise and people need to know what to do to defend themselves. Mass shootings are not the sole reason I want citizens to have guns. Mass shootings are a negligible aspect of the amount of deaths in the country. Many more thousands of people lawfully defend their lives with firearms daily that is never reported because it is so common (or perhaps agenda driven). We often figure that we don't "need" guns because we rarely or usually never encounter a conflict due to our great first world country. However, that does not mean people all over the nation do not or will not face a threat in their lives. We are playing a probability game with banning assuming the one the criminal assaults will be the poor sap down the road and not us, and so it is fine if we don't have weapons for the greater good. You can run from a knife, but can you do that if you are old, crippled? What about the situation, when you put your groceries in the back seat your back is turned and a lot of people are assaulted this way. There are some situations where there is no escape, and not everyone is an MMA fighter. God made all people, but Samuel Colt made them equal. The weapon has very little discrimination on who is fit to wield it, and that is what makes it such a widely coveted tool of defense. It is assumed that if you write a law to restrict firearms, it will affect the criminals. You cannot choose the loadout that a criminal will use. They violate laws as a definition and will still attain firearms through other means from "misplaced" government hardware, setups (fast and furious), or even just international black market trade and home construction. Very sophisticated weapons can be made at home on par with any factory piece. An example is to take a look at the ingenuity in the middle east pre-ISIS. Sure you can reduce the flow of weapons by restriction, but that doesn't mean crime decreases. In fact, since restricting weapons takes away the component of individuals defending against criminals, the criminals are free to use "lesser" weapons like knives, and impact weapons with minimal risk to their personal safety. Without the risk of being shot, they are emboldened and if they have a firearm, they are as good as God. And then we are only looking at small arms. What about bombs? Far more destructive power, and simple to make even in tightly controlled european countries as evidenced by muslim terrorist attacks. Still then there are CBRN threats. Many people have been targeted and killed with the lowly botulin spores constructed at home. Its like the encounter in Jormungand where Koko outlines her plans for erecting world peace by shutting down all communications to stop the flow of weapons and armed forces. Her brother, Floyd replies that even if she eliminates guns, he will sell bows, and even if she stops that, he will sell swords, or even rocks. People cannot be stopped by restricting their selection of tools, but by stopping the individual themselves.
Aside from personal defense, the other pragmatic role of a firearm is offense, and in the eyes of a citizen it is against a tyrannical government (ignoring foreign invasion because that is a clear cut equation that more armed citizens equals better defense). First, I would assume that we agree that tyranny does/can exist in all parts of the modern world. I don't trust my own government, even if I work(ed) for it. Power corrupts and there is a reason we have checks and balances built into our Constitution. I will also assume that we agree that law itself is not a protection in its own. Just like criminals, a government that does not follow it's own laws will not be affected by it. We have seen many examples of domestic and foreign governments violating the law, and while later on they may pay for it, in the heat of the moment they are legally untouchable. Accepting the possibility of the opposition being our own leadership, we must then ask if weapons in the hands of citizens aid a country. We have two faction to consider, patriots (who wish to restore law and order), and anarchists (who wish to forcibly change a country without going through legal process). This is the difference between resisting corruption, or just resisting authority. A civilization only exists to serve it's people, so we can assume that there are more people who want to preserve the unity of their country vs those who wish to dissolve it. For that reason, just like personal defense between a citizen and a criminal, firearms serve as the patriots defense against anarchists who would not be hindered by a weapon restriction as they do not seek to follow law. The next question is wither or not patriots can effectively stop a tyrannical government. Again, patriots are not anarchists, they do not seek to overthrow the government, but rather to weed out the corruption within it. Tactically, can a citizen armed force beat a government force? Likely not. However, strategically, a citizen armed force can beat a government force. Remember that small arms are not the only weapons of warfare and it isn't the tools you have, but how you apply them . A milita will always be beat down if they fight one-on-one, but if they truly are of the will of the population, they will gain the advantage in mingling among the overtly compliant citizenship. Insurrection is the citizens tool, and with this comes the ability to utilize unique approaches such as social engineering. Even among a tyrannical force, a degree of political process exists. When the leadership do not know who their opposition is, they cannot defend against it, and so the careful combination of mental warfare of persuasion, followed by physical warfare if resistant, can and is a method of citizen resistance that has been used to great effect in the modern age. Take a look at muslim terrorists. Remember, from our perspective they are the bad guys because they are trying to kill us. From their perspective they are justified in killing us to acquire their own place in the international scene. So they have two factions, a violent "terrorist" force, and a "peaceful protest" force. The peaceful protest force can easily pass through borders while politically and legally defending the islamic cause. However, when the peaceful forces fail, they have backup in the form of terrorist attacks that strike fear. The message is clear: cooperate and yield to the peaceful protesters or face the the chaos that the terrorist forces will bring. This strategy has been very effective as is evidenced by the large political power Muslims have despite being a very small minority of most first world populations. And of course, the muslims are not the first or only to utilize these tactics. Generals today call it irregular warfare, but everyone knows it is just normal total warfare. When facing a superior adversary, the strategy is not to act in a straight line British Regular style, but in an adaptive and calculating measure. War never changes [fallout!], there is always a trump to any piece of an armed force. The key is to apply the proper application of force in the most efficient but safest way to achieve an objective. Classic military doctrine right there.
It should be evident at this point that at the minimum, there is a place for an armed society. The next question is how armed should they be? The common rebuttal is to go to the extreme: "should people have a nuke?" My answer is no. Remember that the role of 2A in its core is to uphold the law, be it a citizen defending himself against criminals, be it other citizens or government. A nuke has indiscriminate destruction that cannot be targeted at the flaws in the population, but rather inherently will destroy an entire population at once. This is the same reason why marijuana is restricted. We do not have a right to things, but a right to that which is outlined in our constitution, which was carefully deliberated for years before pen was put to paper. Narcotics have no role in a free society, and in fact inhibit it since narcotics affects the mind and the mind controls the perspective of responsibility and consequence. Without understanding the consequence, an individual is blind to his actions and unable to handle his responsibility of freedom. However, this lack of utility is the only reason why a nuke should be restricted. In the case of a change in technology, such as space warfare where a nuke can be employed in a localized defensive scenario such as against an enemy ship (I know, this is getting wild but let me tie it up), then yes, a nuke should be allowed by the public if they can afford it. The key here is that the government is free to stop the individual if they suspect a criminal intent, but that criminal intent cannot be that of lawful purposes of defense. Fear that a person may irresponsibly utilize their right is not a reason to restrict it. Otherwise, that right does not exist. Why do we have rights? Because we have the belief that as a society, the individual is the best judge of their needs. The individual is not free to infringe on another individual, but he is willing to act freely with the knowledge that he alone is responsible for the consequences of his actions. If a man wishes to kill another man, there is nothing to stop him. It is the responsibility of the victim to take measures to defend himself, and that of society to bestow punishment on the aggressor who receives the consequence of his actions. We need to get away from the mindset that we collectively are somehow God and can prevent all forms of tragedy. Like ecology, everything is in a check and balance. Disturb one part to fix one problem and you may open up a plethora of other problems. So should citizens own their own tanks, ships, explosives, etc? Absolutely, if they can afford it. Nothing is keeping our enemies from having their own tanks, ships, explosives etc., we mind as well have defense of our own equal to that of our aggressors. Raw power does not make someone an unstoppable force, if others have equal measure of said power to stop him. In the end it comes down to numbers and it can be stated that in a society worth living in, the amount of enforcers of law will always outnumber those who wish to violate it.
There isn't a profile for criminals, anyone can become one regardless of history, and I agree with you on that. The problem then isn't the weapon (the tool) but the individual. The family structure is weakened, and many more single working parents are the family unit which leads to children growing up mostly unguided in morals aside from outside influences (primarily government via public education) or hired help. It is my perception that our public education is a big source of our populations deterioration of mental health. Teachers rely on excuses for their class performance. They blame tests for low knowledge, they blame wages for low effort, they rely on pharmaceuticals to moderate behavior. This is the making of a stamped out population, and if kids don't learn to fit the mold (as they rarely don't) they are punished for it. Children are not allowed to learn the consequences of conflict. Bullies are a problem only because kids aren't allowed to fight back (sound familiar?). They are taught to turn the other cheek and rationalize through speech with a bully who respects force over words. Millions of pages of research has been written and no one has been able to truly rationalize why bad people do bad things. That is irreverent. All I need to know is that there are bad people out there, and I need to be able to stop them. When kids are unable to rationalize an irrational force such as a bully by defending themselves when words fail, they end up bottling their rage. Children who experience fights quickly learn that no matter how strong or righteous you are, if you get in enough conflicts you will earn scars. This is an early lesson to pick fights wisely. The child insulated to conflict never learns this until the day they blow up and several people leave a movie theater in body bags. Incidentally social problems are frequently suggested to be the driving force behind most mass shooters, further strengthening the point that there is a mental deficiency that seeks an opportunity to do evil, not that the opportunity entices it.
Basically I see the whole firearm related deaths as inconsequential and necessary (a cold statement, but nevertheless true) fact of life in comparison to the lives currently and potentially saved by the option of firearms as an available defense. A weaponless society isn't civilized, rather I think civilization needs to get past the rift between the leadership wanting control, and the chaos of the citizens wills. If you just try to remove weapons from the equation, you get a psychopass style situation where people are no longer able to cope and handle with seemingly basic situations. And combat is a life skill. I would rather have my fate dependent on myself rather than to play the game of probability and hope I am not just that one unlucky guy that faces an armed criminal empty handed.
You will not get shot by a "good guy with a gun" shooting a bad guy
If I have a gun and a gunfight starts near me, and I see someone shooting at someone else, and I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy, I will point it at his head and pull the trigger, preferably while he's too busy shooting and thus can't hear me, and if it doesn't work, turn the safety switch the other way and pull the trigger while it's pointed at him.
Your argument is grossly invalid.
I recommend watching the Stargate movie for a brief lesson on how easily guns get into the hands of under-qualified folks like O'Neill's son.
The Second Amendment (1791) was in a time when a mass shooting required you carry something like 36 loaded Brown Bess muskets on your back (because a wagon isn't agile enough), which means you have a bigger problem in the form of the other guy being able to carry 360 pounds of loaded muskets... and still MOVE.
Most Americans support the idea of "you don't get to buy a gun at a store if you just got released from an insane asylum an hour ago", but when actual laws to that effect are proposed they instantly assume their guns are going to get taken. This is telling of the average opinion of Americans regarding their own sanity, which is very sad.
No one believes that out in the rural areas you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself against bears, wolves, and of course the most dangerous animals known as people. In an urban environment by usually less than trained people... well, I recommend you go to a frat party at some university halfway through, when at least 1/4 of the participants are at least mildly inebriated, and start handing out loaded handguns, even with the safeties on, from a box, and see how that goes.