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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?...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, 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.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.
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.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."
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.
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.
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?
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 01:29 PM. Reason: spelling
Doesnt mean it isn't the right move. Just sayin.
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.
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.