I don't recall claiming gun violence could be prevented. However, since I acknowledge your expertise, would you agree that the ability to shoot fewer bullets will generally mean fewer people will be killed, or do yo0u have a reason to discount that?
OK first, sorry for being an ass.
Second, while a school is a fairly spacious building my first choice of weapon if I was going to use it inside a building would be a hand gun. Longer rifles are cumbersome and often difficult to get on target as you're moving through tight spaces and around corners. A hand gun has a certain advantage in that situation, especially since you'll most likely be firing at relatively close range. If, on the other hand, a mob was attacking my house and I was firing from a fixed position where I had a vantage point from which I could see their approach I would prefer a rifle. A rifle may be harder to maneuver and fire quickly and accurately in a confined space but its longer sight radius (the distance from the rear sight to the front sight) and longer barrel make it much much more accurate at intermediate distances. A scoped rifle is by far the best choice for anything that would be considered long range. But for defending myself in a fixed location a large magazine and a semi-auto rifle is the best choice. Each weapon has it's advantages and it's drawbacks.
The shooter at Sandy Hook fired 11 rounds at a single small child. That on the one hand is horrific. On the other it speaks to his derangement. That makes no sense and gained him no advantage. The child would have fared no better having been shot once or twice with standard hand-gun ammo.
I don't want to get too technical but I want to be honest. Hand guns kick more when fired rapidly. Partly due to how they are griped and partly because of how much they weigh and how their weight is distributed. So in a sense it is possible to fire a semi-auto rifle accurately at a higher fire rate. However, that advantage is hugely mitigated in a confined space. You have to swing that longer barrel around and take it off of targets in order to get around corners. In an open field it has all the advantages because you can leave it pointed in the general direction of your targets while taking advantage of it's reduced recoil.
But I've heard so many times how these "assault rifles" are capable of rapid fire. It's crap. You pull the trigger and you fire one round. Even with an AR-15 if you attempt to fire rapidly you'll get barrel rise and recoil that will take you off target. Firing quickly is dumb for the most part. Only very well trained shooters can maintain a high degree of accuracy and fire rapidly, regardless of the weapon.
As for firing into a crowd. I'm not talking about that. If a mob is attacking me I am taking aimed shots at prioritized threats. The ones coming with weapons or leading the charge. There is no place for a decent human being to be popping off shots into a crowd. That's never been what I've been talking about, ever. In that situation a hand gun is less accurate. That's why I would want a semi-auto rifle. To maintain a higher degree of accuracy so that only the target is hit.
Go to a gun range and see how well the average person shots a hand gun. Beyond 15 yards it seem like most people are lucky to get within 1ft of their target point. Go to 30 yards or 50 yards and it gets far far worse. Most people train with hand guns to hit things at 5-15ft. And that's at a range. It doesn't translate well to what they're capable of in the heat of the moment.
This is hillarious: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...ushmaster.html
Oh please do. You'll create a springboard for competition. Taking out the largest will create 100 newer small companies. How benevolent!
These mental nutjobs have chosen their place of "business" based on an expectation of no resistance or returned fire, and have planned to end their own lives themselves before giving anyone else the satisfaction.
When they've gone as far as they can with their cowardly killing spree, and anything pops up that looks like could take him down, these nutjobs always blow their own brains out.
Like I said before, Obama knows how to protect his own kids in school. He selects a school with a heavily armed contingent of securtiy personnel.
So, here's a question about elitists. If someone thinks his own kids are worth protecting, but doesn't really think your kids are worth it, is he really an elitist, or just a stooge doing what he's told?
I am in favor of schools having a trained security guard(s). I am not wild on the idea of armed teachers.
Also keep in mind that Sandy Hook already had some defensive minded measures in place. Such as automatically locking doors when the bell rang. Shooter still got in.
He also obtained the guns illegally (stole them from his mother).
I'm definitely in favor of a cop or 2 at every school. That would help end this nonsense all by itself.
On the teachers, maybe they should be offered an incentive. Maybe pay them a few grand per year extra if they complete some training and agree to be a security enforcer or whatever you want to call it.
This training would obviously include firearms, but would also cover calling the police, not panicking, how and where to hide the kids, etc.
They could then be required to pass a refresher course every couple years or so in order to maintain the certification.
I'm not necessarily for or against this. I haven't given it enough thought to really consider any arguments against it. I'm definitely for the cops in every school though.
I can see your point about rapid fire increasing recoil. Do we have any knowledge of whther these school shooters used a rapid-fire mode anyhow, and how it affected the casualties?