2nd Amendement Rights

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

As most gun owners will admit, adrenaline and stress is different for each person, and who knows how well they'll perform. But a moderately trained individual can make head and center mass shots from 30-45 feet, and well placed (or enough) rounds from a Glock or any other pistol would have a very good chance of impairing the assailant. So I'm surely not saying it is a certainty, but I do wish one of those students at VT or NIU had been a well trained individual carrying a gun. Perhaps some of the loss could have been avoided.

I do not know about folks responses, even those who are moderately trained.

I would like to hear from my former and current combat military GCers and law enforcement GCers to hear their take on the situation since they are probably the best to answer a very highly inflammatory and lethal situation...

All I know is I could probably EASILY get a weapon, but because I cannot visualize my target, even after breathing, I would miss it by 1 foot. It is the oddest thing that I have. So, I would be one in danger when a person would lose it.

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises. Of course I know it is 20/20, but IMHO...

Now, the universities and colleges could impose a lockdown of the school with restricted access through their streets and everyone has to show an identification, also they can impose a neighborhood curfew around the surrounding area... That is a Homeland Security kind of thing and everyone would feel they are part of an "institution"--yes, just like prison... I am not saying that I would advocate that, but a university or college could do that...

[texas*princess]

Geez.

I didn't even think it was possible to sell GUNS over THE INTERNET.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...shooters_N.htm

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.
Eric Thompson said his website, www.topglock.com, sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another website run by Thompson's company, www.thegunstore.com, also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

All I know is I could probably EASILY get a weapon, but because I cannot visualize my target, even after breathing, I would miss it by 1 foot. It is the oddest thing that I have. So, I would be one in danger when a person would lose it.

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises.

In regards to your accuracy it might be an issue of having your dominant eye on one side of your body while having your dominant hand on the other.

As far as “playing dead,” I would only suggest that if you have been seriously wounded. It would be very difficult for anyone in that situation to suppress their natural reactions to a life threatening situation to convincingly play dead. Let the flight response take over and escape the situation; it’s much more difficult to hit a moving target. Of course the NIU Gunman had a shotgun at close range so his shooting prowess wasn’t a major issue.

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Geez.

I didn't even think it was possible to sell GUNS over THE INTERNET.

You can purchase firearms online but the delivery must go through a licensed firearms dealer.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises. Of course I know it is 20/20, but IMHO...

Now, the universities and colleges could impose a lockdown of the school with restricted access through their streets and everyone has to show an identification, also they can impose a neighborhood curfew around the surrounding area... That is a Homeland Security kind of thing and everyone would feel they are part of an "institution"--yes, just like prison... I am not saying that I would advocate that, but a university or college could do that...

See, under most circumstances I agree with the bolded part. If you were to scan the internet for boards on concealed carry, a huge portion of the discussion is when to do nothing. Unfortunately for these school shootings, you're dealing with someone who is already indiscriminately taking life, and obviously doesn't even value his own. I think it is a much different situation where there is an armed robbery in process or a hostage situation. But for those who feel they're capable, I don't think many would hesitate if the situation was right in a NIU type scenario.

From my perspective, I have no idea how I'd handle myself in that situation. I strongly suspect my target acquisition would be pretty impaired, but I also (perhaps wrongly) think that from a normal distance I could make contact with the assailant. Thinking as an unarmed student, If I'm stuck in a room with a shooting gunman, I'd certainly rather someone try and take him down, nerves or not. In my situation, I also have confidence in a few people I take classes with that they'd be up for the task (I also have had the benefit of seeing these people shoot and knowing their life experience). I have little doubt that at VT or NIU, the killers wanted to take as many people as they could. Thus, aggravating the assailant wouldn't be a concern of mine, and if someone had a weapon in such a scenario, I'd rather them use it if they were willing.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

In regards to your accuracy it might be an issue of having your dominant eye on one side of your body while having your dominant hand on the other.

As far as “playing dead,” I would only suggest that if you have been seriously wounded. It would be very difficult for anyone in that situation to suppress their natural reactions to a life threatening situation to convincingly play dead. Let the flight response take over and escape the situation; it’s much more difficult to hit a moving target. Of course the NIU Gunman had a shotgun at close range so his shooting prowess wasn’t a major issue.

Thanks Kevlar. Really, it's been put through MRI. So, I doubt I can improve my targeting anytime soon.

As far as what to do for untrained folks, what would you suggest? Just asking?

Originally Posted by shinerbock

See, under most circumstances I agree with the bolded part. If you were to scan the internet for boards on concealed carry, a huge portion of the discussion is when to do nothing. Unfortunately for these school shootings, you're dealing with someone who is already indiscriminately taking life, and obviously doesn't even value his own. I think it is a much different situation where there is an armed robbery in process or a hostage situation. But for those who feel they're capable, I don't think many would hesitate if the situation was right in a NIU type scenario.

From my perspective, I have no idea how I'd handle myself in that situation. I strongly suspect my target acquisition would be pretty impaired, but I also (perhaps wrongly) think that from a normal distance I could make contact with the assailant. Thinking as an unarmed student, If I'm stuck in a room with a shooting gunman, I'd certainly rather someone try and take him down, nerves or not. In my situation, I also have confidence in a few people I take classes with that they'd be up for the task (I also have had the benefit of seeing these people shoot and knowing their life experience). I have little doubt that at VT or NIU, the killers wanted to take as many people as they could. Thus, aggravating the assailant wouldn't be a concern of mine, and if someone had a weapon in such a scenario, I'd rather them use it if they were willing.

I remember a shooting at a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA in the early 1980s. After that, "powers that be" put closed circuit TV into all stores. Don't know if it changed anything in the long-term, however, it did take a sharp shooter to take the lunatic down...

I guess, once this kind of thing happens, it will not happen ever again on that campus. There must be "FBI profilers" who can give the taletell signs of someone on the "brink". But, you never know...

The government can restrict folks who are mentally ill to obtain guns... I don't know how well that would work.

[shinerbock]

I think restricting firearm sales to mentally impaired people seems obvious. However, my problems are feasibility and the slippery slope argument. Having a couple of mental health professionals in my family, they're constantly concerned about the lack of some sort of comprehensive database and the lack of institutional space.

Another question that comes to mind in this: if there are mental impairments that are so volatile that we need to restrict their access to firearms, should they be walking around unmonitored anyway? There are certainly other dangerous weapons, cars for example, that are likely to remain available. Frankly, I'm not sure we'll be able to make much of a dent in crime committed by the mentally impaired, because I'm not convinced our sense of humanity will allow the things that would truly make a difference.