[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

I agree whole heartedly on mandatory military service, bring back the draft. At 18 years a person enters military service for 2 years, no exceptions for anything other than a physical condition. During my 21 years in the Army I saw many young kids, who were problem children for their parents, be made to face consequences for their actions and grow up. You either learned to control your anger and emotions or you faced repercussions.

A couple examples.

A neighbor kid was loud, obnoxious, a bully and a hot head. I met up with him one day a couple of years after he got of the Marines, and he was a changed person. Polite, mature and a hard working guy.

A guy in my unit in Germany stole a military truck to go to the local bar one night. He was given 30 days in the stockade located in Mannhiem, Germany. At that time a stockade was not a nice place, it was very rigid and infractions were dealt with harshly. When he was being taken to the stockade he was bragging that he would own the place. 30 days later when he returned to the unit he told me he would rather die than go back. He stayed on the straight and narrow until he got of the Army, and I believe he stayed that way in civilian life.

The best thing about the military was it put all races, ethnicities, city kids, rural kids, rich and poor into the same environment. You learned, firsthand, how to work with people that you didn't interact with where you were raised.

Everyone should perform some kind of civil service for two years. If a person didn't want to go into the military they would be placed in something like the Depression era CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). You should be expected to give back something to your country, it gives you a sense of ownership in the wellbeing of the country.

I agree with that 100%. And in addition to all the improvements to society that were mentioned. I would like to add that a draft would place in the services young men who would be LESS likely to ever try to overthrow their government - something that I worry about with the current ALL-VOLUNTEER military. I believe that an over-throw is VERY unlikely, but the probability is NOT ZERO !

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I said in 2 previous posts that I liked the IDEA of hardening schools. I also said previously that I did NOT believe that a SIGNIFICANT number of schools will EVER be hardened in any SIGNIFICANT way. That is because most communities and states will NOT do it because it will raise TAXES. And people in the upper tax brackets that have significant property do not ALLOW property taxes or other taxes to go up. Try getting a tax increase here in TV Land !

Just do this thought experiment.........suppose someone is crazy and determined to be a mass murderer. And they just read a newspaper article that stated that EVERY LAST school in the US was hardened like the one in Indiana. Or even that the school in his community was hardened. So, imagine what he might think and come up with in his demented brain.............gee wizz, he thinks I should forget schools and plan for killing in a church or concert or ANY place where there is a bunch of people.......hhhyyyymmm maybe the football games or baseball.......they are NOT hardened.

Think about it - no matter what event the demented shooter chooses the ONE thing that is constant is that he will take the fastest shooting, LONG RANGE, big magazine, firearm that he can procure. It might have a flash suppressor of even a silencer or even a Bump-stop attachment. But, if he is planning it out well (in a demented way)......the firearm he takes will NOT be a pistol, except maybe as a backup!

I hate to say this, but I think that this has been laid out with about the highest logical quality that would make even Dr. Spock (of Star Trek fame) happy .....as a moonbeam from heaven!

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Also that Greenwood Mall incident further proves my point. he was unsuccessful because he did NOT use a RIFLE and put lots of DISTANCE between himself and his targets. And he did NOT use elevation and cover. Basically, he was NOT a SNIPER and planned badly. He was out of control and probably wanted to die himself.

That is not correct. The Greenwood Mall shooter used a Daniel Defense AR rifle. The man who stopped him within 15 seconds of his killing spree did so with a handgun. Other than the Las Vegas shooting, the rest of the mass murder events have been up close, not the great distance as you imagine.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

What they and all other 1st world countries did (except for the US) was to force the mass murderers to use S-L-O-W-E-R and less efficient means of killing people - like baseball bats, etc. That gives Police or people close by opportunities to intervene in the DOMESTIC TERROR-PRODUCING event - the mass murder.

Whatever the statistics for murders or mass murders are AFTER the Port Arthur - they are LESS than they would be had Australia NOT attacked the PROBLEM and realized that the SOLUTION was to eliminate the fast-shooting semi-auto rifles. They did NOT decide to HARDEN all their schools because that IS the WRONG solution. And that adds further PRROF to what I have been saying. And their MAIN success is that their children do NOT have the TERROR that US children have when they start school soon. Australia and ALL the other 1st world counties, other than the US prove that organizations like the NRA can be BEATEN because people can see that such GREED is unpatriotic and gets their citizens (children and adults) KILLED! Wake up America or the TERRORISM will continue and get worse!

So, facts don't matter. Nearly twice as many mass murder events have happened after Port Arthur that happened before Port Arthur and that is a "win"? After Port Arthur there have been 25% more people killed than before Port Arthur and that is a "win"?

Why is it that if they were slowed down in their killing spree that there have been more events and more people killed? I can't connect those dots.

I think you previously mentioned you were a member of the NRA in the past. If that is true, then you must realize that the NRA is comprised of it's membership, approximately 5 million Americans. When you attach labels to the NRA you are attaching them to your fellow citizens. I would posit they are more patriotic than those who deny them their Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution.

Critical thinking seems to be gone. People are being spoon fed by social media, the main stream media and are too lazy to do their own research. Trust but verify are very wise words.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

Numerically more mass murder EVENTS of maybe up to 6 people are caused by pistols, that IS correct. But, it is the PLANNED attacks (by RIRLE) causing 20 to 60 people to be killed by the most diabolical killers that become DOMESTIC TERRORISM. And thus get the maximum media coverage (NOT just local news) that sends shock waves throughout all of society and maximizes the emotions of TERROR.

Churches and school classrooms and ALL large sports or music events are the targets of these predators seeking headlines. They are looking for more recognition than MERELY 5 killed in a driveby with pistols. On the many parts of the dark web, it is the military AR-15-style RIFLE that is worshipped and put up on its diabolical pedestal - these people don't want to kill ONLY 5 people - they need dozens of victims to satisfy their dark egos. The mundane pistol is not weapon ENOUGH for their insane ambitions. Plus, it puts them too close to their victims - they want DISTANCE for more efficiency and cover and the illusion that they MIGHT get away with it.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

That is not correct. The Greenwood Mall shooter used a Daniel Defense AR rifle. The man who stopped him within 15 seconds of his killing spree did so with a handgun. Other than the Las Vegas shooting, the rest of the mass murder events have been up close, not the great distance as you imagine.

OK, I was wrong about how he armed himself, but I believe that I was still correct that he had a bad plan because he was not elevated and in a protected area like a SNIPER would desire. If he was just running around on the same level floor as his victims and shooting at SHORT range then he might have been better off (from his perspective) with 2 or more handguns.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

It is not practical to believe that a handgun can be placed on the hip of every US citizen in ALL situations. They would start shooting each other at the 1st sound of a golf car backfiring. Australia and ALL other 1st world countries do NOT have large gun violence problems. It is the US that does. The US is more than 4 times greater than the next worse country. And even Canada is way better than America. The US has 1.2 guns per PERSON. More guns equate to more killing, not less. Any other conclusion is based on propaganda put out by companies that sell guns. I try to avoid propaganda.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

So, facts don't matter. Nearly twice as many mass murder events have happened after Port Arthur that happened before Port Arthur and that is a "win"? After Port Arthur there have been 25% more people killed than before Port Arthur and that is a "win"?

Why is it that if they were slowed down in their killing spree that there have been more events and more people killed? I can't connect those dots.

I think you previously mentioned you were a member of the NRA in the past. If that is true, then you must realize that the NRA is comprised of it's membership, approximately 5 million Americans. When you attach labels to the NRA you are attaching them to your fellow citizens. I would posit they are more patriotic than those who deny them their Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution.

Critical thinking seems to be gone. People are being spoon fed by social media, the main stream media and are too lazy to do their own research. Trust but verify are very wise words.

I wish that my fellow Americans would seriously question the propaganda that is being put out about guns by those that have a vested interest in them being unaware that the US is the dubious outlier in the list, by country, for gun violence. Mass murders and gun violence are increasing at a RATE where public outcry, even in TV Land will DEMAND a solution, sooner rather than later.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

I think I saw that movie, but I don't think she was the "best sniper."

"The most deadly sniper of World War II: Simo Häyhä. He had 542 confirmed kills, with an unconfirmed total number of 705. Not only is he the most deadly sniper of World War II, but he is also believed to be the most deadly sniper of all time. All his kills were against the Red Army, who nicknamed him White Death."

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Wrong! There IS a background check on any firearm sold by a legal firearms dealer. And anyone that thinks you can stop a crazy from owning a firearm is sadly mistaken. Crazy is not determined by law enforcement. To do a proper background check it costs thousands of dollars, so that is not even practical. All they can do is a record check. Although, many states interview neighbors and associates when they do a check for CCW.

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with that 100%. And in addition to all the improvements to society that were mentioned. I would like to add that a draft would place in the services young men who would be LESS likely to ever try to overthrow their government - something that I worry about with the current ALL-VOLUNTEER military. I believe that an over-throw is VERY unlikely, but the probability is NOT ZERO !

Men AND women. There is no reason why women should be exempt from military service, from basic training, learning how to fight, learning about their weapons from assembling and field stripping, to shooting and everything in between.

Just like they do in Israel and several other countries around the globe.

Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Numerically more mass murder EVENTS of maybe up to 6 people are caused by pistols, that IS correct. But, it is the PLANNED attacks (by RIRLE) causing 20 to 60 people to be killed by the most diabolical killers that become DOMESTIC TERRORISM. And thus get the maximum media coverage (NOT just local news) that sends shock waves throughout all of society and maximizes the emotions of TERROR.

Churches and school classrooms and ALL large sports or music events are the targets of these predators seeking headlines. They are looking for more recognition than MERELY 5 killed in a driveby with pistols. On the many parts of the dark web, it is the military AR-15-style RIFLE that is worshipped and put up on its diabolical pedestal - these people don't want to kill ONLY 5 people - they need dozens of victims to satisfy their dark egos. The mundane pistol is not weapon ENOUGH for their insane ambitions. Plus, it puts them too close to their victims - they want DISTANCE for more efficiency and cover and the illusion that they MIGHT get away with it.

Suggestion. Don't create a Master Class on Snipers or Mass Shooters.

The Mundane Pistol

In 2007 the Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 killed and 23 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

In 1991 the Luby's shooting in Killeen, Texas resulted in 23 killed and 27 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

2009 Fort Hood shooting resulted in 14 killed and 32 injured. The shooter used two pistols, a semiautomatic and a revolver.

1986 Edmund Post Office shooting resulted in 14 killed and 6 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

I could go on and on. It's public information.

Semi-automatic Rifles

The semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885. Over the past 137 years we have had 7 mass shooting events as you described with 20 or more killed.

The facts clearly show that mass murderers are NOT choosing to be a great distance from the victims to demonstrate their sniper skills. The hunt in gun free zones and are ambush hunters cutting down their victims up close and personal. It seems the MSM is more effective of creating panic than the AR is.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

OK, I was wrong about how he armed himself, but I believe that I was still correct that he had a bad plan because he was not elevated and in a protected area like a SNIPER would desire. If he was just running around on the same level floor as his victims and shooting at SHORT range then he might have been better off (from his perspective) with 2 or more handguns.

I think his plan was faulty because he did not count on an armed Good Samaritan being in the food court and prepared to stop his shooting spree within 15 seconds of beginning.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

It is not practical to believe that a handgun can be placed on the hip of every US citizen in ALL situations. They would start shooting each other at the 1st sound of a golf car backfiring. Australia and ALL other 1st world countries do NOT have large gun violence problems. It is the US that does. The US is more than 4 times greater than the next worse country. And even Canada is way better than America. The US has 1.2 guns per PERSON. More guns equate to more killing, not less. Any other conclusion is based on propaganda put out by companies that sell guns. I try to avoid propaganda.

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I wish that my fellow Americans would seriously question the propaganda that is being put out about guns by those that have a vested interest in them being unaware that the US is the dubious outlier in the list, by country, for gun violence. Mass murders and gun violence are increasing at a RATE where public outcry, even in TV Land will DEMAND a solution, sooner rather than later.

I wish my fellow Americans would actually do the research instead of believing what someone tells them to think. It is ridiculous to compare "gun deaths" while ignoring the alternative deaths. To say the US has far more gun deaths than Australia after Australia severely disarmed it's citizens is disingenuous analysis. We are way better than the Middle East when it comes to honor killings. We are way better than India when it comes to acid attacks.

What propaganda are you referring to?

What evidence do you have that gun violence is rapidly increasing?

Present your evidence and cite your sources.