Page 17 of 41 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #321
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,474
    Again people are glossing over the fact there are an estimated 300 MILLION guns already in the US...a complete gun ban today would do zero as it applies to them.

    How do you stop an armed maniac from another attack TODAY? I'm not for arming teachers but there should be a cop assigned to every school. That is no guarantee of safety but it's a lot more protection and a deterrent than any (ignored) law can provide.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Yes.

    Paul Blart would stop it.



    Afraid you have me here. Who exactly is Paul Blart?

    Psycho cases BTW, generally look for soft targets. They avoid places where they can be confronted and/or killed.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.


    In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook elementary had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.
    What "facts" have been presented at this point? It seems the author is so sure everyone who is going to read with this agrees with him (her?), and how "absurd" the oppositions argument is on the face, that you may as well declare victory before presenting any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more!" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. Here are five of them and why they don't work:
    Ok.. now we're going to get some actual facts, and examples, good. Here we go.
    Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
    Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.
    Ok, so if the shooter was out of ammunition they arrived too late, that's a fair criticism. Surely though increasing the number of armed law abiding citizens, increases the chances of one of them arriving earlier? Why does it matter that it was current and former law enforcement officers?


    Middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania
    An ambiguous case from 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue. The owner of the venue followed him outside with a shotgun, confronting and subduing him in a nearby field until police arrived. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who himself recently argued for more guns as an answer to gun violence, told me this week that one police source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.
    er... so it was "not clear" if the shooter intended to continue killing people, thus it was "not clear" if the intervention saved any lives. Sounds like this worked out well to me.

    High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
    Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a commander in the Army reserves—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
    ok.. another "well maybe he wasn't going to shoot anyone else". That's great, but maybe he was, and i'm not seeing a negative here.

    New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs
    In 2007 a gunman killed two people and wounded three others before being shot himself; the pro-gun crowd likes to refer to the woman who took him out in the parking lot as a "church member." Never mind that she was a security officer for the church and a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby.
    Why does it matter that it as a security officer and former cop that did defended the public here? This seems like another successful example.


    Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada
    In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine.
    Ok, here's a case of a concealed weapons permit stopping a shooting in progress... but this time it's going to be disallowed the hero of the story had military training. Again, i'm not sure why this fact is relevant. Perhaps it's so absurdly obvious on it's face, it requires no explanation?...

    And what about cases in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong? There are at least two examples of ill-fated attempts that you won't see mentioned by those arguing for your kid's teacher to start stashing a loaded Glock in her classroom:

    Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
    As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.
    Ok, so we wouldn't have wanted any of the victims of the latest shooting to be armed because... they might have still bee victims of the latest shooting.
    Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
    In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

    Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. They also make law enforcement officers' jobs more difficult. "In a scenario like that," he told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."
    I don't think anyone is arguing that attempting to subdue or kill an armed shooter with a firearm is safe. Guess what? Pulling people from burning cars, or out of violent rivers isn't safe either. Running to the aid of a woman being raped isn't safe. Most of the things that prevent or mitigate sudden, violent, terrible situations are not safe. Yet, when weapons aren't involved we're generally grateful to those who rush to aid. We don't disparage the guy who drowned trying to save a kid because he didn't just sit and wait for the lifeguard, or rescue workers to arrive.

    We also seem to forget that law enforcement officers fail too. Sometimes they even shoot innocent people. Recently in in New York city, law enforcement officers shot and wounded nine innocent people, whilst responding to the threat of an active gunman. Gun fights are dangerous no matter who is doing the shooting. That's not to say if i had a choice, i wouldn't want a police officer defending my in a Gun Fight over some random guy with a carry permit. But in the heat of the moment, I'd much rather someone with a gun be on my side immediately, instead of sitting and waiting for the law enforcement to respond.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    What "facts" have been presented at this point? It seems the author is so sure everyone who is going to read with this agrees with him (her?), and how "absurd" the oppositions argument is on the face, that you may as well declare victory before presenting any facts.


    Ok.. now we're going to get some actual facts, and examples, good. Here we go.

    Ok, so if the shooter was out of ammunition they arrived too late, that's a fair criticism. Surely though increasing the number of armed law abiding citizens, increases the chances of one of them arriving earlier? Why does it matter that it was current and former law enforcement officers?



    er... so it was "not clear" if the shooter intended to continue killing people, thus it was "not clear" if the intervention saved any lives. Sounds like this worked out well to me.


    ok.. another "well maybe he wasn't going to shoot anyone else". That's great, but maybe he was, and i'm not seeing a negative here.


    Why does it matter that it as a security officer and former cop that did defended the public here? This seems like another successful example.



    Ok, here's a case of a concealed weapons permit stopping a shooting in progress... but this time it's going to be disallowed the hero of the story had military training. Again, i'm not sure why this fact is relevant. Perhaps it's so absurdly obvious on it's face, it requires no explanation?...



    Ok, so we wouldn't have wanted any of the victims of the latest shooting to be armed because... they might have still bee victims of the latest shooting.


    I don't think anyone is arguing that attempting to subdue or kill an armed shooter with a firearm is safe. Guess what? Pulling people from burning cars, or out of violent rivers isn't safe either. Running to the aid of a woman being raped isn't safe. Most of the things that prevent or mitigate sudden, violent, terrible situations are not safe. Yet, when weapons aren't involved we're generally grateful to those who rush to aid. We don't disparage the guy who drowned trying to save a kid because he didn't just sit and wait for the lifeguard, or rescue workers to arrive.

    We also seem to forget that law enforcement officers fail too. Sometimes they even shoot innocent people. Recently in in New York city, law enforcement officers shot and wounded nine innocent people, whilst responding to the threat of an active gunman. Gun fights are dangerous no matter who is doing the shooting. That's not to say if i had a choice, i wouldn't want a police officer defending my in a Gun Fight over some random guy with a carry permit. But in the heat of the moment, I'd much rather someone with a gun be on my side immediately, instead of sitting and waiting for the law enforcement to respond.
    I'm not a big gun fanatic at all but I agree that article has holes all throughout.

  5. #325
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,755
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Afraid you have me here. Who exactly is Paul Blart?

    Psycho cases BTW, generally look for soft targets. They avoid places where they can be confronted and/or killed.
    Paul Blart. Mall Cop.

    I fail to understand the reason that someone willing to kill themselves would be afraid of getting killed.

    Who knows.

  6. #326
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,474
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Paul Blart. Mall Cop.

    I fail to understand the reason that someone willing to kill themselves would be afraid of getting killed.

    Who knows.
    In this case maybe the psycho knew he could inflict max damage a group of people incapable of defending themselves. After the evil deed is done the cowardly POS can't face the fact that the police will inflict the very same pain via return fire. He likely killed himself to get it over quick and painless...the cowardly irony.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotReign View Post
    Again people are glossing over the fact there are an estimated 300 MILLION guns already in the US...a complete gun ban today would do zero as it applies to them.

    How do you stop an armed maniac from another attack TODAY? I'm not for arming teachers but there should be a cop assigned to every school. That is no guarantee of safety but it's a lot more protection and a deterrent than any (ignored) law can provide.
    Let’s arm the citizenry to stop the tyranny of government and turn the rest of our society into an armed camp to protect us from the tyranny of death and destruction our armed citizenry is perpetrating on us.

    Sounds like a plan.

  8. #328
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Let’s arm the citizenry to stop the tyranny of government and turn the rest of our society into an armed camp to protect us from the tyranny of death and destruction our armed citizenry is perpetrating on us.

    Sounds like a plan.
    Discount the value of that portion of our arms rights if you wish, but the easiest route to Tyrany is a disarmed population. The eaisest was for a Hitler or Stalin or an analogue to them to transform elected power to totalitarian power is no threat of capable uprising from the population.

    Of course, given the hunger for de-facto Tyrany (not that they call it that) amongst the American people these days, that may in fact be a moot point now. I think the course of our Nation is quite set in a constant shift from individuals with rights to collectivism and the greater good.

    Far more seem willing and able to trade their freedoms for the perception of safety and comfort today that at any other point in U.S. History. So much so that I've never seen nor read of such a constant and consistent desire to revoke so many of our basic fundemantal individual rights for some ideal of a greater good than we experience today.


  9. #329
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Let’s arm the citizenry to stop the tyranny of government and turn the rest of our society into an armed camp to protect us from the tyranny of death and destruction our armed citizenry is perpetrating on us.

    Sounds like a plan.
    Oh please stop with the silly hyperbole and drama. As it stands TODAY what is the best deterrent/protection for a school? What is your proposal? There are cops in many high schools already serving as the school resource officer, using your silly logic are they jack booted government thugs?

    I don't think assigning a police officer in front of, or inside, a school is an unreasonable suggestion. Again what is your propsal to make them safer TODAY?

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Almost as much a fantasy as the idea that banning guns legislatively will make all guns dissapear fromt he face of teh Earth, and no one will ever die again.

    As usual, the answer is usually well away from far-left and far-right, and in the logical middle.
    I am not sure that was the point that the author or commentator was trying to make; I know for sure that I am not trying to make that point.

    I am not in favor of banning guns or ending the second amendment. Attempting to end that right will not make these incidents disappear. We have the right to bear arms just like we enjoy the right to have freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not afford an American the right to say/express anything they wish if it tramples on the rights of others. We have the right to bear arms but not at the cost of the basic rights of others.

    Irresponsible gun laws which allow loopholes that gun show vendors exploit violates the basic rights of Americans because it constitutes a major risk to the well being of others. Weak background checks that do not account for psychological conditions in the prospective gun owner potentially violates those basic rights as well. And allowing the average citizen to stock pile assault weapons is irresponsible on every level.

    This is a complicated topic because there is no one solution. But the time has come to worry a little more about the safety of the people and a little less about upsetting the NRA. And it is always interesting to note how many of the same people that scream loudly about the corrupt influence of special interest groups on our democracy lose their voice with the NRA.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 12-19-2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: spelling

  11. #331
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotReign View Post
    Oh please stop with the silly hyperbole and drama. As it stands TODAY what is the best deterrent/protection for a school? What is your proposal? There are cops in many high schools already serving as the school resource officer, using your silly logic are they jack booted government thugs?

    I don't think have a police officer in front of, or inside, a school is an unreasonable suggestion. Again what is your propsal to make them safer TODAY?
    Fair point... but in this instance, A pistol bearing LEO, possibly caught off guard and or out gunned? Imagine that when this kid walked in, the gun was clearly concealed somehow. So his first move , walking up to the school is shoot the LEO. THEN...the rampage.

    Doesnt mean it isn't the right move. Just sayin.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Paul Blart. Mall Cop.

    I fail to understand the reason that someone willing to kill themselves would be afraid of getting killed.

    Who knows.


    They are usually afraid of failure perhaps. Let's not forget SOME of the shooters survived - Ariz, Col, Ft. Hood.
    All the shooters picked soft targets. They usually do in order to succeed. Put a gun against them and they are not quite as brave.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Fair point... but in this instance, A pistol bearing LEO, possibly caught off guard and or out gunned? Imagine that when this kid walked in, the gun was clearly concealed somehow. So his first move , walking up to the school is shoot the LEO. THEN...the rampage.

    Doesnt mean it isn't the right move. Just sayin.
    In this particular instance, the guy walked up to a locked up school front door attired in such a way - in all black, utility vest, etc - and carrying a weapon that cant really be concealed, and then busted in by shooting or breaking the glass, I would think a trained LEO would have a good chance at countering that.

  14. #334
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    We have the right to bear arms but not at the cost of the basic rights of others. Irresponsible gun laws which allow loopholes that gun show vendors exploit violates the basic rights of Americans because it constitutes a major risk to the well being of others. Weak background checks that does not account for psychological conditions in the prospective gun owner potentially violates those basic rights as well. And allowing the average citizen to stock pile assault weapons is irresponsible on every level.
    Well, lets see how consistent you are.

    Would you support more "responsible" voting laws, that include an end to "loopholes" for Identity and validity checking, and would exclude any potential voter who cannot pass a "background check" of their "psychological conditions", or who express any desire of any kind to effect "the basic rights of others"?

    I'll remind you, almost every gun made is an "assault weapon" in being both semi-automatic, and having a capacity enough to kill, quickly, multiple individuals. To ban "assualt weapons", you'd have to ban almost every gun manufactured today.

    I'll remind you that someone willing to engage in mass murder (a crime) in a "gun-free zone" (a crime), is probably not going to blanche at aquiring an illegal gun or illegal ammo magazine.

    I'll remind you that ownership of a gun, any gun, is not an infringement of you (or my) rights. It only becomes so if the gun is used against you.

    I'll ask again, how many other rights are you willing to revoke in advance in the interests of the greater good and based on a statisticly insignifigant (but attention grabbing) event such as Conn.?

    Should we outlaw McDonalds? Vastly more die of poor health due to poor died than to mass murdering gun wielders.

    Should we enforce marshal law in places like D.C. and Chicago, revokign all rights, because those towns, despite the most stringent anti-gun laws, continue to have the highest homicide rates in America?

    I'm more than willing to compromise on things liek background checks, ammo magazine size limits, actual millitary hardware (not "millitary-STYLE").

    But I'm also well aware of how ineffective such feel-good ideas are in practice. And I'm well aware that the first wish of a power-hungry right-taking Government is to disarm it's population.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotReign View Post
    Oh please stop with the silly hyperbole and drama. As it stands TODAY what is the best deterrent/protection for a school? What is your proposal? There are cops in many high schools already serving as the school resource officer, using your silly logic are they jack booted government thugs?

    I don't think assigning a police officer in front of, or inside, a school is an unreasonable suggestion. Again what is your propsal to make them safer TODAY?
    We can't even fund enough teachers for school. We are broke we don't have the money for another layer of Jack Booted government thugs.

    I like the logic more big government means we need more fire power to protect us from the tyrany of more big government.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    We can't even fund enough teachers for school. We are broke we don't have the money for another layer of Jack Booted government thugs.

    I like the logic more big government means we need more fire power to protect us from the tyrany of more big government.
    The last thing we need is to assign uniformed police officers to stand guard at the nations 1million + schools. Most already have security guards, they could be trained and armed.

    Even better thought is to hire military veterans (assuming they pass a thorough psych eval) as security guards. Those guys are well trained already. It also solves the problem of unemployed military vets.

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Well, lets see how consistent you are.

    Would you support more "responsible" voting laws, that include an end to "loopholes" for Identity and validity checking, and would exclude any potential voter who cannot pass a "background check" of their "psychological conditions", or who express any desire of any kind to effect "the basic rights of others"?

    I'll remind you, almost every gun made is an "assault weapon" in being both semi-automatic, and having a capacity enough to kill, quickly, multiple individuals. To ban "assualt weapons", you'd have to ban almost every gun manufactured today.

    I'll remind you that someone willing to engage in mass murder (a crime) in a "gun-free zone" (a crime), is probably not going to blanche at aquiring an illegal gun or illegal ammo magazine.

    I'll remind you that ownership of a gun, any gun, is not an infringement of you (or my) rights. It only becomes so if the gun is used against you.

    I'll ask again, how many other rights are you willing to revoke in advance in the interests of the greater good and based on a statisticly insignifigant (but attention grabbing) event such as Conn.?

    Should we outlaw McDonalds? Vastly more die of poor health due to poor died than to mass murdering gun wielders.

    Should we enforce marshal law in places like D.C. and Chicago, revokign all rights, because those towns, despite the most stringent anti-gun laws, continue to have the highest homicide rates in America?

    I'm more than willing to compromise on things liek background checks, ammo magazine size limits, actual millitary hardware (not "millitary-STYLE").

    But I'm also well aware of how ineffective such feel-good ideas are in practice. And I'm well aware that the first wish of a power-hungry right-taking Government is to disarm it's population.
    I agree with you 100%, WF. Add an alcohol ban to our theoretical list.

  18. #338
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Even better thought is to hire military veterans (assuming they pass a thorough psych eval) as security guards. Those guys are well trained already. It also solves the problem of unemployed military vets.
    An idea I like very much, and while it does add to taxpayer cost, I think it's a very very good idea.

    A transition out of millitary life into public defense life at home.

    Two birds, one stone.

  19. #339
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    In this particular instance, the guy walked up to a locked up school front door attired in such a way - in all black, utility vest, etc - and carrying a weapon that cant really be concealed, and then busted in by shooting or breaking the glass, I would think a trained LEO would have a good chance at countering that.
    and that clearly is a possibility. I hadn't heard that . I thought he was "buzzed in" because he knew the principal etc...

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    and that clearly is a possibility. I hadn't heard that . I thought he was "buzzed in" because he knew the principal etc...
    No, Brooklyn is correct, that's what happened. Do you think he would have been as aggressive if a guard was there? Who knows?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us