Blaming the FBI

[Bill4411]

I’m so tired of blaming the FBI. The local police were at Cruz’s house 39 times and did not do anything. I’m sure they wanted to but couldn’t very easily with the laws in Florida. If the FBI contacted the local police they were probably told what they knew about this kid and why they didn’t pursue him further. There are a number of people running around who are high as kites, drunks and generally rotten people but how do you detain all of them with no outright act to charge them? By blaming the FBI you are shifting the blame from the perpetrator to them which but it fulfills Donald Trump’s narrative that you can’t trust them or any investigation they have performed.

 

[76-1]

Does this not depend on time? If you mean an preventing something tomorrow, no it will not make a difference. If you mean in ten years, it may well. The currently 9 year old future Nikolas Cruz probably does not own a semi automatic rifle. If the 19 year old future Nikolas Cruz elects to go out and buy said weapon illegally there is a chance he gets caught and this stopped.

As to the point elsewhere, yes one can get good at bolt action. But it is harder to get that profecient and overall the gun is not as effective. If they were as effective the military would still be using them.

I'm in my 60's, have been extremely ill, and haven't fired a shot in the past 10 years and I can guarantee you that given a bolt action rifle on a range tomorrow, chambered in .223 (the round used by the loser), if tasked to see how many aimed shots I could get off in 1 minute while putting rounds in the black at 25 yards (greater than the distance he was at) I could average 6 rounds per minute using a rifle with a 5 round magazine (very common setup).

Using a single shot, (no clip) rifle I could easily average 4 rounds per minute, (and I'm being conservative here). In both scenarios, I'd hold three rounds "at ready" between the knuckles of my dominant hand and be starting with one in the chamber... That gives me 18 rounds fired over three minutes with the clip fed (and remember, a bolt action rifle is more accurate than a semi-automatic), and probably 10-12 rounds with the single shot setup...

My point is that what I originally said is true, getting a ban on the scary looking mil-tec rifle might make us feel better about ourselves but it won't make anyone truly safer.

By the way, given my lack of range time I would consider myself a very below average shot these days and I still could match exactly what I typed above at such a close range with that round...

 

[Bill4411]

I'm in my 60's, have been extremely ill, and haven't fired a shot in the past 10 years and I can guarantee you that given a bolt action rifle on a range tomorrow, chambered in .223 (the round used by the loser), if tasked to see how many aimed shots I could get off in 1 minute while putting rounds in the black at 25 yards (greater than the distance he was at) I could average 6 rounds per minute using a rifle with a 5 round magazine (very common setup).

Using a single shot, (no clip) rifle I could easily average 4 rounds per minute, (and I'm being conservative here). In both scenarios, I'd hold three rounds "at ready" between the knuckles of my dominant hand and be starting with one in the chamber... That gives me 18 rounds fired over three minutes with the clip fed (and remember, a bolt action rifle is more accurate than a semi-automatic), and probably 10-12 rounds with the single shot setup...

My point is that what I originally said is true, getting a ban on the scary looking mil-tec rifle might make us feel better about ourselves but it won't make anyone truly safer.

By the way, given my lack of range time I would consider myself a very below average shot these days and I still could match exactly what I typed above at such a close range with that round...

Banning new assault weapons purchases would at least be a start. You seem to be saying that we have so many dangerous weapons already what difference would there be in stopping a few more. I don’t know but maybe we might not have had the most recent school shooting. Why do you feel that we can’t at least try? We did ban the Thompson machine gun and many other types of armaments are already banned.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm in my 60's, have been extremely ill, and haven't fired a shot in the past 10 years and I can guarantee you that given a bolt action rifle on a range tomorrow, chambered in .223 (the round used by the loser), if tasked to see how many aimed shots I could get off in 1 minute while putting rounds in the black at 25 yards (greater than the distance he was at) I could average 6 rounds per minute using a rifle with a 5 round magazine (very common setup).

Using a single shot, (no clip) rifle I could easily average 4 rounds per minute, (and I'm being conservative here). In both scenarios, I'd hold three rounds "at ready" between the knuckles of my dominant hand and be starting with one in the chamber... That gives me 18 rounds fired over three minutes with the clip fed (and remember, a bolt action rifle is more accurate than a semi-automatic), and probably 10-12 rounds with the single shot setup...

My point is that what I originally said is true, getting a ban on the scary looking mil-tec rifle might make us feel better about ourselves but it won't make anyone truly safer.

By the way, given my lack of range time I would consider myself a very below average shot these days and I still could match exactly what I typed above at such a close range with that round...

But you have some experience with bolt action. I do not know how much time Cruz spent practicing. For someone just picking up a gun, will they have better performance with a semi automatic. Now, add in the stress and adrenaline of a shooting situation. The bolt action has more steps, easier to make a mistake. Let's recall trained Civil War soldiers found with a dozen rounds rammed into their gun, they remembered to load but not shoot under pressure.

There are cases it will make a difference. Even if that is 12 killed instead of 17. Is there any logical case the bolt action will outperform the semi?

 

[76-1]

But you have some experience with bolt action. I do not know how much time Cruz spent practicing. For someone just picking up a gun, will they have better performance with a semi automatic. Now, add in the stress and adrenaline of a shooting situation. The bolt action has more steps, easier to make a mistake. Let's recall trained Civil War soldiers found with a dozen rounds rammed into their gun, they remembered to load but not shoot under pressure.

There are cases it will make a difference. Even if that is 12 killed instead of 17. Is there any logical case the bolt action will outperform the semi?

No. But from what I read he was on the Jr ROTC rifle team so I'm guessing he had some training. I thought my clip fed bolt action illustration showed that 18 could have been hit...

As far as the bolt action you are correct that stress and adrenaline would effect its accuracy but it would have the same effect on a semi-auto (without devolving into a tutorial, you are right that breathing. sight picture and trigger pull [or lack of proper pull/squeeze] would all have a major effect on accuracy.

The comparison to a civil war weapon aside from its great illustration of stress in combat is an apples and oranges comparison. Those civil war weapons found with multiple rounds still in the bore were muskets, not bolt action rifles.

Now it wouldn't bother me if they banned the "black rifle" for civilian sale but personally, I don't think it would stop school shootings.

The mindset is out there now that a kid can "get even" for bullying, being ostracized, being born..., by harming all of his classmates.

When I was a kid all you had to deal with was a fistfight. It's a different world.

I think we need to deal with the reality that schools need to become hardened targets, because, like it or not, they are targets...

 

[SSB]

Answer: If he practiced frequently with a bolt action rifle and it was clip feed he probably would have been able to come within three of his KIA total, probably 5 or 6 less with a shotgun but several more wounded.

Are you actually that unfamiliar with firearms?

Now what does your question have to do with the topic of whether or not the FBI shares some blame here?????

Unless you have video of the entire shooting there is no possible way that you could know that. The fact that you are casually claiming to know something you couldn’t speaks volumes about your credibility.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I'm in my 60's, have been extremely ill, and haven't fired a shot in the past 10 years and I can guarantee you that given a bolt action rifle on a range tomorrow, chambered in .223 (the round used by the loser), if tasked to see how many aimed shots I could get off in 1 minute while putting rounds in the black at 25 yards (greater than the distance he was at) I could average 6 rounds per minute using a rifle with a 5 round magazine (very common setup).

Using a single shot, (no clip) rifle I could easily average 4 rounds per minute, (and I'm being conservative here). In both scenarios, I'd hold three rounds "at ready" between the knuckles of my dominant hand and be starting with one in the chamber... That gives me 18 rounds fired over three minutes with the clip fed (and remember, a bolt action rifle is more accurate than a semi-automatic), and probably 10-12 rounds with the single shot setup...

My point is that what I originally said is true, getting a ban on the scary looking mil-tec rifle might make us feel better about ourselves but it won't make anyone truly safer.

By the way, given my lack of range time I would consider myself a very below average shot these days and I still could match exactly what I typed above at such a close range with that round...

Alright, standing calmly in a setting where you’re shooting at a target that’s not moving, you might hit it 5-6 times with a bolt action rifle. The target isn’t screaming and/or running, there’s no way the target might decide to come after you if you can’t get a shot off for some reason, and it’s not in the back of your mind that law enforcement might show up to shoot you. Now, you’ve just walked into a school, started to fire off your bolt action rifle, gotten off your 5-6 shots, and now have to stop and reload in a stressful situation while temporarily exposing yourself. If you’re out to kill the maximum amount of people, do you want to rely on your aim at moving targets, or do you want to aim in a general direction and spray bullets without having to reload often?

 

[76-1]

Unless you have video of the entire shooting there is no possible way that you could know that. The fact that you are casually claiming to know something you couldn’t speaks volumes about your credibility.

What ever you say...

The reports by every credible news organization were 3 minutes and 17 KIA with a semi-automatic rifle utilized along with a fire alarm and a hall. If that scenario is restated by a news organization I'll stand corrected.

Not sure where you are coming from but I can tell you that how you feel about my credibility is not one of my major concerns now or in the future.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The mindset is out there now that a kid can "get even" for bullying, being ostracized, being born..., by harming all of his classmates.

When I was a kid all you had to deal with was a fistfight. It's a different world.

I think we need to deal with the reality that schools need to become hardened targets, because, like it or not, they are targets...

I do think we have an issue related to "respect" and "power". Kids feel they aren't respected for any reason turn to a gun for the power it provides. It seems that is an issue we need to deal with, respecting the power of the gun isn't the same as respecting the person wielding the gun. Of course in this case, I haven't heard a motive. Maybe he was bullied. Even though he clearly is racist, his targets did not seem to indicate any sort of hunting for people based on race. But overall we need to find a solution to the gun=power=respect problem as I think it is part of the overall equation of gun deaths in this country.

Thanks for the discussion on weaponry. I read a lot of military history, but I've only ever fired a laser tag gun and a paintball gun. Neither is particularly applicable.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Unless you have video of the entire shooting there is no possible way that you could know that. The fact that you are casually claiming to know something you couldn’t speaks volumes about your credibility.

That’s how it would happen in a Vin Diesel movie or something. Take away the semi auto and the shooter would just use flawless hand-to-hand combat while simultaneously firing a bolt action rifle with 100% accuracy.

 

[76-1]

Alright, standing calmly in a setting where you’re shooting at a target that’s not moving, you might hit it 5-6 times with a bolt action rifle. The target isn’t screaming and/or running, there’s no way the target might decide to come after you if you can’t get a shot off for some reason, and it’s not in the back of your mind that law enforcement might show up to shoot you. Now, you’ve just walked into a school, started to fire off your bolt action rifle, gotten off your 5-6 shots, and now have to stop and reload in a stressful situation while temporarily exposing yourself. If you’re out to kill the maximum amount of people, do you want to rely on your aim at moving targets, or do you want to aim in a general direction and spray bullets without having to reload often?

You can't just "spray" bullets from a semi-auto.

Just because those rifles look like a military select fire, fully automatic rifle they are not the same.

You still have to aim and pull the trigger (with a semi-auto) if one is to be accurate. That's simply a fact.

OK, I have real life to do, you ladies and gentlemen have a good day...

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You can't just "spray" bullets from a semi-auto.

Just because those rifles look like a military select fire, fully automatic rifle they are not the same.

You still have to aim and pull the trigger (with a semi-auto) if one is to be accurate. That's simply a fact.

OK, I have real life to do, you ladies and gentlemen have a good day...

Since you’re posting in good faith and are using logic I’ll weigh in and counter what you’re saying.

The principal problem with your arguments is you are basing all of your bolt-action casualty forecasts on efficacy and casualties on practice, range time, and a calm emotionless experience at a one way shooting range shooting at stationary targets.

In reality, shooting a bolt action rifle or levergun is a major hindrance (compared to semi-auto high capacity rifles/carbines) to an assaulter. We know this out of simple logic and by understanding the way these weapons function. Logical counter arguments are as easily understood as:

1. These weapons’ firing rates are very much reduced from their semi-auto cousins.
2. Loading and unloading these weapons takes longer than their semi-auto brethren.
3. The act of recharging (operating the bolt or lever) takes the weapons barrel off of target momentarily in addition to the recoil whereas a semi-auto is only dealing with slight recoil depending on the energy and caliber of the round being fired.
4. If these weapons were just as effective as semi-auto, we (my former employer) wouldn’t have evolved in the 1960s to the M16 high capacity rifle. Even before that, the M1 in WWII was a semi-auto large caliber rifle that replaced bolt action WWI-era rifles and provided a major advantage to our infantry over previous generations.

Yes you can get “good” at bolt-action assaulting. But it’s a different measure of good. A complete noob can grab an AR variant, add a forward handgrip on the bottom rail of the hand guard, add a close combat optic sight on the top rail and be very lethal instantly.

You’re also operating in a binary space where you’re trying to measure with complete success of eliminating mass shootings or “it’s useless!” This is silly and is our number one reason we can’t have intelligent conversations about getting weapons of war out of the citizenry’s hands. No, eliminating these rifle/carbines won’t fully stop mass shootings but it’ll weaken their potency.

Replacing the 2A with common sense rights that keep weapons of war out of peoples’ homes would in all likelihood go a very long way to making these shootings much less lethal and much less efficacious.

 

[76-1]

Since you’re posting in good faith and are using logic I’ll weigh in and counter what you’re saying.

The principal problem with your arguments is you are basing all of your bolt-action casualty forecasts on efficacy and casualties on practice, range time, and a calm emotionless experience at a one way shooting range shooting at stationary targets.

In reality, shooting a bolt action rifle or levergun is a major hindrance (compared to semi-auto high capacity rifles/carbines) to an assaulter. We know this out of simple logic and by understanding the way these weapons function. Logical counter arguments are as easily understood as:

1. These weapons’ firing rates are very much reduced from their semi-auto cousins.
2. Loading and unloading these weapons takes longer than their semi-auto brethren.
3. The act of recharging (operating the bolt or lever) takes the weapons barrel off of target momentarily in addition to the recoil whereas a semi-auto is only dealing with slight recoil depending on the energy and caliber of the round being fired.
4. If these weapons were just as effective as semi-auto, we (my former employer) wouldn’t have evolved in the 1960s to the M16 high capacity rifle. Even before that, the M1 in WWII was a semi-auto large caliber rifle that replaced bolt action WWI-era rifles and provided a major advantage to our infantry over previous generations.

Yes you can get “good” at bolt-action assaulting. But it’s a different measure of good. A complete noob can grab an AR variant, add a forward handgrip on the bottom rail of the hand guard, add a close combat optic sight on the top rail and be very lethal instantly.

You’re also operating in a binary space where you’re trying to measure with complete success of eliminating mass shootings or “it’s useless!” This is silly and is our number one reason we can’t have intelligent conversations about getting weapons of war out of the citizenry’s hands. No, eliminating these rifle/carbines won’t fully stop mass shootings but it’ll weaken their potency.

Replacing the 2A with common sense rights that keep weapons of war out of peoples’ homes would in all likelihood go a very long way to making these shootings much less lethal and much less efficacious.

Really do need too get on with my day and I'm a glacially slow typist so I'll be brief.

I'm for banning the AR-15 variant of assault weapon to all but centerfire target shooters (as in those who compete at Camp Perry.

I still don't think that will stop school shootings.

I've covered in as much detail as I'd imagine the board cares to read about my thoughts on the utility of a bolt action rifle.

I bow to your expertise in regard to an M16A2. I've fired an A2 exactly once. it was light and very accurate but I never liked the round... We'd need to take this discussion to a different type of board to get into all that.

I hope we can find a way to resolve this issue and sooner than later and I'd support any reality based solution to that end.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Since you’re posting in good faith and are using logic I’ll weigh in and counter what you’re saying.

The principal problem with your arguments is you are basing all of your bolt-action casualty forecasts on efficacy and casualties on practice, range time, and a calm emotionless experience at a one way shooting range shooting at stationary targets.

In reality, shooting a bolt action rifle or levergun is a major hindrance (compared to semi-auto high capacity rifles/carbines) to an assaulter. We know this out of simple logic and by understanding the way these weapons function. Logical counter arguments are as easily understood as:

1. These weapons’ firing rates are very much reduced from their semi-auto cousins.
2. Loading and unloading these weapons takes longer than their semi-auto brethren.
3. The act of recharging (operating the bolt or lever) takes the weapons barrel off of target momentarily in addition to the recoil whereas a semi-auto is only dealing with slight recoil depending on the energy and caliber of the round being fired.
4. If these weapons were just as effective as semi-auto, we (my former employer) wouldn’t have evolved in the 1960s to the M16 high capacity rifle. Even before that, the M1 in WWII was a semi-auto large caliber rifle that replaced bolt action WWI-era rifles and provided a major advantage to our infantry over previous generations.

Yes you can get “good” at bolt-action assaulting. But it’s a different measure of good. A complete noob can grab an AR variant, add a forward handgrip on the bottom rail of the hand guard, add a close combat optic sight on the top rail and be very lethal instantly.

You’re also operating in a binary space where you’re trying to measure with complete success of eliminating mass shootings or “it’s useless!” This is silly and is our number one reason we can’t have intelligent conversations about getting weapons of war out of the citizenry’s hands. No, eliminating these rifle/carbines won’t fully stop mass shootings but it’ll weaken their potency.

Replacing the 2A with common sense rights that keep weapons of war out of peoples’ homes would in all likelihood go a very long way to making these shootings much less lethal and much less efficacious.

Didn't Lee Harvey Oswald use a bolt action?

I don't think you need to "replace" the 2A. There is enough wiggle room in "reasonable regulation" allowed by the Heller opinion to accomplish all that people want.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Really do need too get on with my day and I'm a glacially slow typist so I'll be brief.

I'm for banning the AR-15 variant of assault weapon to all but centerfire target shooters (as in those who compete at Camp Perry.

I still don't think that will stop school shootings.

I've covered in as much detail as I'd imagine the board cares to read about my thoughts on the utility of a bolt action rifle.

I bow to your expertise in regard to an M16A2. I've fired an A2 exactly once. it was light and very accurate but I never liked the round... We'd need to take this discussion to a different type of board to get into all that.

I hope we can find a way to resolve this issue and sooner than later and I'd support any reality based solution to that end.

We agree that eliminating semi-auto rifles and carbines will not stop mass shootings. But I sincerely believe, because it’s highly logical to do so based on above discussions, that such elimination will make mass shootings less deadly.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Didn't Lee Harvey Oswald use a bolt action?

I don't think you need to "replace" the 2A. There is enough wiggle room in "reasonable regulation" allowed by the Heller opinion to accomplish all that people want.

Yes and he got off three shots. If he had a semi-auto, that entire car would’ve been wounded or dead.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We agree that eliminating semi-auto rifles and carbines will not stop mass shootings. But I sincerely believe, because it’s highly logical to do so based on above discussions, that such elimination will make mass shootings less deadly.

I agree about semi-auto. However the Va. Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 more with two handguns. The Fort Hood shooter killed 13 and wounded dozens with a handgun.

Read the preparations section of this link. If gun industry immunity was not in place, I don't think the gun shop would have ever sold the gun to Hassan. I know I sound like a broken record, but the first and most important thing we can do is to shift the risk of loss of mass murderers back to the makers and sellers of guns. That means repeal immunity. The general public response to mass murders is for government to do more. But in reality, government should do less and not regulate or restrict the civil justice system. Now is the perfect time to consider this and people actually refuse to mention it.

 

[Bill4411]

It’s certainly worth a try as we are not going to get anywhere with the second amendment people and the money behind them. If nothing else it will make guns a lot more expensive.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You can't just "spray" bullets from a semi-auto.

Just because those rifles look like a military select fire, fully automatic rifle they are not the same.

You still have to aim and pull the trigger (with a semi-auto) if one is to be accurate. That's simply a fact.

OK, I have real life to do, you ladies and gentlemen have a good day...

Oh, the word “spray” is what bothered you.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Yes and he got off three shots. If he had a semi-auto, that entire car would’ve been wounded or dead.

And probably not just that car.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The New York Times has a story, How to Reduce Mass Shooting Deaths? Experts Rank Gun Laws. It has a chart comparing effectiveness of ideas with support from the American people. Here is there explanation on the X and Y Axis:

We asked dozens of researchers in criminology, law and public health to assess a range of policies often proposed to prevent gun deaths. We also conducted a national poll to measure public support for the same set of measures.​

I am sorry to say it does not look like removing immunity made the list, I would be curious how it stacks up.

 

[UncleMark]

I am sorry to say it does not look like removing immunity made the list, I would be curious how it stacks up.

Except for CoH's posts here, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I agree about semi-auto. However the Va. Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 more with two handguns. The Fort Hood shooter killed 13 and wounded dozens with a handgun.

The Va Tech shooting is kinda mind-numbing but I think that shooter benefitted from him being “early” in these mass shooting phenomena. I am not sure targets will be as passive as they were during that horrific ordeal when faced against pistols.

Let’s also remember that we’re likely to find out this guy didn’t shoot as many as he could have because he was set on escaping and living through it. If this guy was committed to murder/suicide, he would’ve stayed a lot longer and killed many many more.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Except for CoH's posts here, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.

I’m for gun control and better laws but I’m not for suing the manufacturers. If they are producing their product within the bounds of the law and distributing them within the bounds of the law, then at that point they’re finished with their legal obligations. They wouldn’t be making and distributing assault rifles to the general public if our bought-and-paid-for politicians stopped letting them. I don’t like what the gun manufacturers produce, but they’re following the law as far as I know. I don’t think we can open the door to suing the manufacturers if someone way down the chain of ownership uses their product to commit a crime. Any product, not just guns. Are we going to start suing auto manufacturers when someone drives through a crowd or uses their product as a getaway car? Are we going to sue Louisville Slugger when someone gets beat to death with a baseball bat?