Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2022, 09:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to be clear, my commentary about giving semi-auto hunters shit is more about giving them shit and not my actual point-of-view. Yeah, I hunt deer and bear single-shot or bolt action most of the time, but an AR style rifle can actually make hunting more accessible as it reduces the felt recoil to a level that will allow someone who may not be able to handle the full brunt of a .308 to take a shot at a deer or bear. I want more hunters and making the sport more accessible is a part of that.

I concur.  When you're an experienced shooter it can be hard to remember what the recoil from higher bore rifles felt like before you became adept at handling them.  One of my biggest range pet peeves is idiot dudes letting new shooters, especially women, fire 12 gauge magnum shells or big bore rifles.  They think the reaction is funny, when all you're actually doing is turning someone off of shooting permanently.  I handle recoil fairly well, and there isn't a caliber of handgun or rifle that I wouldn't shoot, but a new shooter is nowhere near that.  All that being said, I watched Garand Thumb shooting the new Sig Spear in .227 Fury and was in literal awe of his recoil control, the guy makes me look like a rank amateur.

Quote:Also, I just saw he lived in Ohio and happen to know those laws. They are similar to here, though we do require a background check for private sales, now, which isn't really enforceable.

Of course it isn't enforceable.  Does that include rimfires btw?  I ask because of that recent gotcha news clip of a 13 year old buying a .22lr rifle from a private party that's been making the rounds.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-05-2022, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry to anyone who likes them, but coyotes absolutely suck.  I live in urban Orange County, and we recently had a coyote attack a toddler.  When I lived in the Hollywood Hills one tried to snatch my Jack Russell while I was walking her.  They routinely attack and kill house pets.  Sincerely, eff coyotes in urban areas, kill all of them.  

Funny how a change in location makes you look at an animal so differently. In urban areas, I can imagine they would be a problem. Out where I live they're great. Only natural predator to all the deer out here, eat mice, eat Canadian Geese (at least something is allowed to get rid of them), and they keep the feral cat population down too. There's enough prey out here for them that you don't hear much about them going after pets around here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2022, 10:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Funny how a change in location makes you look at an animal so differently. In urban areas, I can imagine they would be a problem. Out where I live they're great. Only natural predator to all the deer out here, eat mice, eat Canadian Geese (at least something is allowed to get rid of them), and they keep the feral cat population down too. There's enough prey out here for them that you don't hear much about them going after pets around here.

Excellent point.  If I lived in a rural area I'd absolutely view them as part of the ecosystem and accommodate them as such.  I realize for some the urban "human encroachment" is no cause for viewing them differently.  But they get extremely comfortable with humans in urban areas and lose all fear of them.  This leads to bad outcomes, as already stated.  To me it's the same difference between killing a bug or spider in your house versus outside.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2022, 09:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it isn't enforceable.  Does that include rimfires btw?  I ask because of that recent gotcha news clip of a 13 year old buying a .22lr rifle from a private party that's been making the rounds.

There is no exception for rimfires in our law (which is about a year and a half in effect at this point). However, that situation would've been illegal on two counts in Virginia. One for the new background check requirements, the other for the age. No buying a firearm under 18 or 21, depending on type.

(06-05-2022, 10:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Funny how a change in location makes you look at an animal so differently. In urban areas, I can imagine they would be a problem. Out where I live they're great. Only natural predator to all the deer out here, eat mice, eat Canadian Geese (at least something is allowed to get rid of them), and they keep the feral cat population down too. There's enough prey out here for them that you don't hear much about them going after pets around here.

So, here we get into my favorite topic of wildlife conservation. Not sure where you are, but I know in my area the same could be said. However, coyotes aren't supposed to be in that role around here. We've extirpated mountain lions and red wolves which actually were predators of deer. Coyotes aren't effective predators for deer as evidenced by there being more whitetail in some areas, now, then there were prior to European colonization. This is one of the reasons for the spreading of CWD and other diseases running rampant in our deer populations. Coyotes will prey on fawns and the occasional adult, but we don't have enough natural predators handling the aging, diseased, and weak animals. That was the role of lions and red wolves in my area (and likely yours), and coyotes just can't fill that niche effectively.

(06-05-2022, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent point.  If I lived in a rural area I'd absolutely view them as part of the ecosystem and accommodate them as such.  I realize for some the urban "human encroachment" is no cause for viewing them differently.  But they get extremely comfortable with humans in urban areas and lose all fear of them.  This leads to bad outcomes, as already stated.  To me it's the same difference between killing a bug or spider in your house versus outside.  

A very fair point. The issue is that what we have seen in the east, at least, is that killing them in the manner we have been has not been effective predator management. Studies have shown an increase in fecundity among coyote populations when they have been facing hunting pressure. It's ridiculous. Also, our coyotes in the east are bigger than out west. Coyotes aren't native to this area, but they moved in as wolves and lions were extirpated. In doing so, they bred with our wolf populations and almost every coyote in the Appalachians is actually a coywolf to some degree. It may be a few generations back, but they all have wolf genetics in them making them beefier than coyotes out west.

I've actually done some policy work on the reintroduction of red wolves to the area which has actually been an ongoing project for nearly 40 years. The problem we've encountered is the level of poaching is extremely high and most of it is due to ignorance surrounding the human interaction with wolves. But anyway, I digress.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-05-2022, 06:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ok, and how many rounds does Most hunting guns hold? vs the AR15?

From my understanding, the AR was built for short-med rapid fire burst at the target(s), which are Humans, not animals, is that wrong?
Just like sniper rifles. they were not designed for hunting anything other than humans, so why does civilians need those too? 

Several people have already tackled these questions so I won't touch on them directly. As a rule though, if I can rig a magazine fed shotgun with a drum magazine and go hunting with it because I hate fumbling with shells in the cold, I'm gonna do that.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2022, 10:56 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Several people have already tackled these questions so I won't touch on them directly. As a rule though, if I can rig a magazine fed shotgun with a drum magazine and go hunting with it because I hate fumbling with shells in the cold, I'm gonna do that.

I don't know what or where you're hunting, but most of my shotgun hunting has a regulated maximum magazine capacity of 3.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-06-2022, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know what or where you're hunting, but most of my shotgun hunting has a regulated maximum magazine capacity of 3.

I don't hunt lol

That comment was made tongue in cheek fwiw. I do hate fumbling with ammunition, though.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2022, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know what or where you're hunting, but most of my shotgun hunting has a regulated maximum magazine capacity of 3.

Yeah can't whatever authorities check your shotgun to make sure it can hold only so much ammunition?  I thought my brother-in-law says he has to put this block thing in his shotgun to limit its capacity.  Please excuse my use of firearm jargon. 

[KillerGoose]

(06-06-2022, 02:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah can't whatever authorities check your shotgun to make sure it can hold only so much ammunition?  I thought my brother-in-law says he has to put this block thing in his shotgun to limit its capacity.  Please excuse my use of firearm jargon. 

Yes. When I bird hunt, I can only hold three or four shells. Can't quite remember, but there is a plug in the shotgun that prevents me from loading it with more. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

Sociopathicsteelerfan and Bels,


Thanks for the info.
From what i gather, no one seems to want to regulate much of anything and live in fear of having to register your guns with the gov.. 
I don't think you should be able to sell guns to anyone that doesn't already have a valid license first, but i guess overall that would affect sales.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2022, 03:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan and Bels,


Thanks for the info.
From what i gather, no one seems to want to regulate much of anything and live in fear of having to register your guns with the gov.. 
I don't think you should be able to sell guns to anyone that doesn't already have a valid license first, but i guess overall that would affect sales.

No problem.  But it's not a fear, it's a concern.  The Dems have already shown that they're fine with confiscation and anyone who believes they'll stop with what they consider "assault rifles" or "weapons of war" isn't paying attention.  If you really think more regulations are necessary then you should be just as upset with Dems as the GOP.  The GOP is intractable on this issue because the Dems are chronically dishonest regarding their intentions, both now and in the future.

If you want an example look no further than Robert O'Rourke.  He campaigned for POTUS by saying "hell yes, we're coming for your AR-15's and AKs".  Then, when he lost in spectacular fashion he decided to run for governor of Texas.  He then stated that he was opposed to any type of confiscation.  Now, after the school shooting he's right back on his confiscation tip.  In short, he's a lying opportunist and he's perfectly emblematic of the current Democrat position on firearms.  No one trusts them because they've proven themselves to be utterly untrustworthy.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-06-2022, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No problem.  But it's not a fear, it's a concern.  The Dems have already shown that they're fine with confiscation and anyone who believes they'll stop with what they consider "assault rifles" or "weapons of war" isn't paying attention.  If you really think more regulations are necessary then you should be just as upset with Dems as the GOP.  The GOP is intractable on this issue because the Dems are chronically dishonest regarding their intentions, both now and in the future.

If you want an example look no further than Robert O'Rourke.  He campaigned for POTUS by saying "hell yes, we're coming for your AR-15's and AKs".  Then, when he lost in spectacular fashion he decided to run for governor of Texas.  He then stated that he was opposed to any type of confiscation.  Now, after the school shooting he's right back on his confiscation tip.  In short, he's a lying opportunist and he's perfectly emblematic of the current Democrat position on firearms.  No one trusts them because they've proven themselves to be utterly untrustworthy.

That sweet sweet NRA money may play a part as well...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2022, 06:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: That sweet sweet NRA money may play a part as well...

Please.  The NRA's monetary influence is vastly overstated.  Regardless, they are no different than any other lobbying group, including the anti-gun groups. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2022, 03:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan and Bels,


Thanks for the info.
From what i gather, no one seems to want to regulate much of anything and live in fear of having to register your guns with the gov.. 
I don't think you should be able to sell guns to anyone that doesn't already have a valid license first, but i guess overall that would affect sales.

What license are you talking about? A license to own a firearm? Carry one in public? I am just curious.

(06-06-2022, 06:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please.  The NRA's monetary influence is vastly overstated.  Regardless, they are no different than any other lobbying group, including the anti-gun groups. 

That it is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/summary?id=d000000082

[hollodero]

(05-28-2022, 06:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The reason I ignore the effects of Australia's NFA is because the evidence isn't clear with them. There were observable declines in suicides and homicides by firearm, but they were not statistically significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/

Because of other factors surrounding efforts to reduce suicide rates in Australia, plus an already existing decline in firearm homicide rates pre-NFA, there is no way to say with any confidence that the NFA had any causal effect on suicide or homicide rates in Australia.

OK sorry for picking that up after considerable time has passed. I usually avoid that topic altogether. I might just be in a mood to go way over my head today. Which is why I say this: I wonder if that's not an example where one could quite easily pick the study that delivers the desired result.

There are other studies that have different findings, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/  --- clearly saying among other things that "Figure 1G and table 3 indicate that although the rate per 100 000 of total firearm deaths was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this rate doubled to 6% after the introduction of gun laws". So, gun laws, right.

...or this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/ ---which concludes that "The rate of firearm homicides in Australia is dramatically lower than that in the United States not because Australia banned semiautomatic rifles and implemented a buy-back program but because there was a greater degree of control of who had access to firearms even before passage of the NFA." - and if I hold that opinion, I have a study to back that up too.

And all three studies are all from the same publisher. There are so many more out there, all looking quite serious. Most seem to side with the opinion that some form of gun control is shown to have some measurable effect at least.


(btw. the last study might be a bit simplistic, but makes a claim that made me wonder about "your" study, even if i'm not nearly versed enough to even grasp most of the methods described. "Your" study behaves as if regarding gun laws, there was simply a time "before NFA" and "after NFA"; which doesn't seem quite right to me. But again, what do I know.)

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-06-2022, 10:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What license are you talking about? A license to own a firearm? Carry one in public? I am just curious.


That it is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/summary?id=d000000082

yes licensed to own.

Have a barcode on it, with pic, and before a private sale is done, go to a website and (scan or enter) their number and it should bring back their name and pic and let you know if they are allowed to buy or not.

For the license itself, make it where xx amount of hours/ammo needs to be used on a verifiable shooting range/class.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: There are other studies that have different findings, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/  --- clearly saying among other things that "Figure 1G and table 3 indicate that although the rate per 100 000 of total firearm deaths was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this rate doubled to 6% after the introduction of gun laws". So, gun laws, right.

So with this study I can see why you may think this counters my claim. However, you can see on table 3 that they are (partially) agreeing with the study I linked. Keep in mind that the study I linked uses almost a decade more data so trends will change some. But table three clearly shows that the reduction rate in firearm homicides, both with and without mass shootings in the statistics, was not statistically significant. Now, statistical significance alone is not enough to be evidence of causality, but it does show evidence that there is not a strong enough correlation between the two variables (gun law change and firearm homicide rate) to be evidence of a causal effect. In fact, the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate had a more significant drop than the firearm homicide rate.

As for the other figures on the table, firearm suicides and unintentional firearm deaths did see a significant reduction. Again with the suicides, we see this trend with non-firearm suicides as well. So we again do not have strong enough indication of causal factors.

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...or this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/ ---which concludes that "The rate of firearm homicides in Australia is dramatically lower than that in the United States not because Australia banned semiautomatic rifles and implemented a buy-back program but because there was a greater degree of control of who had access to firearms even before passage of the NFA." - and if I hold that opinion, I have a study to back that up too.

This is actually not a study, but is a response to the study I posted that was in the same journal volume it was published in. It asks questions, but doesn't truly refute any of the points and uses older studies and data to make attempts at refutation. It isn't really a strong case.

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: (btw. the last study might be a bit simplistic, but makes a claim that made me wonder about "your" study, even if i'm not nearly versed enough to even grasp most of the methods described. "Your" study behaves as if regarding gun laws, there was simply a time "before NFA" and "after NFA"; which doesn't seem quite right to me. But again, what do I know.)

Which would be a fair criticism is the study in question was attempting to say that gun control doesn't work. Instead, they were looking at the effects of the NFA. For that research question, you are looking at the pre- and post-NFA dichotomy. Could there be another study that expands on that? Absolutely. I'd love to see it. I want evidence based policy and if there is something that could be done within our constitutional framework to reduce gun violence, I am all for it.

I just know that the strongest correlation for gun violence is socioeconomic inequality. I know we have a woefully inadequate mental health system and a declining sense of community in our society. All of these things are causes of violence of all types and working to resolve these issues would be within the constitutional framework and would actually solve the problem. It's like treating the pain of a headache but ignoring the brain tumor causing the pain.

[hollodero]

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So with this study I can see why you may think this counters my claim. However, you can see on table 3 that they are (partially) agreeing with the study I linked. Keep in mind that the study I linked uses almost a decade more data so trends will change some. But table three clearly shows that the reduction rate in firearm homicides, both with and without mass shootings in the statistics, was not statistically significant. Now, statistical significance alone is not enough to be evidence of causality, but it does show evidence that there is not a strong enough correlation between the two variables (gun law change and firearm homicide rate) to be evidence of a causal effect. In fact, the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate had a more significant drop than the firearm homicide rate.

As for the other figures on the table, firearm suicides and unintentional firearm deaths did see a significant reduction. Again with the suicides, we see this trend with non-firearm suicides as well. So we again do not have strong enough indication of causal factors.

OK after going through that several times I think I see your point.

Also I start feeling like debating physics with Einstein. Evidence that it's not evidence... but sure, laws-homicides correlation not strong enough to be clear evidence of a causal connection, I begrudgingly can see that.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is actually not a study, but is a response to the study I posted that was in the same journal volume it was published in. It asks questions, but doesn't truly refute any of the points and uses older studies and data to make attempts at refutation. It isn't really a strong case.

But it has figures... but sure, fair enough.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which would be a fair criticism is the study in question was attempting to say that gun control doesn't work. Instead, they were looking at the effects of the NFA. For that research question, you are looking at the pre- and post-NFA dichotomy. Could there be another study that expands on that? Absolutely. I'd love to see it.

Me too.
I did not try to critizise the study. Couldn't if I wanted to. Rather I wondered whether the study under these premises really addresses the question at hand; which is if [Australian] gun control measures worked, not so much whether that one specific measure called NFA definitely worked [with strong enough correlat... you know]. I figured the not-strong non-study posed that question too, imho with merit.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I want evidence based policy and if there is something that could be done within our constitutional framework to reduce gun violence, I am all for it.

I just know that the strongest correlation for gun violence is socioeconomic inequality. I know we have a woefully inadequate mental health system and a declining sense of community in our society. All of these things are causes of violence of all types and working to resolve these issues would be within the constitutional framework and would actually solve the problem. It's like treating the pain of a headache but ignoring the brain tumor causing the pain.

I do not doubt that socioeconomic inequality is the bigger factor. Doesn't make it the only factor.
And I also feel that part of this inequality is just too engrained in the American way of life to ever significantly change. I don't mean that in a disdainful way; I mean it in a rather more or less factual way. The US won't change into a more equal society for most Americans strongly reject the idea, or the ideas that could lead there. Everything can change for sure, but this possibly only slowly and with time.
Sense of community, imho similar. Hard to turn back the clock on that one.
- Gun laws (and mental health, can't refute that one), you can change that. At least more quickly. Eg. if I had said tumor, sure a cure would be best, but for starters I wouldn't say no to painkillers.

- Overall, I get that you prefer evidence-based policies and that studies didn't provide unambiguous evidence of gun laws effectiveness. Myself, I'm more leaning to a "more likely than not" approach in many cases. For one, at times there can not be unambiguous evidence. And beliefs and ideology (what defines a positive outcome) has to play a part as well.
I see these studies, I get away with a feeling that more likely than not gun laws have an effect. And I'd also say that to me, as an example, it is more likely than not that the fact an 18-year-old more or less can get any guns no questions asked contributes to the number of such tragic events. It just feels like common sense. Just as not moving an inch for democrats are all dishonest on the gun issue feels like a "more likely than not" common sense stance to others. Which certainly can be backed up by anecdotal evidence, but hardly with unambigous scientific evidence either. It IS an emotional debate, after all, and hence I think emotional arguments can be viably brought up.


But sure this quickly leads me down a dangerous path, for admittedly my emotions and my common sense lead me to the same utter bewilderment that Arturo expresses. Your whole 2A created a gun romanticism that I feel has a huge cultural effect, even though I could never measure that; America is just too different to always understand really. I try though.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2022, 06:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: - Overall, I get that you prefer evidence-based policies and that studies didn't provide unambiguous evidence of gun laws effectiveness. Myself, I'm more leaning to a "more likely than not" approach in many cases. For one, at times there can not be unambiguous evidence. And beliefs and ideology (what defines a positive outcome) has to play a part as well.
I see these studies, I get away with a feeling that more likely than not gun laws have an effect. And I'd also say that to me, as an example, it is more likely than not that the fact an 18-year-old more or less can get any guns no questions asked contributes to the number of such tragic events. It just feels like common sense. Just as not moving an inch for democrats are all dishonest on the gun issue feels like a "more likely than not" common sense stance to others. Which certainly can be backed up by anecdotal evidence, but hardly with unambigous scientific evidence either. It IS an emotional debate, after all, and hence I think emotional arguments can be viably brought up.


But sure this quickly leads me down a dangerous path, for admittedly my emotions and my common sense lead me to the same utter bewilderment that Arturo expresses. Your whole 2A created a gun romanticism that I feel has a huge cultural effect, even though I could never measure that; America is just too different to always understand really. I try though.

So, I'll just focus on this as I feel like it's a good place to bring the conversation around. While in a lot of cases I would agree with the "more likely than not" position, that also depends on the policy topic. When it comes to wildlife conservation, for example, a more likely than not scenario is going to pass muster. But that's because we aren't (directly) dealing with the restriction of civil liberties.

When the government looks to enact a law that limits a civil liberty expressed in the U.S. Constitution then the evidence needs to be solid that it will have the desired effect. Gun violence is something that infringes on the right to life of many Americans every day, and I, as well as most people, would agree that the right to live is more sacred than the right to bear arms. However, the right to bear arms is still a civil liberty and so for the government to infringe upon that there has to be a higher burden of proof that it will have an impact on the public good. Preponderance doesn't work, you have to be beyond a reasonable doubt (or strict scrutiny when talking about judicial review).

This is why I push for what's called root-cause mitigation. This is a method in which we look for solutions to the gun violence problem in things like mental health, socioeconomic hardships, etc. Partially because, yes, I do agree with the 2A, but mostly because I want to solve the problem with ways that pass legal muster.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So with this study I can see why you may think this counters my claim. However, you can see on table 3 that they are (partially) agreeing with the study I linked. Keep in mind that the study I linked uses almost a decade more data so trends will change some. But table three clearly shows that the reduction rate in firearm homicides, both with and without mass shootings in the statistics, was not statistically significant. Now, statistical significance alone is not enough to be evidence of causality, but it does show evidence that there is not a strong enough correlation between the two variables (gun law change and firearm homicide rate) to be evidence of a causal effect. In fact, the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate had a more significant drop than the firearm homicide rate.

As for the other figures on the table, firearm suicides and unintentional firearm deaths did see a significant reduction. Again with the suicides, we see this trend with non-firearm suicides as well. So we again do not have strong enough indication of causal factors.


This is actually not a study, but is a response to the study I posted that was in the same journal volume it was published in. It asks questions, but doesn't truly refute any of the points and uses older studies and data to make attempts at refutation. It isn't really a strong case.


Which would be a fair criticism is the study in question was attempting to say that gun control doesn't work. Instead, they were looking at the effects of the NFA. For that research question, you are looking at the pre- and post-NFA dichotomy. Could there be another study that expands on that? Absolutely. I'd love to see it. I want evidence based policy and if there is something that could be done within our constitutional framework to reduce gun violence, I am all for it.

I just know that the strongest correlation for gun violence is socioeconomic inequality. I know we have a woefully inadequate mental health system and a declining sense of community in our society. All of these things are causes of violence of all types and working to resolve these issues would be within the constitutional framework and would actually solve the problem. It's like treating the pain of a headache but ignoring the brain tumor causing the pain.

Problem with this type of study is how do we show that someone who planned to open fire on a school was deterred because of an armed guard?

you really can't, so your study.. is a bit inconclusive.

Is it true that more mass shooting occur in Gun Free Zones? 
If so, wouldn't that be an indicator that having an armed person would in fact have a chance to make the shooter pick a different target vs having no protection at all??