And this is the trap that most good gun owners fall into. I would love to know what kind of shooting scenario simulations you've gone through? There's a huge, huge difference between technically being able to shoot down-range at a paper target versus being in any kind of real-world situation that involves analysing a use-of-deadly-force scenario and then actually taking the shot at almost reflexive speeds. I'm going to presume that you've been through no real, high-pressure simulations, only academic/intellectual discussion at best. You are nowhere near as prepared to handle a real-world situation as you think you are, and that's part of the problem.
You think? Theres no ambiguity about it. There are approximately 80-100 million legal gun owners in the United States, with a total of 300 million privately owned guns. So yeah, If there are 50 mass shootings a year (which there arent), thats 99.9999375% of the gun owning population not committing a mass shooting.
Now we have a whole different can of worms...apparently the shooter's wife knew of his plans and didn't report him. The knee jerk reaction is to charge her with 49 counts of accomplice to murder and 53 counts of attempted murder...but wait... What if she did report him and he just denied everything? What proof would she have had? The guy had already skirted 2 FBI investigations. This whole thing is taking a lot of twists and turns.
Rather than play on hypotheticals, I'll just stick with your original assertion of "knew but didn't report". Charge her as an accomplice.
That was my initial thought too. However, the guy has a pretty documented history of being a rage filled, violent asshole. What would've happened to the wife and child if the police showed up at the door and confronted him with information only she would've known and he just simply denied he was plotting anything? If she had no actual proof only hearsay, legally, the police couldn't arrest him. Then herself and their kid are dead and he still goes out and does his murder spree. That being said...if she had actual proof he was going to commit this crime, it's very simple: Kill her or life in prison.
Nothing like anyone in the military has gone through I'm sure, but I put in "range time" at least once a month and make a weekend morning or evening out of it. Moving on targets with dominant hand, then off hand, supported and unsupported. We have a lot of different structures out here so I can change up the looks I get as opposed to just standing and firing. Every conceivable position has to feel comfortable for me to deploy the handgun from and fire in order for me to carry that weapon, otherwise it's gonna stay in the safe and I'll use it for hunting or target shooting. When I can I get my brother in law out and one of us will set up for the other person, clay piegons as the targets but partially obscure them by cardboard. The idea being that you need to hit the target without hitting the "friendly" cardboard, otherwise just don't take the shot, and it's timed so we gotta make the decisions quick. Like I said, isn't anything military, but I'm not just putting rounds downrange at a target either. In all liklihood the closest to a "real world" scenario I'm going to need to unexpectedly use deadly force in would be some kind of hunting thing -- hogs are assholes and they can put a hurting on your ass if they decide to. I've only been charged by hogs twice, was able to quickly deploy the sidearm and kill them pretty quick. I wouldn't carry if I simply went to a range with my pistol occasionally. I wouldn't feel safe. I'd be more a danger to myself than a help I think.
You're missing my point... that is all "technical" shit and doesn't at all help train for the adrenaline-inducing real-world situation with real people shooting back and real people running around screaming. Hell, watch a guy on his first hunting trip. I've had friends who are medal-winning shooters absolutely lose their shit and miss deer on their first trip out because of the adrenaline... and that is a safe-to-shoot environment... not even remotely close to this kind of situation.
Oh you're talking running drills and stuff? Yeah breath control is a bitch. I've done it before after I go on runs, 2 mile run or so, come home "hey it'd be a good chance to run through a few clips and see how accurate I am." Yeah not the same. And you're right, no I don't train with that stuff specifically. I should do some wind sprints or suicides in between drills actually. But yes, I am aware of what it does to my accuracy (just like when you're shooting and someone is shooting next to you). Fortunately it doesn't effect me quite all that much, as at least I am aware of it and know some breathing exercises to keep myself calm. I do them almost instinctively, just because I've done them forever before endurance races anyway. I'm not "aiming" to be the best shooter there is, but I do aim to be competent and safe. I train to be able to rely on myself, but like with all training, there is never an "end point" where you say ok that's good enough. I can always improve.
He's talking about what happens when the adrenaline hits you and you have to shoot your gun. Not fucking going for a jog and then shooting something.
Because there are 300 million out there. You conveniently left of my 'for the foreseeable future' clause, which wasn't accidental. If we lived in a largely gunless society, then no, I wouldn't want the cops to have them either. But I assume, even if we banned guns today, that there would still be a shitload of them around for some time, so that the cops should probably have them until most are out of circulation. After that, yes, they should not have guns either. But think about that number: 300 million. Jesus, that's a lot of guns.
A thousand times this. Tactical response is drilled over and over and over and over again in multiple scenarios across a broad spectrum of environments. There's a reason for train ups. Hitting a moving target is difficult. Hitting a moving target in the middle of a crowd of screaming bystanders is beyond difficult. Doing it without hitting an innocent person is nearly impossible.
Rural folks are just kind of fucked then. Like Clutch mentioned, I've lived the majority of my life in rural areas where the cops are an hour or more away. This plan would make farmers a big, fat target. No law enforcement for miles and the criminals know for a fact they won't encounter armed resistance.
It's more around the decision making process. Your entire training regimen requires zero analysis or decision making... you always know what you're going to shoot and are just mixing up the physical ways of doing that pre-determined shot. You're building muscle memory, not developing analytical thinking. When you are being shot at, and people are screaming, you have to first decide what to shoot, then figure out if it's legit to shoot them, repercussions, risks, etc. THEN you get to actually pull the trigger. Again, none of that is included in your training you've described, and it is the hardest thing to deal with. Even highly trained officers have a hard time with it.
Uh, ok. So rural America is that dangerous? Are there roving bands of marauders? Zombies? What in the blue fuck is going on out there? Because last I checked, the highest murder rates all seem to be cities. You know, where the people are? This argument is without merit.
What I hear gun advocates say if there are gun bans or a decrease in availability regular citizens will be less able to protect themselves when the serial killer comes around. I hear the other side saying less guns means less gun violence and therefore a need for less guns. As long as this idea is there out that a gun means security and safety this will not change. Know what else keeps people from invading someone's home? A big, barking dog.
I don't know man. Where I'm from you can get hurt quick turning down the wrong dirt road. Jim Bob and Weezy don't give a shit why you rolled up on their meth cooking.
Have you ever spent any time in rural America? http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf
Ok, except I live in the meth capital of the East Coast. It's a little town called 'Philadelphia '. I get that bad things can happen anywhere, but are folks trying to seriously sell me the idea that rural spots are more dangerous than the cities? This is written about a mile from the city that has been the murder capital of the US many times, also consequently a city by the name of Camden.
No one is saying it's more dangerous in rural areas, it's just that it's not all peace and naked hippies. There are some evil people in the country and folks that don't have nearby law enforcement need to be able to protect themselves and their families.
So people in Detroit have cops nearby to save them? Or someone in saw Madison Wisconsin can expect the cops to be there in less than 5 minutes? The Orlando shooting took place in the a rather large city and it still took hours for the cops to intervene. Hell the guy even called 911 pledging allegiance to ISIS before doing what he did. I understand Toytoys point. When I'm in the mountains, I know if something goes wrong I'm pretty well screwed and need to fend for myself. Last summer we were way out there visiting some lake when I heard rifle shots. I occurred to me that I was a long way from help if I needed it and maybe, in that scenario, having a firearm made sense. I guess my central argument is limiting gun access based on historical mental health and FBI data. Won't cure the situation but any positive change saves lives etc/