Nikolas Cruz 'remorseful' as police report claims he confessed to Florida school shooting massacre

[loomer]

Of course, the potential for a bloodbath inside the locked room is horrific if the student, say, has a handgun and a knife and presses the lockdown button before using the extra time the locked door buys to kill every person in that room. Not to mention the hostage situation risks.

[Zaune]

You need to address the situation before you have a school shooter. An ounce of prevention, not a pound of cure. By the time there is a student stalking the halls of a place of learning killing their fellow students, you've already lost. No amount of tactical fixes will reverse that.

Debating the best response to an active shooter is an attempt to solve the wrong problem.

You're not wrong, but at least it's the problem we can actually solve. Or at least talk about without getting into messy partisan politics.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. The shoot through the wall thing could be an issue (my classrooms actually have windows facing out into the hall and I'm theoretically required to keep the curtains open at all times), but if you can install a bulletproof door you should be able to install a bulletproof wall. If only just by putting it next to the existing wall.

Bulletproof walls would entail so much structural work that you might as well tear the building down and start over, and in any case just forcing the shooter to fire blindly through the wall at random instead of aiming would make a huge difference.

[Zixinus]

The shoot through the wall thing could be an issue (my classrooms actually have windows facing out into the hall and I'm theoretically required to keep the curtains open at all times), but if you can install a bulletproof door you should be able to install a bulletproof wall.

You can put in steel plates or just use concrete walls. You cannot go through concrete with bullets: even if you make a hole the bullet will be lodged in. Besides, any ammunition the shooter wastes on walls is ammunition not used on people.

Shove them off balance or against a wall while others tackle him or rush past out of the room. Knock him off balance and flee out the door yourself if you don't care greatly about your students' well-being.

That could work against one person, but you are still essentially are doing a suicide rush. What you describe might happen and might work, but it is not a surefire method. It will also require training to make happen.

Keep in mind that a category 3A (able to withstand most handgun and 12 gauge 00 buckshot), ranges from 11 pounds (5 kg) to 20 (9kg). That is heavy, heavier than the actual gun. A category 3, able to stop most rifle rounds, is from about 25 pounds (11kg, smallest I found) to 32 pounds (a wooping 15 kg). You need a harness to carry it. So these things are not easy to carry or move around in hand.

If you are absolutely committed to taking down the gunman, a ballistic shield is useful. But just the ballistic shield will not be enough to actually stop the shooter. You still need a weapon to make the tactic worth a damn. Which brings us back to arming teachers. Keep in mind that on the financial side, I see ballistic shield prices varying from $800 to $2000+.

The police would have numbers on their side and could surround him.

Eventually, yes. However, it will take longer (which translates into more people dead) and greatly increases their chance of survival until that happens. It is especially a problem if the shooter is indoors and the police outdoors, thus forcing the police to attack the shooter at range from one direction (through windows). In that situation, a ballistic shield will help the shooter and will also provide a psychological boost.

As TRR said, there's a reason why this isn't something people use against guns in most situations.

Actually, they are used but only in specific context.

They are not used in an all-out war, as those take place in the open and a category 3 or 4 shield will be very heavy (upwards of 12 to 27 kilos). That is heavier than a soldier's weapon. You'll need a category 4 (or maybe a catgeory 3) because in a war you'd expect everyone to have military assault rifles already designed to penetrate through body armor. Weight you could use for more ammo, body armor (a shield and body armor are not equivalent) or for better, heavier weapons if not already taken up by existing essential gear. Besides, the biggest threat isn't necessary enemy gunfire but shrapnel from explosives.

But in police context of going inside buildings, they are useful for the first person going in. They can draw and withstand gunfire so others don't have to. But this almost always implies that there is a person behind them, armed and able to respond (so a lone person is not enough). The shield user can only use one hand and have a harder time aiming than without a shield. A category 3A or is sufficient for most criminals, who are using handguns. The size of the threat is also smaller and there are no explosives going off above people's heads.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Of course, the potential for a bloodbath inside the locked room is horrific if the student, say, has a handgun and a knife and presses the lockdown button before using the extra time the locked door buys to kill every person in that room. Not to mention the hostage situation risks.

That also depends on if the doors are still openable from the inside, since such a system would be designed to keep people out rather than in, students would at least have an avenue of escape instead of being locked in with the shooter.

[Ralin]

Thought I posted this about an hour ago, but apparently it didn't send. Fortunately the window was still open

That could work against one person, but you are still essentially are doing a suicide rush. What you describe might happen and might work, but it is not a surefire method. It will also require training to make happen.

We're talking about random teachers and students trying to fend off a spree shooter. 'Surefire' and even 'likely to work' aren't likely regardless.

Keep in mind that a category 3A (able to withstand most handgun and 12 gauge 00 buckshot), ranges from 11 pounds (5 kg) to 20 (9kg). That is heavy, heavier than the actual gun. A category 3, able to stop most rifle rounds, is from about 25 pounds (11kg, smallest I found) to 32 pounds (a wooping 15 kg). You need a harness to carry it. So these things are not easy to carry or move around in hand.

If you are absolutely committed to taking down the gunman, a ballistic shield is useful. But just the ballistic shield will not be enough to actually stop the shooter. You still need a weapon to make the tactic worth a damn. Which brings us back to arming teachers. Keep in mind that on the financial side, I see ballistic shield prices varying from $800 to $2000+.

Thanks for taking the time to effort post on this. I didn't know much more than "they can make shields that resist bullets." Shouldn't be surprised that they're in that price range.

So just to be clear, this is still less stupid than the idea of having the Social Studies teacher randomly packing heat in the classroom?

Eventually, yes. However, it will take longer (which translates into more people dead) and greatly increases their chance of survival until that happens. It is especially a problem if the shooter is indoors and the police outdoors, thus forcing the police to attack the shooter at range from one direction (through windows). In that situation, a ballistic shield will help the shooter and will also provide a psychological boost.

Well, to quote you:

The shield user can only use one hand and have a harder time aiming than without a shield.

Am I missing something here? Because a shooter who has hunkered down and/or is impaired from shooting accurately seems like a substantial improvement over one walking down the halls taking pot shots.

Actually, they are used but only in specific context.

Not to be rude, but the two paragraphs after this seem like a more informed and detailed version of what I said.

[Zinegata]

At the risk of sound like I side with the shooter I'm inclined to point out that a psychotic episode resulting in a mass shooting can, in fact, be a temporary condition and not a person's overall mental state and outlook in life; which probably accounts for why the police arresting Cruz were so shocked that he was "acting normally". Additionally, that so many mass shooters take their own lives after a shooting spree may in fact just be the episode ending and the shooter, upon feeling the guilt of his crimes, acts upon it rather than face the consequences.

Indeed, that Americans are so ready to condemn mass shooters is a bad reflection of how Americans tend to automatically dismiss any act they find abhorrent to be the exclusive domain of crazy people; when in reality people with mental illness account for only a small percentage of violent crime and they are more likely to be victims of it.

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 1615371099

But it's easier to dismiss mass shooters as crazy people than to admit that ordinary people can have a bad day and end up committing a mass shooting.

[Broomstick]

I've had a lot of bad days in my life and I've never shot even one person, much less dozens.

The norm for a "bad day", even a really horrifically "bad day", is NOT to go out and kill other people. People for whom a "bad day" induces a homicidal episode are not people who can be allowed out in public. It's not fair to the people they might maim or kill. Whether they're crazy or not they are most certainly a danger to others.

[Lonestar]

At the risk of sound like I side with the shooter I'm inclined to point out that a psychotic episode resulting in a mass shooting can, in fact, be a temporary condition and not a person's overall mental state and outlook in life; which probably accounts for why the police arresting Cruz were so shocked that he was "acting normally". Additionally, that so many mass shooters take their own lives after a shooting spree may in fact just be the episode ending and the shooter, upon feeling the guilt of his crimes, acts upon it rather than face the consequences.

Indeed, that Americans are so ready to condemn mass shooters is a bad reflection of how Americans tend to automatically dismiss any act they find abhorrent to be the exclusive domain of crazy people; when in reality people with mental illness account for only a small percentage of violent crime and they are more likely to be victims of it.

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 1615371099

But it's easier to dismiss mass shooters as crazy people than to admit that ordinary people can have a bad day and end up committing a mass shooting.

Dude I have all the scary guns and have had them for years and I've never had so bad a day where I thought the solution was to go out and shoot a lot of people.

Any "temporary condition" that involves a lot of dead people seems to imply to me a lot of underlining mental health problems.

[Zaune]

Zinegata's bang on about one thing, though. Nobody goes out and thrill-kills a bunch of kids completely out of the blue, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Being turned into a person capable of such a thing is a long process, and not a voluntary one either.

[TheFeniX]

Zinegata's bang on about one thing, though. Nobody goes out and thrill-kills a bunch of kids completely out of the blue, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Being turned into a person capable of such a thing is a long process, and not a voluntary one either.

This kid had issues, stemming from what looks like his illnesses being exacerbated by the death of his father. The death of his mother seemingly totally pushed him over the edge. But it mostly seems that he was held up due to his obsession with using a rifle for his killing spree. The Columbine shooters took whatever they had on hand and were actually hoping their bombs would do most the work.

My bullshit psych analysis not withstanding: this kid is a huge failing of the checks we have in place. And some of that is due to both the NRA and ACLU fighting against an expansion of mental illness checks going into the system because what was proposed was overly broad.

But this is a farcry from a repeatedly violent offender being given the kid's gloves treatment for domestic abuse. Sure, maybe don't toss the kid in prison, but legislation and law enforcement failed here when we can't find a way to keep someone with a storied history of daydreaming about killing people on Facebook from passing a background check. And that's just the Facebook shit, not counting the stunts he actually pulled.

Meanwhile, my friend's dad was temporarily denied the ability to purchase a shotgun for a bird hunting trip because he was going through an amicable "kids are grown up, we're no longer in love, let's split" type divorce. I have no idea why consistently posting about wanting to shoot up your school doesn't at least put you on the same list.

Or get you 15 years in prison like that poor bastard here in Texas. It actually WOULD have stopped some violence in this instance. NOTE: I'm not saying we actually do something that stupid.

[Zinegata]

Dude I have all the scary guns and have had them for years and I've never had so bad a day where I thought the solution was to go out and shoot a lot of people.

Any "temporary condition" that involves a lot of dead people seems to imply to me a lot of underlining mental health problems.

And would you be as confident if you hadn't slept for 72 hours due to highly stressful events outside of your control?

Note that psychotic episodes are most associated with mental illness, but in reality people without mental illness can have psychotic episodes because of stress or lack of sleep. Sure, you might not end up shooting a dozen people - but you might end up shooting someone you were particularly pissed off at the moment when your mind is not functioning properly.

Moreover, are mass shootings really that well-planned and needing a lot of cognitive function? The Las Vegas case probably was planned and premeditated - he was calculating the shooting angles - but that's not exactly the case in Florida where the kid's plan was simply "go to hallway and shoot random people". Guns in fact let people who are not thinking to kill a lot of people. Heck, part of the modern military's training regime is to make shooting an automatic act.

This is an unpopular view and almost immediately subject to dismissals of "quack psychiatry", but very frankly people need to start considering the reality that mass shooters may not be "crazy" people, but ordinary people who you might know and not think of as potential mass killers. Because despite all of the debate still raging about psychiatry what everyone agrees on is that a person is NOT in 100% control of themselves all of the time, because too many of the body and brain's functions are automated.

Unfortunately, America is particularly unreceptive to this idea because it's frankly a nation obsessed with "personal responsibility" and showing that you can "control yourself"; with any idea of everyone having their own internal demons being left unconsidered in favor of simply saying "But that can never be me!". Indeed, many of the thread responses are pretty much demonstrating this tendency.

[TheFeniX]

And would you be as confident if you hadn't slept for 72 hours due to highly stressful events outside of your control?

I worked an 18 hour shift, then drove an hour home at 4am. My problem wasn't "don't shoot people" even though I didn'town a handgun at the time. It was "try and stay awake so I don't drive off the road." What alternate reality do you live in where "lack of sleep" or even stress puts someone on a murder-rampage seesaw?

Note that psychotic episodes are most associated with mental illness, but in reality people without mental illness can have psychotic episodes because of stress or lack of sleep. Sure, you might not end up shooting a dozen people - but you might end up shooting someone you were particularly pissed off at the moment when your mind is not functioning properly.

You're more likely to hurt yourself and (less likely) someone else in that situation due to negligence, not malice.

Moreover, are mass shootings really that well-planned and needing a lot of cognitive function? The Las Vegas case probably was planned and premeditated - he was calculating the shooting angles - but that's not exactly the case in Florida where the kid's plan was simply "go to hallway and shoot random people". Guns in fact let people who are not thinking to kill a lot of people. Heck, part of the modern military's training regime is to make shooting an automatic act.

Do some research: you don't show up to Vegas with a literal truck full of guns without planning. Sandy Hook and Columbine were in the same vein. The Columbine assholes even did dry runs. Once again, the onus is on you to show these people were in some kind of extended fugue state. Does this apply to "regular" criminals as well? What about kids/adult who slash car tires for shits'n'giggles?

This shooter not having a battle-plan other than A. Get Gun B. Shoot gun at people doesn't somehow invalidate that he had a plan. His plan was simple because simple worked for what he wanted to accomplish. Unlike Columbine where the plan went tits up and they fell back on "shoot people."

This is an unpopular view and almost immediately subject to dismissals of "quack psychiatry", but very frankly people need to start considering the reality that mass shooters may not be "crazy" people, but ordinary people who you might know and not think of as potential mass killers. Because despite all of the debate still raging about psychiatry what everyone agrees on is that a person is NOT in 100% control of themselves all of the time, because too many of the body and brain's functions are automated.

I don't really think anyone is going with "crazy people." More like "totally fucking broken." Like the kind of people who find a hurt animal (or any animal) and torture it to death. These people are "fucked up." The crazy used by the layman means something else either way.

Unfortunately, America is particularly unreceptive to this idea because it's frankly a nation obsessed with "personal responsibility" and showing that you can "control yourself"; with any idea of everyone having their own internal demons being left unconsidered in favor of simply saying "But that can never be me!". Indeed, many of the thread responses are pretty much demonstrating this tendency.

For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, well over 99%. Into the 99.9% based on statistics from years ago: that is the way things are. They handle personal responsibility just fine, at least in this area. They don't get mad and murder the shit out of people.

[aerius]

Seriously. You've got a kid who literally has a mile long record of violence, abuse, mental issues, animal abuse, and more violence. The cops have literally been called over to his home over 30 times for violence, domestic abuse, self-harm, and who knows what else. On top of that he was medicated and in & out of treatment for mental health issues. You seriously cannot get a better profile for a serial killer in training, and it's not like no one knew about it. The authorities had full records on him, how it didn't trip every red flag in the book is inconceivable. And when he says he's going to go on a killing spree this is somehow completely ignored despite the kid having a textbook profile for a serial killer.

It still boggles my mind how everyone managed to wilfully ignore all the warning signs and then pass the buck and claim they're not responsible after the fact. Just as unbelievable is that they've gotten away with it. I'm surprised that people haven't been lynched for those failures, starting with the cops who stood around letting it happen and the department that's protecting all those negligent officers.

[TheFeniX]

The saddest part about it was, after all the preliminary bullshit passed* for Columbine, the laundry list of potentially violent and actually violent stuff they did, talked about, documented, showed off, etc even YEARS before the attack was one long fucking list of mondo scary shit. These kids were on the school and police radar, multiple times, but "boys will be boys" so they let it pass. It all started coming out after we got over all the "how could this happen?" bullshit and the police, school, and parents had to own up that they did NOTHING worthwhile leading up to the shooting.

*The preliminary bullshit was, of course, "they were good kids," "they were bullied," "it was the video games," etc. It was all a bullshit cover. These kids were fucking monsters.

You'd think we'd fucking learn at some point. Jesus, just troll facebook and other social media for "I will kill everyone if you give me the chance" because there's a difference between leaving that for all the world to see and, liked I mentioned before, saying "Imma shoot up my school" while trolling chat in Runescape.

NORMAL PEOPLE might make a comment about "kill all humans" or whatever. But when called on it, they'll fold. They also don't make it a habit (hopefully). But when you get called on it and you double down? How normal people can you be?

It's like the fuckers who troll trade with shit like "kill all the X" versus the guy who on his public Facebook profile has multiple posts of "I will kill all the X." There's a sliding scale here and law enforcement seems unable to balance it.

Phone edit. And this would be the only reason I could remotely possibly in fantasies be in favor of teachers carrying guns. Because law enforcement has failed so hard along with lawmakers that were on our own here.

[Zixinus]

An interesting aspect about this, is I do wonder whether American culture somehow contributes to this. School shootings are a media sensation because people want to know about them and I wonder whether that contributes to people doing it.

We're talking about random teachers and students trying to fend off a spree shooter. 'Surefire' and even 'likely to work' aren't likely regardless

Yes. I was evaluating based on the idea itself, so how able an average teacher would be is an afterthought in that post.

So just to be clear, this is still less stupid than the idea of having the Social Studies teacher randomly packing heat in the classroom?

The more I read about this, it is MORE stupid, in my opinion. It requires a tactics that would be very risky (that is, the likelihood of this working as intended and without casualties) for trained police officers, never mind your average teacher. All while potentially making the problem worse.

A teacher with a gun (or maybe a taser) is actually a better idea (but not the best idea), because that is more effective way to stop the shooter and actually expose the teacher to less risk (compared to using a shield). Of course it can also backfire worse because if the shooter kills the teacher they get more ammo and a gun to go with it!

Making the doors bulletproof (or at least having bulletproof locks, maybe big bar locks that secures the door in place and cannot be simply shot off) would be better, it requires no magical training on part of the teachers and least likely to backfire. It would however require not only changing the locks but changing both door and doorframe (if not add work on the supporting walls). They might make the doors fireproof to boot. Plus, they are mostly a standing investment (barring maintenance), unlike arming and training a teacher that might move or retire.

If the shooter locks himself into a classroom, they have trapped themselves. Also the people in there with them but they're almost certain to killed anyway. As others have noted this could be a problem if you need them open to let in EMTs or police trying to take down the shooter. This could be solved by either a specialized external access to the lock that someone only with a special key can unlock or using electronic locks. Maybe have a panic system that the principle or police can disengage? You have to factor in stuff like not kids using the thing either by accident or for pranks. I have no idea how expensive this would be, but I imagine it would be substantially so especially if you need a new kind of lock to do this.

Am I missing something here? Because a shooter who has hunkered down and/or is impaired from shooting accurately seems like a substantial improvement over one walking down the halls taking pot shots.

You need one (or both) arms to move the shield. But not to keep it standing or to prop it up against something. The shield in the shooter's hands can become mobile cover they can retreat with or even advance. So if the police start shooting, the shooter can hide behind the shield and use it as cover.

This is not the most likely thing for them to do, but it can happen and since the shields are there purely for the shooter in the first place. It is an unnecessary risk and complication that does not stop the shooter and offers little actual protection in the situation itself.

A ballistic shield is something that is relatively light (compared to the alternatives, like cars or steel plates) and bulletproof, something that is not likely to found in a school environment. Again, I'm coming from the assumption that your average school shooter uses a rifle, which means high penetration. Said shooter knows their school and would know about the shields, so they would count on them or use them. Again, since they are there only against the shooter in the first place, that's something that should be considered.

Not to be rude, but the two paragraphs after this seem like a more informed and detailed version of what I said.

Where? I checked back and between TRR and this, you don't go into why and when shields are good. I am actually basing this on an earlier argument elsewhere on this board about whether militarizes use ballistic shields (they don't except in self-police capacity).

[Zixinus]

Addamantum: a simple way around is to make them like fire-doors: they can be easily opened from the inside but not from the outside. So a shooter can't go in, but people in the classroom can go out. If a shooter is killed in a locked room and there are survivors, a single one of them could open the door to EMTs.

[Broomstick]

That's assuming the survivor is ABLE to open the door - you could wind up with a situation where there are injured survivors that are unconscious or weak. At some point you need to be able to open the door from the outside so EMT's and such can get inside.

Really, things get crazy with this sort of planning. The more elaborate, the more likely something will go wrong. Keep it as simple as possible.

[Zixinus]

That's assuming the survivor is ABLE to open the door - you could wind up with a situation where there are injured survivors that are unconscious or weak. At some point you need to be able to open the door from the outside so EMT's and such can get inside.

Which is where things could get complicated. You want the door to open to EMTs and the rest, but not to the shooter. So you either need a special external access that only EMTs, police or maybe principal can use but not the shooter. A simple key can be taken off a dead teacher (or just collected) and render the lock protection pointless.

Which either leads to a panic system in the school (a central system that engages and disengages locks) or very specialized (and likely super-expensive) locks.

Really, things get crazy with this sort of planning. The more elaborate, the more likely something will go wrong. Keep it as simple as possible.

What alternative do you suggest? Specific to this problem, not just in general (not that I am opposed to removing easy access to guns in the first place).

Granted, I am not that much in favor of the lock solution. It is good (in that it doesn't make the problem actively worse), but it is a mitigating measure rather than a truly preventative one or an effective countermeasure.

[Zaune]

That's assuming the survivor is ABLE to open the door - you could wind up with a situation where there are injured survivors that are unconscious or weak. At some point you need to be able to open the door from the outside so EMT's and such can get inside.

There's probably some middle ground between "someone high on meth and/or alt-right talking points and armed with an AR-15 can't open it" and "the fire department can't break it down". The front door to the apartment complex where I live is solid enough to withstand a sustained attack with a sledgehammer (or so I gather from the fact it looks like someone tried once) and would probably put most firearms to some trouble, but the Jaws of Life or a gas-axe would have it open in five minutes tops. And that's if you can't just hit a button on the intercom panel, give some sort of password to an operator at the alarm company and get them to unlock it remotely.

[Broomstick]

I have a distinct recollection of a skyscraper in Chicago where people died in a stairwell during a fire because the "secure locks" would neither allow them to leave the stairwell nor allow the emergency services into it. No one wants to see someone killed because of a "safety" system. While any door or wall can eventually be defeated, if children die because it takes an hour to get through a door there will be hell to pay.

Building stronger doors is not going to solve his problem. Not that I have a problem with strong doors, but it's treating a symptom, not a cause. "Passwords" will work until a shooter coerces it out of teacher or other knowledgeable person. Physical keys can be taken. Biometric keys have issues, too.

Here's the crux of the problem: other countries have had mass shootings, but only one or two and then very long stretches afterwards without them. What did they do in reaction to the mass shootings that we didn't? Because that's the answer. The experiment of "different solutions to mass shootings" has been run multiple times in multiple countries. We can see what works and what doesn't.

What works is limiting access to weapons. That doesn't mean taking ALL weapons away, as the ammosexuals and NRA fear. It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands, it means limiting magazines, it means being more careful about who gets to own and use what. And I'm sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it's becoming more and more apparent that the choices are either gun control and few/no mass shootings, or little gun control and unarmed people bleeding out in schools, churches, movie theaters, concerts, and wherever else people congregate in numbers.

[aerius]

Took me a while to find it again, unfortunately this list hasn't been updated in years.
You can add Cruz to that list. He was medicated and had recently come off his meds when he went on his shooting spree.
http://www.ssristories.net/school-shootings/

Just a thought. Maybe we should stop handing out SSRIs like candy.

[Lonestar]

It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands, it means limiting magazines, it means being more careful about who gets to own and use what. And I'm sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it's becoming more and more apparent that the choices are either gun control and few/no mass shootings, or little gun control and unarmed people bleeding out in schools, churches, movie theaters, concerts, and wherever else people congregate in numbers.

I love that the antis use the term "weapons of war" because it sets it up for a moving goalpost later on down the road.

My M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are actual weapons of war. My 91/30 is an actual weapon of war. Mossberg pump-action shotgun? Weapon of war.

My AR-15,however, isn't.

But when the AR-15 is banned for being a "Weapon of war" someone will push for banning the others once they get used. The NYT already low-keyed primed for this when they referred to a Remington 870 as a "police-style shotgun" after the Washington Navy Yard shooting.

Limiting magazines doesn't do anything for two thirds of gun deaths(via suicide) and the majority of homicides(which are less than 10 rounds). Heck, it doesn't even do anything for the majority of LEO fatalities from firearms, which are 12 gauge.

But at least it leaves you up the creek if two people break into your house instead of one, or if you're at a gas station in a rural area late at night and two people attack you.

[TheFeniX]

Here's the crux of the problem: other countries have had mass shootings, but only one or two and then very long stretches afterwards without them. What did they do in reaction to the mass shootings that we didn't? Because that's the answer. The experiment of "different solutions to mass shootings" has been run multiple times in multiple countries. We can see what works and what doesn't.

There are a few questions I've asked myself over the years and have no concrete answers:

Is the constant flagellation of the shooter a major problem? We dig into every little aspect of his/her life, we dig and dig and dig into everything they are to find the answers of "why." If you're depressed, angry, or whatever and you want to die, but don't want to be another suicide statistic: mass shooting, you'll get you're own wikipedia page and you're name will be remembered far more than any victim.

Are we under-medicating our young populace? Or we over medicating them? Are we not monitoring the people we're medicating as well as we should? Is the U.S. health care system so bad, we just throw pills at a problem and call it a day? Do the parents contribute in that they want their kid calm and doing schoolwork at ANY cost?

Is the school systems "grind standardized testing into your brain" grueling 8+ year sprint caused by NCLB (expanded immensely in the early 2000s) contributing?

And I'm sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it's becoming more and more apparent that the choices are either gun control and few/no mass shootings, or little gun control and unarmed people bleeding out in schools, churches, movie theaters, concerts, and wherever else people congregate in numbers.

Every place you've listed: pretty much gun free zones. You don't see shootings at pro-football games because of metal detectors and shittons of security.

My M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are actual weapons of war. My 91/30 is an actual weapon of war. Mossberg pump-action shotgun? Weapon of war.

Give pistols some love: Don't forget the 1911. Or the .38 Special revolver as a "police weapon" which I think I recall the NYPD only officially retiring it last year. 6 rounds man. SIX ROUNDS!

Meanwhile, the Desert Eagle .50 was designed as a target practice pistol. Actually, I think it was made just to see if they could make a gas-operated pistol. Whatever, fact is "military use" means dick all. Sharpshooter still prefer to use Bolt Action rifle, which you don't see much use in mass killer except the DC sniper.

Limiting magazines doesn't do anything for two thirds of gun deaths(via suicide) and the majority of homicides(which are less than 10 rounds). Heck, it doesn't even do anything for the majority of LEO fatalities from firearms, which are 12 gauge.

The Columbine assholes had IIRC one gun with a mag size over 10. A TEC-9. The Hi-Point Carbine, which runs a single-stacked 10 round 9mm mag got off more rounds. I don't understand the reasoning that, when faced with a shooting galley of unarmed people, gunmen have no time reload. In those instance where reloading would be a problem, such as being shot at by police/etc, gunmen don't tend to last long after.

If they were going to walk in with the intent to kill as many people as possible, they're going to bring extra mags. And mags are cheap. So, loading up a bunch of 10 rounds vs a bunch of 30 rounds isn't going to make all the difference. It might give people more time to run during a reload (hotly debatable), but that's not a solution you should waste time giving people the "feel goods" by even bothering to pass a law here. You want to keep the part attached to the mag, the Rooty tooty point and shooty part, out of the hands of people who obviously should never have been able to purchase one.

Whatever they do, if they can't even attempt to keep someone like Cruz from passing a background check, nothing they do is going to work. Our law enforcement and lawmakers are fucking useless.

So... In my mind, the proposed solution is for me to... give up my gun.... because cops can't protect me or my kid from people.... with guns.

[Broomstick]

It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands, it means limiting magazines, it means being more careful about who gets to own and use what. And I'm sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it's becoming more and more apparent that the choices are either gun control and few/no mass shootings, or little gun control and unarmed people bleeding out in schools, churches, movie theaters, concerts, and wherever else people congregate in numbers.

I love that the antis use the term "weapons of war" because it sets it up for a moving goalpost later on down the road.

I wonder if that same argument was used when fully automatic weapons were (essentially) banned?

And, in fact, I am not anti-gun. I am anti-mass shootings. It actually pisses me off that every time those of us who want to be able to go someplace in public without fear of being shot try to quantify the problem guns those on your side start getting into minutiae to distract the conversation from the heart of the matter.

If AR-15's are becoming the weapon of choice for mass murder then we need to consider making them much harder to get, or even impossible to get. That's not taking everyone's guns away. That is removing from circulation a gun that has become a problem. If you don't want other guns targeted as a problem then it's time for your side to get serious about ways to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. Shrugging your shoulders and saying people being shot like fish in a barrel is the price of liberty isn't going to cut it indefinitely.

The US is the only country - outside of nations in a civil war - that has this problem. That means there is something wrong with us, not with everyone else.

when the AR-15 is banned for being a "Weapon of war" someone will push for banning the others once they get used.

Then it's time for your side to get serious about controlling access. Rights are not unlimited. Your rights end when my begin. My right to be alive is at least as important as your right to own a weapon.

Limiting magazines doesn't do anything for two thirds of gun deaths(via suicide) and the majority of homicides(which are less than 10 rounds). Heck, it doesn't even do anything for the majority of LEO fatalities from firearms, which are 12 gauge.

Limiting magazines and things like bump stocks isn't about preventing suicides or LEO fatalities, it's about mitigating the threat of mass death. It slows down the shooting, forces pauses to reload. But I guess your right to own a big fucking clip overrides the rights of others to go to school, church, concerts, or other places and survive to get home at night? Sorry, I disagree. So do a lot of other people.

But at least it leaves you up the creek if two people break into your house instead of one, or if you're at a gas station in a rural area late at night and two people attack you.

Actually, my landlord was attacked a couple years ago by two people at a gas station - he never drew his .45, he subdued one with a piece of pipe after which the other ran off. Guns are not the only solution.

Home intruders? I'm not aware of the need to empty a gun into one intruder before moving on to the second.

I've lived my life in big cities like St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago, none of which are considered overly safe for a woman. I've been threatened, attacked, and shot at. It's only in the past year I've decided to opt for a gun, and that's largely because I am aging and no longer as able to run away or fight as I used to be. Also, no second person in the home to back me up at night.

I do support the 2nd Amendment. I don't worship it.

[TheFeniX]

The AR-15 variant has been available for public use since the 70s. It had mild success in sales... until Colt lost the patent and ANYONE could stamp them. It's the Honda Civic of rifles: cheap(ish), well made, with loads of mods. Adding to it's popularity is the rise of Oohra military shooters when people say "I want that gun" much like Hollywood's use of the Beretta 92fs, due to the the ejection port making it great to use blanks with, drove sales of an otherwise mediocre pistol.

It's functionally the same as many other Mag-fed rifles, like the Mini-14, which the woodstock version gets a pass everywhere. So, you're basically saying not only ban an extremely popular weapon, even among non-gunnuts, but also banning mag fed rifles since there's no reason murderers wouldn't swap to another version of it. So, those are banned and shooters just.... stop shooting? Or do they go the Columbine route and just take whatever POS they have on hand for max damage?

Walmart and Academy aren't lining their racks with ARs because they feel like it. They are doing it because they sell thousands a year. Same reason the Ruger P-90, .38 Revolver, and Mossberg Pump see so much use in crime: they are well made and cheap guns, because they stamp thousands of them per year.

The only reason, I assume, more day-to-day criminals don't sling ARs is because they can't conceal them, unlike pistols or a sawed-off shotgun.