Guns

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/texas-lawmakers-approve-bill-allowing-guns-on-campus.html?_r=0

What are peoples thoughts on this?

I think it's much ado about nothing:

In Utah, the presidents of the public colleges have no discretion to write concealed-handgun rules. At Southern Utah University in Cedar City, students and faculty can have concealed weapon just about anywhere on campus — in classrooms, dormitory buildings and at sporting events.

“It’s never been an issue,” said Rick Brown, the university’s chief of police.

 

[1241Penguin]

Recently, a few armed robbers attempted a home invasion in my local area. They reportedly carried a shotgun and an assault rifle of some sort. All the homeowner could do was slam his door shut and run to call 911. If I were in his situation, I would definitely have hoped to have a gun of my own to defend myself and my house. Thankfully no one was hurt in the end by some miracle.

 

[Rage Racer]

Ban all the guns and school massacres will stop, they said...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/europe/sweden-sword-attack/

 

[A2K78]

Ban all the guns and school massacres will stop, they said...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/europe/sweden-sword-attack/

Like I said, you can ban all the guns you want but people are going to find ways to do things. That said, perhaps it time to ban swords and knives.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Like I said, you can ban all the guns you want but people are going to find ways to do things. That said, perhaps it time to ban swords and knives.

Screw you man, I am a Samurai legend (in my mind) how dare you take my swords!!!

Nah seriously, diminishing returns I can almost hear the echo.

 

[Lucas]

Ban all the guns and school massacres will stop, they said...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/22/europe/sweden-sword-attack/

Yeah, let's ban knives, because as we all know, we never use them in our daily life...

 

[x3ra]

In an interview Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Chief Lanier (major advocate of gun control laws) was asked what should people do if they are in the vicinity of an active shooter like the those who carried out the recent terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

“Your options are run, hide or fight,” Chief Lanier said. “I always say if you can get out, getting out is your best option. If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...urges-public-take-out-active-gunmen-if-possib

How's that going to happen if no-one has guns?

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...urges-public-take-out-active-gunmen-if-possib

How's that going to happen if no-one has guns?

You're right, there'd be no gunman. Good spot.

 

[x3ra]

You're right, there'd be no gunman. Good spot.

Nice ripost.

Edit: "How's that going to happen if law-abiding citizens are not able to carry guns?"

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nice ripost.

Edit: "How's that going to happen if law-abiding citizens are not able to carry guns?"

It's not likely to be possible but is a fair request if possible. I seem to remember such a scenario on a French train not so long ago?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Like I said, you can ban all the guns you want but people are going to find ways to do things. That said, perhaps it time to ban swords and knives.

In Italy, you need the same kind of license you'd need to carry a gun with you for any double-edged blade. The law's not very clear on that regard - there are conditions which exempt you from the need for a license - but it's already there. That being said, obtaining such license is not as much of a PITA as you'd think.

Edit: "How's that going to happen if law-abiding citizens are not able to carry guns?"

"I always say if you can get out, getting out is your best option."

And I can tell you, if I were in that situation and I had with me a semiautomatic pistol, I wouldn't be too eager to go against three or four gunmen with automatic AKs in close quarters, in a crowded area. A CCWer could perhaps solve a single-shooter situation like the recent Colorado Springs shooting... But then again, Colorado's maybe one of the most gun-loving states in the US, and yet there was no law-abiding citizen neutralizing that threat.

 

[Rallywagon]

My feelings on this are a bit torn. I mean, the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution states a well regulated militia. As such, I do not agree that includes very body and their mother. Further, what other tool in recent history can cause as many accidental, let alone purposeful, deaths and injuries, and not be regulated? Typically, dangerous tools of a trade require some training and a license/cert.
Furthermore, I look at the Army as an example. Two too be quite honest. Well, actually, 3.
First is during basic. You go through at least a week of training on BRM and muzzle awareness before being given a weapon. Then you go through another week of training before going to range to fire for the first time.
Second. Never are you allowed to have your weapon loaded anywhere but on a range, when coming off the range, you clear your weapon. Never on post do you have it loaded. And then often it goes to the arms room. Seems the military has learned a lesson or two about how dumb people can unintentionally be.
Finally, Jihadi John isn't going to form up and march through your city. They are going to lay low, hidden in the crowd, as we've seen in London, NYC, and Boston. There is no clear enemy to see, to aim at.
Now I will admit that someone with a weapon may be able to dissipate a situation like Paris, with gun men shooting people up. But you won't know until someone is already mowing people down. Hopefully the good guy with the gun isn't one of those and has the fortitude to actually shoot, and has the skill to shoot their target under such circumstances, I have my doubts on that one. Lots of people with military training have problems with those last two.
Now it's got to be said. If terrorist attacks are the prime want (lets be honest, farmers and hunters with guns are not going to stop a real military force, even state militias wouldn't be able to stand against our Federal military) for guns, you are more likely to be killed by your own gun, than to be killed by a terrorist.
That said, I'm also not a fan of over zealous government interjection in our daily lives. And this is one of those things I think they should stay out of.
Ultimately, I don't blame the gun for killings. I blame people. More than that, I blame our societies. We (past and current) trivialize and make entertainment out of death. We write, read, pearch and sing the gospels of division and hatred. Using its words to justify bigotry and violence. Hell is was what we want, and its what we are getting. Can't blame the guns for that.

 

[Danoff]

My feelings on this are a bit torn. I mean, the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution states a well regulated militia. As such, I do not agree that includes very body and their mother.

Read the supreme court detail on the 2nd Amendment in DC vs. Heller. It's a right to self-defense.

Further, what other tool in recent history can cause as many accidental, let alone purposeful, deaths and injuries, and not be regulated?

Cars... less regulated than guns.

and has the skill to shoot their target under such circumstances

They don't have to hit the target. In most of these situations just slowing the guy down would save quite a few lives. Just the sound of shots fired back one time could save 2, maybe 3, maybe 10 lives.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just the sound of shots fired back one time could save 2, maybe 3, maybe 10 lives.

Maybe... but I think more likely not. If anything I think it's likely to increase a state of (presumably) already frenetic desperation.

What happens if Joe Public whips out his gun and starts shooting at the guy he thinks is the terrorist... but Joe Public is dark skinned with a beard and a backpack? I imagine that a few other Joe Publics would probably shoot him.

 

[LeMansAid]

Read the supreme court detail on the 2nd Amendment in DC vs. Heller. It's a right to self-defense.

It's more often presented for protection of liberty I thought. Which leads me to something I'm not understanding - the heavy focus on the US Constitution in regards to supporting the right to own guns.

I get that the right is an extension of the rights to life, liberty, and property - linked by the right to protect those things. I get that the militia part attaches specifically to the liberty part (generally, at least). What I struggle with is that if a person doesn't agree with the base reasoning, citing the Constitution as an attempt to convince is pretty much like saying "Cause the Bible Constitution says so". It has an "America - The Religion" dynamic written all over it to me.

It's of course not pointless that the boundaries are memorialised in the Constitution for the application of law and dealing with actual physical happenings, but it appears pointless to use the second amendment in a philosophical argument that aims to not be faith based.

 

[Exorcet]

Maybe... but I think more likely not. If anything I think it's likely to increase a state of (presumably) already frenetic desperation.

What happens if Joe Public whips out his gun and starts shooting at the guy he thinks is the terrorist... but Joe Public is dark skinned with a beard and a backpack? I imagine that a few other Joe Publics would probably shoot him.

If they're that trigger happy, they'd probably have focused on and shot the first guy already. In any case, what to do is situational. If you're carrying a weapon, you should think about how you're going to use it.

It's more often presented for protection of liberty I thought. Which leads me to something I'm not understanding - the heavy focus on the US Constitution in regards to supporting the right to own guns.

The reply was in response to the comment that the 2nd amendment is for militia and not individuals.

 

[LeMansAid]

The reply was in response to the comment that the 2nd amendment is for militia and not individuals.

Ah yes. Thanks. Though that comment was really just a segue to my main point.

 

[Exorcet]

Ah yes. Thanks. Though that comment was really just a segue to my main point.

I'm not quite seeing what prompted your comment is all. Is it a set of posts in the thread, attitudes seen elsewhere, etc?

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not quite seeing what prompted your comment is all. Is it a set of posts in the thread, attitudes seen elsewhere, etc?

I'd already been thinking about how there's a tendency for people to cite the second amendment when arguing gun rights - just in general. But regardless of how it came about, my comment is my comment. In a philosophical argument, the second amendment is nigh on useless, for anything other than a faith based approach.

 

[Exorcet]

I'd already been thinking about how there's a tendency for people to cite the second amendment when arguing gun rights - just in general. But regardless of how it came about, my comment is my comment. In a philosophical argument, the second amendment is nigh on useless, for anything other than a faith based approach.

I don't really disagree, the Constitution takes a back seat to rights. No argument should boil down to "because Constitution ", but someone somewhere is probably going to use that argument. The same can be said on a number of topics though.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't really disagree, the Constitution takes a back seat to rights. No argument should boil down to "because Constitution ", but someone somewhere is probably going to use that argument. The same can be said on a number of topics though.

Maybe I have an overblown sense of it's prevalence. Not sure.

 

[Michael88]

The European Union wants to put through a nation-wide ban for all semi-automatic weapons to counter terrorism.

Which includes semi-automatic shotguns, semi automatic rifles (also small caliber ones) and pistols.
From the looks of it the law is very likely to pass.

The official statement is, in a nutshell, those weapons were used in the latest terror attacks in Paris and in order to increase safety weapons of this kind need to be banned from civil ownership.

Which is not true at all, fully-automatic rifles have been used in the attacks which can not be obtained and owned legally in the EU. The weapons used in the Paris terror attacks were stolen from a Bulgarian military weapons depot, which is fact.

Its disgusting that politicians use the latest terror attacks to ban weapons for civilians in the name of safety. They make blatant lies and use the dead for their own evil agendas.

Banning those weapons will neither stop nor counter terrorism in any way, if you possess the ability of the most basic logical thinking you'll come to the same conclusion.

 

[N0t_L3fty]

First of all if a politicians lips are moving, they are a liar. It's their stock in trade. Fully automatic weapons are very expensive to obtain within the legal bounds. Crazy people don't care about laws, those inclined to kill folks don't care about laws. More laws only restrict the people that will already obey the law. I have owned guns for years, not one of them as has every shot at any one, the tool isn't the problem. The people that were confined to the state mental hospitals are now out wondering around on the streets. Inner city gang bangers don't care about your laws. Nut balls don't care either, I'm just glad I don't live in one of those anthills. There are benefits from living in flyover country...

 

[ClydeYellow]

The European Union wants to put through a nation-wide ban for all semi-automatic weapons to counter terrorism.

Source? Oh, keep in mind that the European Union can't put in place a nation-wide ban, regardless of intention.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The European Union wants to put through a nation-wide ban for all semi-automatic weapons to counter terrorism.

That sentence makes no sense, they're not a nation and national law supercedes EU directives if a nation sees fit.

The official statement is, in a nutshell, those weapons were used in the latest terror attacks in Paris and in order to increase safety weapons of this kind need to be banned from civil ownership.

No it isn't.

Which is not true at all, fully-automatic rifles have been used in the attacks which can not be obtained and owned legally in the EU. The weapons used in the Paris terror attacks were stolen from a Bulgarian military weapons depot, which is fact.

Source required.

Its disgusting that politicians use the latest terror attacks to ban weapons for civilians in the name of safety. They make blatant lies and use the dead for their own evil agendas.

That's the gun lobby too, right? Incidentally; using the Austrian flag and having 88 in your username... should that tell us something or would that be a wild generalisation?

Banning those weapons will neither stop nor counter terrorism in any way, if you possess the ability of the most basic logical thinking you'll come to the same conclusion.

You don't speak for me but thanks for trying. It's noted.

Source? Oh, keep in mind that the European Union can't put in place a nation-wide ban, regardless of intention.

I think it's this directive although he does seem a little light on the actual facts therein. I'd hate to suggest a challenge to his ability "of the most basic logical thinking" as that would just be rude.

 

[ClydeYellow]

I think it's this directive although he does seem a little light on the actual facts therein. I'd hate to suggest a challenge to his ability "of the most basic logical thinking" as that would just be rude.

Yeah, the directive (which isn't exactly hot news anymore) actually concerns only a limited category of weapons (basically, automatic firearms that have been deactivated or modified to only work as semi-automatics and can thus be easily converted into automatic weapons again - or, in other words, ex-ordnance Kalashnikovs and such).

So my request for him to actually substantiate that claim is a bit of a rethoric question - does he have a source for his spurious interpretation that isn't the usual right-wing EHRMAGHERD GUNZZZ website? Of course not.

That's the gun lobby too, right? Incidentally; using the Austrian flag and having 88 in your username... should that tell us something or would that be a wild generalisation?

Ah, how could I miss that?

 

[Danoff]

Maybe... but I think more likely not. If anything I think it's likely to increase a state of (presumably) already frenetic desperation.

What happens if Joe Public whips out his gun and starts shooting at the guy he thinks is the terrorist... but Joe Public is dark skinned with a beard and a backpack? I imagine that a few other Joe Publics would probably shoot him.

Your imagination is not particularly well tuned for identifying what would or would not happen in this kind of situation. I don't think you should rely on it. Your level of expertise is probably zero when it comes to being shot at. Rely instead on what we know.

We know that shots fired back will likely result in slowing, if not ducking for cover, from the person or persons attacking. Maybe not much, but it could easily be enough to save lives.

 

[Michael88]

national law supercedes EU directives if a nation sees fit.

Wiki: Depending on the constitutional tradition of member states, different solutions have been developed to adapt questions of incompatibility between national law and EU law to one another. Union law is accepted as having supremacy over the law of member states, but not all member states share the ECJ's analysis of why EU law takes precedence over national law when there is a conflict.

That's the gun lobby too, right? Incidentally; using the Austrian flag and having 88 in your username... should that tell us something or would that be a wild generalisation?

Gun lobby? In Europe? Thank you for making me smile.
The ''gun lobbies'', if you can call them that, in Europe are so divided any coordinated defense against such attack against civil gun ownership is laughable at best. I'm a long time member of my countries gun lobby and I have to admit that it can't put much of a fight. It does not have the political connections like the NRA.
This might explain why all the latest, drastic laws were passed so easily. Even the ridiculous laws regarding non-firing decoration weapons.

And no, gun lobbies around here don't blatantly and tastelessly use terror attacks and the fear and confusion of the people for their own agendas. If they did there would be one hell of a crapstorm as gun owners are already branded as dangerous right-wingers and every single word is being carefully weighed so to speak. Not to mention its a bad comparison in this case, the arguments of our gun lobbies make actual sense, most of the time.

That's the gun lobby too, right? Incidentally; using the Austrian flag and having 88 in your username... should that tell us something or would that be a wild generalisation?

Of course its should tell you something, it wouldn't be in my nickname if it didn't mean anything! Its my year of birth!
Your name is 10-80-1? Hm, according to the police scanner code it means 'Explosion 1'' Coincidence? Making causal links is my favorite pastime.

As for the guns being stolen from a military depot, my bad, they were built in Bulgaria in the mid 80's as military weapon, then probably shipped to conflict areas and then the guns somehow found their way into the hands of the terrorists. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/4617-kalashnikovs-used-in-paris-terror-attacks-were-made-in-bulgaria

You do know that such weapons cannot be legally bought anywhere in the EU, right? Neither can be grenades, which brings me back to my original point of that the current idea of banning legally available semi-automatic guns makes no sense in the context of safety and prevention of terror attacks.

 

[NLxAROSA]

We know that shots fired back will likely result in slowing, if not ducking for cover, from the person or persons attacking. Maybe not much, but it could easily be enough to save lives.

We also know that additional shots fired will likely result in additional casualties. But neither are facts without proper statistics to back them up.

Still, I believe the whole gun problem is only symptomatic. It's a catalyst/accelerator on top of a different problem rooted deep into the psyche of American culture.

 

[Danoff]

We also know that additional shots fired will likely result in additional casualties.

What? Why? Let's take a hypothetical....

A guy busts into a movie theater with body armor and lots of ammo and starts mowing people down. One person in the movie theater shoots at the ceiling while crouched behind a seat. Is that:

A) Likely to result in additional casualties

or

B) Likely to reduce casualties

or

C) Likely to have no effect on casualties

The answer is B, likely to reduce casualties. Why? Because there is a very very low chance that the shooter doesn't slow or stop to figure out where that shot came from and whether or not he's in danger. By causing him to look for the source of the shot, someone just slipped out of the back of the theater, that someone didn't get shot because the attacker was distracted.

Look, this is not rocket science. If someone is bent on shooting up a barrel of innocent people, slowing him down, even for 3 seconds, even for 1 second, could save someone's life.