A point we need to make about Newtown

[Dmath]

The police response time at Newtown, as I understand it, was 20 minutes. That is enough time for a guy with a six-shot revolver and a box of loose cartridges to have shot all those 26 people, pausing to reload every six rounds.

In fact, that's enough time for a guy with a single-shot rifle to have killed them.

So, for now, the lefties are calling for a ban on "high-capacity" magazines and scary-looking guns, but the simple truth is that there is no reason to stop there. And they won't.

It's an imaginary line. And we need to point that out at every turn, because they just don't want to admit that total confiscation of all guns is the only place they can go in solving the "gun violence" problem.

 

[goon]

Do you have a source?
I'd use the police response time as an argument, but I need to be able to cite it.

 

[Alaska444]

Do you have a source?
I'd use the police response time as an argument, but I need to be able to cite it.

I saw a couple of sources that put it at 11 minutes.

That still seems quite a long period of time given that the school is so close to the center of town. Wonder if we will ever see a real timeline from the 911 folks with times of radio transmit etc.

 

[goon]

Agreed. Eleven minutes does seem like a long time. But I grew up in a rural area and remember it taking over half an hour for the police to find us one time. They kept driving past our driveway... all driveways look the same in rural area.

Of course, rural people don't need guns to defend themselves. They can just put the criminals on a time-out until the police can locate the correct driveway and make their way to the house. In the interest of fair play, I'm sure any criminal would be willing to play by those rules.

 

[Sam1911]

Just to put a fine point on it -- if a mag change takes a total newbie 5 seconds to complete, and the police response time was 11 minutes, he could have reloaded one hundred and thirty-two times.

Not counting for time spent actually shooting, of course. If it took him 1/2 second to fire each round, and he only had 10 round mags, that would mean he'd have only got off sixty-six mag changes before the police showed up.

This argument still making sense to ANYONE?

 

[Mobuck]

Rather than use the comparison of other firearms how about comparing the time needed to kill all those children with a machete.
Using other firearms just gives the anti's the idea that no matter what type of firearm a crazy gets hold of , it's a slaughterhouse. If you have to make such a comparison, at least use something like a common tool.

 

[gym]

Machetes were 29.95 at the show today, and anyone can buy one

 

[goon]

Hell, using a bolt action rifle with an estimate rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute, he still could have gotten off 220 rounds in eleven minutes.
Change that to your standard Remington 870 loaded with 00 buck, and multiply that by 12 pellets to the load.

A magazine capacity ban does nothing worthwhile.
The thing is, while I agree with Sam1911 entirely, we are preaching to the chior.

How do we get this out to the public? How do we educate them?
Just venting about this among ourselves is not productive.
No offense, but it isn't.
How do we turn this into something productive in this fight?

 

[goon]

As for the Machete argument, it is valid.
A man stabbed 22 kids in a Chinese school on December 14. Since 2010, 20 kids have been killed in school mass-stabbings in China and another 50 have been wounded.

This story was run by the New York Times, but I don't see anyone picking it up and using it as an example.
Why the hell is no one hearing this, and what can we do to make them hear it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0

 

[sidheshooter]

I brought up more or less the same point in a discussion with acquaintances the other day, commenting that I could probably do almost the same amount of damage using a youth single shot 20 gauge and several large pocketfulls of buckshot (assuming that I was completely unhinged, of course, which I am not). Reloading almost anything that ejects empties is pretty easy, right up until someone shoots back, at which point things become a whole lot harder. I think that's the bottom line, but again, this is choir and preacher stuff here.

 

[MedWheeler]

Google Michael Alan Silva (middle name might be "Allen".) This Vietnam-veteran sharpshooter killed several people in two states and one foreign country during a murder spree in 1984. One of his victims was a SWAT-team member from the Alaska State Troopers who was actually riding sideways in a helicopter that had been sent to interdict. That trooper was killed with a shot through the throat as the chopper was orbiting Silva's position. Silva's first shot missed; his second came immediately afterward.

Silva's weapon? A Ruger Model 7 bolt-action single-shot rifle.

 

[RBid]

My speaking point relating to capacity restrictions is:

"We have had large sample areas with 10 round capacity restrictions, for extended periods of time. We have seen restrictions in action. What kind of reports have you heard the Brady Campaign, Washington, or Bloomberg cite about what they accomplished?"

The answer is always a variation of 'nothing'.

- Feinstein & the Bradys are in CA, Bloomberg is in NY, Obama is from Chicago. They have an interest in publicizing positive statistics. They haven't done so.

- they haven't done so, because they can't. We have seen implementation of capacity restrictions yield zero positive outcome. Repeatedly.

- "feel free to fact check me. Here's how: look up dates of restriction legislation for CA, NY, NJ, and MA. Note trends in crime leading up to, then following the restrictions. Look for qualitative change in metrics. We can talk again, later."


Easy win, every time. Everybody understands that politics and self promotion go hand in hand. This approach appeals to that understanding, and shows that facts have lead you to a logical conclusion.

 

[goldie]

Why doesnt the media,Obama,Feinstein,McCarthy,& every gun grabber make a retraction & tell the world that an ar-15 was not used in this tragedy.They are using it as an excuse to fuel the worst gun control restrictions in the history of this country....

 

[MICHAEL T]

I read and can't remember where it was 11 min for 1st police and 20 for SWAT
Fact is the only fast responce is the person at the location . Not cop on patrol

In my area our county K thru 8 is 10 miles from town where police are . Sheriff has 2 partols out during day serving papers . no telling where might be State police I know of 2 in area and if home still be 5 or 6 miles for either one. These all would respond on 2 lane roads with lots of turns

So in our case we would think 20 min fast.

 

[goon]

But where did you all read this? I believe you, but to use it in an argument I need to be able to cite it somewhere. I am good at this - I can write like hell and make points, but I need something to back my writing up.

 

[Dmath]

Goon, you are right to question the 20-minute number I gave. Sorry, but I did not check too deeply into it after reading it in a couple of places online.

The actual number is elusive. The Wikipedia entry on the shootings is very vague about time. The interval between the first shot fired and the arrival of police would appear to be maybe 15 minutes or more, but that's only a guess.

But even if the actual time interval were much shorter, say seven minutes, that's still plenty of time for a shooter with a revolver to murder many more people than was actually the case. So there's still no rationale for banning "assault weapons."

 

[jamesbeat]

Rather than use the comparison of other firearms how about comparing the time needed to kill all those children with a machete.
Using other firearms just gives the anti's the idea that no matter what type of firearm a crazy gets hold of , it's a slaughterhouse. If you have to make such a comparison, at least use something like a common tool.

Agreed.

At best, all this argument is going to accomplish is to set firmly in the minds of the antis that ALL guns are dangerous and should be banned.

At worst, it makes us look like a load of 'gun nuts' discussing how best to go about shooting a roomful of kids.

What we should be discussing is why the hell nobody was shooting back during those critical eleven minutes.

That is the question on my mind.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I remind them the Police are not required to protect you regardless of what is written on the side of their cars.

 

[jamesbeat]

In 2010 in Britain, a nut job killed 12 and injured 11 on a killing spree before killing himself.

CNN described his weapons as 'Two powerful rifles, one fitted with a telescopic sight.'

The guns he actually used were a double barrel 12 ga shotgun and a bolt action .22 rifle.
Semiauto rifles were already illegal in the UK at the time.

So yes, you can shoot up a bunch of people without a large magazine capacity or a semiauto rifle, and all this discussion will accomplish is the antis going after ALL guns.

ETA:
Interestingly, after this incident, there were no more gun bans in the UK as a result, which seems strange.
If the preceeding bans worked well, why didn't they introduce further bans of bolt action rifles and double guns?

Because banning guns doesn't prevent crime.

 

[wacki]

Jerry Miculek shoots & reloads a revolver at a rate of "6 shots/reload/6 shots" in 2.9 seconds.

If he could maintain that (impossible I know) that's 413 reloads and 2,488 shots via a revolver.

Lets say a total newbie takes 5 seconds to reload and 5 seconds to shoot. That's 720 shots.

That said, look at the deadliest school killings in America on wikipedia. A walther P22 and a FN5.7 currently run 2nd place and a car bomb is 1st.

 

[buckeye8]

As for the Machete argument, it is valid.
A man stabbed 22 kids in a Chinese school on December 14. Since 2010, 20 kids have been killed in school mass-stabbings in China and another 50 have been wounded.

This story was run by the New York Times, but I don't see anyone picking it up and using it as an example.
Why the hell is no one hearing this, and what can we do to make them hear it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/wo...hina.html?_r=0

Just so you know, the antis think that this proves their argument, not ours. The stabbing victims almost all survived the big, recent attack, therefore such attacks are preferable to gun attacks, therefore we should ban guns and it would make us relatively safer.

Just saying, I've seen the argument play out, and they are not convinced.

 

[jamesbeat]

Thise antis sure are a ghoulish bunch...