quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just proposed raising the minimum age to buy anyfirearm to 21.

"Also, we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older. Let me repeat – we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older."

If you're 18-21 years old, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you.

Link

Fucking idiot. Hey Ricky, the next shooter will be 22. Let me repeat - the next shooter will be 22.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
One fascinating datapoint is that apparently CHL holders have been less likely to commit crime, far less likely than the population, and considerably less likely than LEOs as a group.

Do you have link for this JAllen? Would love to have that data. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

I'm not sure I want armed teachers playing Diehard. It's one thing to qualify on a course and it's another to maintain those skills and have enough training not to get innocent people killed. I'd rather they barricade themselves in their rooms with a pistol than take shots in a hallway full of kids with nerves and adrenaline going.

So lets just allow ONLY the government to decide how much security our schools need? Shit, why not? They've done such a great job so far.
So you shouldn't be trusted to handle a firearm in an emergency either?

Every one of us who possesses a CHP has signed up for this type of responsibility.

This is a few years old:

https://crimeresearch.org/2015...arry-permit-holders/

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
One fascinating datapoint is that apparently CHL holders have been less likely to commit crime, far less likely than the population, and considerably less likely than LEOs as a group.

Do you have link for this JAllen? Would love to have that data. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
One fascinating datapoint is that apparently CHL holders have been less likely to commit crime, far less likely than the population, and considerably less likely than LEOs as a group.

Do you have link for this JAllen? Would love to have that data. Thanks.

I don’t. I recall seeing it a couple of years ago, probably on a gun forum, maybe a linked article, NRA etc. but no idea how to backtrack now. It may have been when Texas lowered the training requirements for Texas CHL, open carry, etc. I’m surprised it hasn’t been popularized.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
One fascinating datapoint is that apparently CHL holders have been less likely to commit crime, far less likely than the population, and considerably less likely than LEOs as a group.

Do you have link for this JAllen? Would love to have that data. Thanks.

I don’t. I recall seeing it a couple of years ago, probably on a gun forum, maybe a linked article, NRA etc. but no idea how to backtrack now. It may have been when Texas lowered the training requirements for Texas CHL, open carry, etc. I’m surprised it hasn’t been popularized.

News story:
https://www.dailywire.com/news...t-law-aaron-bandler#

Actual study:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...?abstract_id=2814691

Actually, we should really give the idea of raising the gun-purchasing age to 21 some serious consideration.
1. The drinking age is 21
2. If young people are truly not mature enough to drink or purchase firearms, then CERTAINLY they are not mature enough to vote until 21.
==>Raise the voting age to 21. 21 becomes the National standard LEGAL ADULT AGE, and about half the Liberal/Leftist Democrat voting demographic is immediately weeded out!

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
How does the handgun v. AR15 one on one confrontation play out here? A factor?

Which one does DocSteve have?

I don't know whether he has an AR-15 (he probably does, but I have no personal knowledge of that), but a few years ago when some forum members got together to shoot, I flew to the town where Doc Steve was, at the time, and brought him to join us for lunch and shooting.

He had a SIG P226 that had clearly seen a lot of use. He devastated a few targets that day.

Some small minded news girl stood up and just tried to ask about and bring up the Australia semi-auto ban in the news conference Trump and the Prime Minister of Australia were having. She did not get the answer and admonition of Trump and the US from the Australian Prime Minister she was expecting though. I will look for a video clip but essentially he told her that he would not presume to give advice or policy suggestion to the US or to Trump as the US is a very different country with a very different history as well as a 2nd Amendment unlike Australia. I couldn't have been more amused! The news channels must have been frantically looking to cut their news feeds at the Prime Minister's comments!

The next time someone mentions Australia I'm just going to point them to the video clip of their Prime Minister's answer and recommend they move there.

Guys

Let's move on. No more of pistol vs rifle. Enough, please

What I am seeing lately is the liberal response which goes "how can we turn teachers into security guards when we hire them to teach?" This inane argument assumes carrying a concealed weapon is a full time occupation requiring 100% of attention and energy that precludes any other activity.
The more sense we make, the stupider they become.

Here is a link with concealed carry crime statistics. It is very true that concealed carry holder are much more law abiding than the general public.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...ths/concealed-carry/

That was just a quick search...they need to update there statistics. Florida now has close to 2 million concealed carry holders or 1 out of 10 of the Florida population. The turning into the "Wild West" theory has been dispelled long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just proposed raising the minimum age to buy anyfirearm to 21.

"Also, we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older. Let me repeat – we will require all individuals purchasing firearms to be 21 or older."

If you're 18-21 years old, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you.

Link

Fucking idiot. Hey Ricky, the next shooter will be 22. Let me repeat - the next shooter will be 22.

At the same time you shouldn't be able to join the military until you're 21, so you can legally use a gun and drink too...

If you can't be legal as a civilian, right?

The next shooter will still be 18, he just won't have a legally purchased firearm, it will be stolen from mommy or daddy's closet.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:


News story:
https://www.dailywire.com/news...t-law-aaron-bandler#

Actual study:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...?abstract_id=2814691

Well, there you are! Thanks, BamaJ!

I’m not certain this is the one the claim I saw was based on, but either way, it does us proud.

I wonder if CNN is aware of this?

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just proposed raising the minimum age to buy any firearm to 21.

Seriously?

The legal age to purchase a firearm is a magic talisman that will prevent this sort of thing?

How many of these shooters have bought their firearms legally? Some, but certainly not all!

An 18, 19, or 20 year old is mature enough to serve in our military, maybe be killed or seriously wounded to protect us, but not old enough for a personally owned firearm? Really?

A young person is mature enough to pilot a multi-ton vehicle, but not to own a firearm? Really?

What do these people have inside their skulls -- strawberry jello, or actual brains?

This thread is very significant for me because I’m directly involved in many of the issues being discussed. In particular I’m curious about the whole armed guards concept.

In his 2005 book, Terror at Beslan: A Russian Tragedy with Lessons for America’s Schools, John Giduck proposed that schools hire former special operations personnel as armed guards. His contention was that it wouldn’t actually be that expensive in terms of overall budgets and it would be the most effective method possible to prevent incidents like this. Another recent article pointed out that ever since Israel mandated that all schools with over 100 students also employ armed guards, there have been few (no?) active shooter/terrorist attacks on the schools.

Some years ago, though, I posted a poll here that asked whether people would support armed school guards being volunteers recruited from the community and with no special (e.g., LE or military) background. There was quite a bit of support for the idea, but also a surprising (to me, anyway) amount of pushback. A common response was in effect, “I don’t want the mall ninja wannabe guys I see at the (local gun store, range, competition) protecting my children.” Prior to that I had posted a poll asking who would accompany a lone police officer to look for an active shooter at a school (assuming they were properly armed for whatever reason). Again, many responders said they would, but a significant number specifically said, “’Tain’t my job: I’m not a cop.”

Based on those responses and attitudes, I must really wonder how effective and, more important, how willing teachers or other school staff would be to take on an active shooter. In my experience briefing staff and faculty on active killer responses, many become visibly disturbed when it’s mentioned that fighting might be necessary as a last resort. How many teachers would elicit the same sort of, “I know Jones, the shop teacher, and I wouldn’t want to be on the same range with him, much less around when he decided to take on a shooter.”

Some people here also don’t seem to recognize the difference in the hazards posed by a predator armed with a rifle and actively seeking victims, and a few shots fired at him by a teacher who isn’t a highly trained expert shooter. That also colors their views about arming staff and faculty.

On the other hand, studies have revealed that most active shooters in schools “aren’t Rambos” who are highly skilled or even highly motivated. As is apparent even from news reports, most are teenaged boys or very young men whose experiences with guns and violence were previously limited primarily to video games and, perhaps, small animals as victims. That doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous, but confronting them isn’t like engaging a Russian Spetsnaz team. What’s more, I also believe that just knowing that armed guards are present is likely to be a major deterrent for many would-be attackers. They may not be afraid of dying, but they want to rack up a serious body count first. As mentioned above, if the SRO in this incident had even fired a distant shot at the murderer, it very likely would have disrupted his activities.

Unfortunately, I believe that this is all idle speculation.

The military angle was already mentioned. I would say if they are too immature to own a rifle until 21 then why would they be mature enough to vote before they are 21 as well? I suspect the law is going to allow possession and use by those 18 years of age or older which would eliminate any issues of current ownership, just not the purchase after a certain cutoff date. So if a father wants to buy a rifle and gift it to child, it would still be legal. We'll see the actual language.

On another note, I haven't seen the bill numbers yet but supposedly the Florida legislature has introduced legislation to eliminate gun free zones.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Now I wonder how this fellow can be criticized severely for not entering and confronting, armed, but with a pistol and no back up.

Because it's his fucking job, thats why.

I think Kenny Rogers summed it up best,
"Everyone considered him, the coward of the county."
"Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

Anyone saying that is a simpleton. First of all, there wasn't an armed person there. There was a coward hiding outside and away from the shooting.

An armed teacher on the other hand would likely be right in the thick of it, and even if he wasn't highly trained or even the bravest person in the world, if he's being shot at, he'll most likely have the survival instinct to shoot back.

I'm not sure I want armed teachers playing Diehard. It's one thing to qualify on a course and it's another to maintain those skills and have enough training not to get innocent people killed. I'd rather they barricade themselves in their rooms with a pistol than take shots in a hallway full of kids with nerves and adrenaline going.

So you would rather an armed person be in the hallway shooting kids on purpose instead of having teachers try to stop him that might accidentally hit a kid?

It is totally possible that a stray bullet hits a kid but better the chance of stray bullets from two adults shooting at each other than one shooting directly at the kids with no obstacles.

Let a few of these school shooters end up with a bullet in the face too and see how many rethink the idea. We all know they choose schools because they are soft targets.