Texas Tech police officer shot and killed

Parent Cafe
41

@Ohiodad51 Would you be happy with restriction of private long gun ownership to bolt-action rifles and shotguns? I think that should have happened long ago. I would love to see that happen now. The buy-back and banning of semi-automatic and automatic weapons could greatly reduce the carnage. The Las Vegas shooter, for example, would not have been able to simply hose the crowd with gunfire.

That is one piece of legislation I would favor. Own as many bolt action sport rifles and shotguns as you want. Nothing capable of rapid fire.

Assuming that the likelihood of putting that genie back in the bottle is slim to none, I think we need societal change. I am not sure how to effectively go about it. But I am sure that the forces that stoke paranoia and link gun ownership to patriotism and appeal to the testosterone-poisoned wannabees who posture with their weapons are MOST of the problem.

In the mean time, it is a simple matter of obvious logic that those responsible for gun violence are gun owners.

42

I personally don’t know of any bolt action shotguns, so I am not sure about what you are stating there?

If you are asking if I would be fine with only bolt action rifles and all current types of shot guns, I maybe would personally be ok with that, although I would add lever action, doubles and single action rifles. I really don’t know too many guys who shoot semi auto rifles. Most of the serious target guys and big game guys I know shoot either bolt action or doubles because they are far more accurate. I am aware that there are a lot of guys out west who favor small caliber semi autos for small game, or something like the AR-15 as an all around “meat gun”. So I would be open to what those guys say on this topic as well.

As far as shotguns, I shoot a pump for waterfowl and an over/under for upland birds. Most waterfowlers shoot semi autos, and I would not be in favor of banning those, if for no other reason than the only thing my dad can shoot anymore is his 20 ga. 1100 (a semi auto) because he is getting older and he can’t handle the recoil of a pump or double. Plus, I am really not sure how much more dangerous a guy with an 1100 (Remington semi auto) is than a guy with an 870 (Remington pump). Both have the same size magazine, and someone who knows how to use a pump is only marginally slower in rate of fire than someone with a semi auto.

Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted for a very long time, and I don’t know what else can or should be done there. I would not favor a blanket ban on semi automatic weapons, not only because of what I said about shotguns, but because that would ban the vast majority of hand guns in the US, to no purpose I can discern. As with shotguns, someone with a double action .38 revolver and a speed loader is not going to be meaningfully slower in rate of fire than someone with a semi auto 9mm. If you are talking about banning/restricting rifle barreled semi automatic long guns (where rate of fire would likely be very different), as I said I might support that personally.

As far as Las Vegas, I never even heard of a bump stock until that tragedy, and have no idea why someone would want such a thing. I have no problem with banning those (nor does the NRA). But as I said before, given the nature of firearms, legislation is always going to be chasing the latest set of modifications.

And here is the rub. I have been hunting my entire life. I “owned” my first shot gun at 10 (an Ithaca single action 20 ga.) and have had at least one firearm ever since. Some of my best memories are sitting in a duck blind with my son and my father, something that is now all too rare. And one day, if I can figure out how to hide it from my wife, I am going to go to the Basque country and have a live bird gun made for me. In short, I’m a “gun guy”.

I do not like and am troubled by people walking around on gun ranges who have no idea what they are doing with plastic pieces of crap that “look cool” and shoot fast. After the Vegas shooting, I watched a video on bump stocks (because I had no idea what they were) and the blood of liberty ■■■■■■■■ that was being spewed made me want to puke.

One large reason that I and many more gun owners are unlikely to support gun control measures is the obvious disdain many who advocate for gun control feel for those who hunt and shoot. Another is, as I said before, the fact that most people who advocate for gun control don’t even bother to learn the first thing about firearms before loudly calling for this or that (I am not saying that is what you are doing). No one believes that whatever issue is currently being pushed by the gun control lobby is the ultimate goal. Virtually every gun owner I know is concerned that each incremental change to the law is just another strategic step to the ultimate goal of confiscation. I do not believe that any of that will change until there is a sea change in the way the gun control lobby presents itself to people like me.

And yet, I am willing to bet that you would take issue with the statement that Muslims are the problem with Islamic terrorism. Why is one different than the other?

43

I am genuinely curious why gun owners or any others for that matter think that the ultimate goal is confiscation. And even if the supposed goal is confiscation how would that work? Officers go into people’s homes and search for any and all guns?

Isn’t that a little paranoid? I think even gun control groups wouldn’t go that far.

44

I’m struck by the similarity to the UCSB incident where a student killed several people. That student’s parents had spoken with law enforcement and with mental health professionals, clearly stating their concerns about his behavior. Due to privacy laws nothing could be done. The student was an “adult”.

Here again, parents tried to raise the alarm with those in positions to intervene. It appears their warnings went unheeded.

In addition to discussing the gun issue we need to discuss the value of privacy laws and public safety. Both are at odds with each other at this time.

45

Yes, that is what I meant. I did not mean “bolt action” to refer to shotguns. Beyond that, I have only cursory knowledge of the various types of shotguns: I’ve heard of over and unders, I’ve heard of pump action. That’s about it. :slight_smile: You can assume that I would ban ANY weapon that was capable of rapid fire of more than 5 shots out of the factory, and ANY modifications or accessories that would enable rapid fire.

So no speed-loaders under the modification/accessory rule. No large magazines. I think that something in the range of 5 or 6 shots without reloading would be reasonable. Your latter sentence is definitely what I am talking about.

The actual functionality of the weapon for killing people, and particularly many people in a short time, is what I am concerned about. I don’t care what it looks like at all. I think that the actual terms of the “assault rifle ban” clearly ended up being poorly constructed. I do think that the move to make all of those guns look like weapons of war is absolutely intended to make them attractive to those who want to see themselves as macho. I’ve looked at pictures of bolt action rifles, and noted that most of them seem to look like “old fashioned” rifles, and clearly are not trying to market themselves to the kind of person you describe here:

Those people are largely the ones that are the problem. As, of course, are the idiots who buy hand guns and leave them loaded around in their houses or carry them loaded in their purses where 3 yr olds can find them and kill their siblings. Both sorts are so completely different from people like you. All you have in common is that you are gun owners. I would suggest that if you don’t want the non-gun owners to eventually move to outright confiscation in desperation, that you try to educate the populace. What we currently see is simply a kneejerk opposition to anything that looks like gun control, even measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons, the mentally ill, and people who have proven through their actions that they are not responsible gun owners, and children.

I would suggest that the biggest obstacle out there may well be that A) the NRA has become purely a tool of manufacturers, who do everything they can to persuade people to buy more guns, and B) that gun ownership has been politicized to any incredible degree by certain groups that use it to control and influence groups of voters.

Of course, it is also a matter of logic that Islamic terrorists are Muslims. If there were a Muslim group out there that was actively buying and lobbying legislators to oppose ANY steps to oppose Islamic terrorism, and pouring money into the campaigns of those who opposed terrorism, I would blame them, too. I think that gun owners are responsible in as much as the actively support the current agenda of the NRA. I would like to see them rally and bring the manufacturers’ lobby to task. There is virtually nothing that the rest of us can do about it.

Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the Islamic terrorism situation and the gun violence situation, especially in terms of political manipulation. But we can discuss that in another thread.

46

@sciencenerd

To answer your question, gun control groups often talk about the benefits of the Australia and Japan models. In Japan, handguns are completely illegal, and rifles are almost illegal, except for weapons acquired before 1971 and still in the possession of the original owner. Australia’s laws aren’t quite as extreme, but still make it illegal to own semi-automatic weapons and handguns, unless you’re a competitive shooter. So you get the impression gun control groups would like to ban everything except shotguns and bolt action rifles, if they thought it had a prayer of passing in Congress.

47

Re: #43

Seems like this is more of a case where the police officer made the mistake of failing to check an arrested suspect for weapons (Daniels was under arrest for drug possession at the time). It is not like they did nothing due to privacy laws or whatnot – more like they made a deadly mistake while doing something in response to a call for police service regarding an erratically behaving student possibly with a weapon.

48

I had a friend who was very depressed and suicidal. He told me that he was buying a handgun, and in the waiting period in his state.

I called his local police station–my local police, in another state no less, gave me the number when I called them for advice-- because I knew that the Chief of Police had to okay his application during the waiting period under state law. His local police immediately sent two officers to his apartment to talk with him. They were very kind, and concerned with his welfare. They were very supportive of me. I said maybe he’ll never speak to me again, the sergeant I talked to said don’t worry, you may be saving his life.

I don’t see why they were able to act while others didn’t. I wasn’t even his parent, for doG’s sake.

Afterwards, he called to thank me.

49

Just to illustrate the problem, this would ban every hand gun, (except derringers) and depending on how rapid fire is defined, probably every shotgun or rifle that is not a bolt action, single action or double barrel that has been in production in my lifetime. That is why my answer to whether I support a “high capacity” ban is always it depends. FYI, revolvers are designed to fire six shots without reloading, most semi auto pistols are designed with magazines that hold 7-12 or so (which is generally a function of the size of the round and the grip) and pump and semi auto shotguns are designed to hold 7 (a function of the size of the fore stock). There are several bolt action rifles that have a magazine capacity of 5 or more rounds as well. So to me, high capacity would mean about 15. And I am not sure how much effect a ban like that would have, frankly.

One more point on cosmetics, kind of building on your point about the assault weapons ban. I own a 7mm Remington mag bolt action rifle with a composite stock, stainless barrel and flip up low light sights. There are good reasons for all those things (a composite stock is lighter and won’t warp, a stainless barrel is more weather resistant and arguably “truer” than a blued barrel, etc). It looks nothing like a military style weapon, and probably looks a lot like what you have seen in pictures except that the stock is grey and the sights/scope are “chunkier”, but the stock material is the same as an m16 or ar 15, the scope/sights are mechanically very similar, etc. These kinds of things make it very difficult to get rid of “military style” weapons without capturing a whole lot of hunting rifles as well. Which is why you don’t see a lot of support from hunters and people who know long guns for things like an assault weapons ban.

We disagree about the role and effect of the NRA, which I am sure is no surprise. And I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate the causes and responses to Islamic terrorism at some point!

50

And FWIW, I stand in a pretty short line of gun owners who don’t have a problem with a waiting period, even though it but me in the butt once. I bought a shotgun for my son’s sixteenth birthday, and because the gun was not in stock, and then I got hit by the waiting period, I couldn’t give it to him until a couple days afte his birthday. A very minor annoyance compared to what you laid out. Good for you.

51

Okay, when I am queen I would probably be willing to compromise on that. :slight_smile: Although semi-automatic anything is generally within my ban range. Don’t tell me that gun manufacturers couldn’t produce handguns that fire only 5-7 rounds before reloading.

I was under the impression that the norm for shotguns was two cartridges at a time. Is that no longer true?

Regarding the appearance of one of your guns, as I said, I don’t give a solitary damn what it looks like. I only care what it does. A long gun could be pink and sparkly and branded My Little Pony, or Barbie’s First Gun, but if it is anything other than bolt action, too bad!

52

Was the cop shot more than 5 times? How would this have prevented his death?

53

Semi automatic and pump shotguns have seven round capacities, although they are usually factory “plugged” to only allow three rounds, because that is the general limit for hunting. So yeah, it can be done, but then it would also be “easily modifiable”, because of the size of the magazine is defined by how far forward the forestock has to be if you can see what I mean. Same with magazines for pistols. I am sure manufacturers can make smaller capacity magazines, but to make pistols that would not accept the current magazines would require a major change in how handguns, particularly the grips, are designed.

And there is or at least was a manufacturer who makes hand guns and long guns in bright pink and pastels, in an effort to market them to women. My dad bought a bright pink .22 caliber target rifle for my daughter (semi auto btw) to try and interest her in shooting a long time ago. It didn’t take, but the rifle still sits in my safe, in all of its bubble gum glory, lol.

54

Well, there are plenty of old school wing shooters who will agree that the only normal, meaning proper, shotgun is a double barrel (two shells at a time). Although the debates on whether those barrels should be oriented as side by sides or over/under make the debates here look tame. But there are a heck of a lot more pumps and semi auto shot guns made and sold every year than doubles.

55

@roethlisburger That’s a total straw man.

What would have saved his life is the young man not having a gun at all. Do you really want to go there?

56

For those who asked, statements like this are why many gun owners believe that the ultimate goal of gun control advocates is confiscation.

The simple truth is that there is no law that could either get passed or pass constitutional muster that would have prevented this tragedy. Maybe more to the point, there is no way that all of the handguns in existence in this country, even if you limit it to legally owned handguns (which would obviously exclude the weapon used here), could ever legally be collected by the government. That is why I said that I find the renewed calls for gun control after every tragedy crass and unfortunate.

In that way this issue is kind of like the illegal immigration issue. Some people advocate for detention/expulsion of every one here illegally, even though there is no practical way to achieve that result. I think the same is true for some who advocate gun control, although post Heller I think the idea that the government can remove guns from our society is even more of a pipe dream than the idea that we can remove several million people here illegally.

All that aside though, there should be room to air opinions on gun control/restrictions as a matter of general policy, rather than having it be tied to any one event. FWIW, I think that is what @consolation is trying to do on this thread.

57

I think the number of “gun control advocates” who embrace the idea of confiscation is highly overstated by pro gun advocates.

The only thing which could put an end to all gun sales (much less confiscation of currently owned firemarms) would be a new constitutional amendment, which I don’t believe any of us will see in our lifetimes, or even that of our kids and grandkids. At best, societal change such as happened with smoking might result in voluntary surrender/reimbursement like what happened in Australia. But I don’t think we’ll see that in our lifetimes either.

58

You’re misrepresenting the Australian surrender/reimbursement. The buyback program was mandatory for all weapons prohibited under the new law. It was a massive gun confiscation program.

59

Not purposely misrepresenting, just apparently misunderstood the facts. But you got my point, didn’t you, as in IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN in our lifetimes, and the most that would ever happen would be voluntary surrender, which I don’t believe we will ever see in our lifetimes either. Right?

60

No one has any comments about how the TTU police handled the situation with respect to failing to find weapons when arresting Daniels and bringing him to the police station, despite apparently being warned of the possibility of a weapon in the call for police service? (as opposed to the numerous posts about gun politics)

https://www.officer.com/investigations/news/20979161/lubbock-police-chief-greg-stevens-student-hollis-a-daniels-iii-was-searched-before-killing-texas-tech-university-police-officer-floyd-east-jr-in-police-station says that “was searched when he was taken into custody but still managed to have a gun on him” according to the Lubbock police chief.