ATLANTA — Pro- and anti-gun forces do not agree on much, but they do agree on the breathtaking sweep of the Georgia legislation allowing guns in bars, schools, restaurants, churches and airports that is now awaiting the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal.
Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, calls it “the most extreme gun bill in America” and the “guns everywhere” legislation. The National Rifle Association, which lobbied for the bill, calls it “the most comprehensive pro-gun” bill in recent state history, and described the vote at the Capitol on Thursday as “a historic victory for the Second Amendment.”
More than a year after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut elicited a burst of gun-control legislation, the Georgia bill shows just how far the counterreaction has spread as lawmakers, mainly in Republican-controlled states in the South and West, pass laws allowing weapons in all corners of society while strengthening so-called Stand Your Ground laws.
Critics say the victories may come at a price as pro-gun legislation pushes up against the limits of public opinion.
“I do think they’ve overreached,” said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Georgia bill, she said, is “so extreme and people do have such a strong reaction to it. I don’t think over all it’s a victory for them.”
The bill was opposed not only by gun-control groups, but also by the state’s police chiefs association and restaurant association, Episcopal and Catholic churches, and the federal Transportation Security Administration. A majority of Georgians also opposed it, according to several polls.
Mr. Deal, a Republican, who is expected to sign the bill, is up for re-election this year, but there is no sign of a political backlash against him or anyone who voted for the legislation. The governor’s Democratic opponent, State Senator Jason Carter, President Jimmy Carter’s grandson, also voted for the bill.
“I don’t think it will backfire,” said Jerry Henry, director of Georgia Carry, one of the main local groups that promoted the bill. “You can bet those politicians who voted for it knew what their constituents wanted.”
What they wanted, in this case, would be a veritable gun-lobby shopping list.
The bill allows people with a weapons permit to carry loaded guns into bars, as long as they do not consume alcohol — although the bill does not say how that caveat would be enforced.
It allows guns in public areas of airports and eliminates criminal charges for permit holders caught with guns at airport security. It authorizes school districts to appoint staff members to carry guns at schools, ostensibly to defend students in case of an attack.
It allows felons to claim the Stand Your Ground defense — in which someone who “reasonably believes” his life is in danger has no duty to walk away and may instead shoot to kill. And that is just the beginning.
Georgia lawmakers backed off a provision allowing guns on college campuses and weakened the section allowing guns in churches, permitting them only if a church expressly decides to do so. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll in January found that more than 70 percent of voters opposed both measures. The poll did not ask about guns in bars, but polls in other states have found 70 percent or more of the public opposed the idea.
Many bar owners said they were taken by surprise.
“I don’t have any problems with people owning guns, but I do have a problem with guns and alcohol,” said Melissa Swanson, owner of the Rail Pub in downtown Savannah. “Everybody could be in here having a good time, but all you need is one bad drunk with a gun and it could be a bad situation.”
Backers of the bill say the aim is not to flood bars with guns.
“This is a private property issue,” said State Representative Rick Jasperse, the bill’s original sponsor. “We’re not going to decide what goes on inside a bar. Let the bar owner decide.”
While the Georgia legislation is notable for its breadth, many of its provisions have been promoted by the National Rifle Association for several years and have cropped up separately in other states.
In the past year alone, 21 states have passed laws expanding the rights of gun owners, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Three allow guns in churches, two allow them on college campuses, four in bars and eight in schools.
Some states have become so eager to be seen as gun-friendly that there are few limits on matters deemed worthy of legislative attention.
The so-called Pop-Tart Bill, which the Florida House passed last week and is under consideration in Oklahoma, would shield schoolchildren from being punished for making a gun out of a breakfast pastry. The Second Amendment threat the bill seeks to remedy was that of a Maryland second grader who was sent home from school last year after biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.
If the new frontiers prove unpopular, the gun lobby may be a victim of its success. Every state now allows people to carry guns in some public places, 42 allow assault rifles and no major federal gun control laws have been passed since 1994. So gun-rights groups have focused on carving out niches to expand where one can legally carry a gun.
There was a flurry of gun-control legislation after 26 children and educators were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., by a well-armed, mentally disturbed 20-year-old. But in the 12 months immediately afterward, states passed 39 laws to tighten gun restrictions and 70 to loosen them.
On Thursday, the day the Georgia bill was passed, a fight broke out in a gray, windowless shack called Milo’s Bar in Marietta, an Atlanta suburb. As the brawl spilled into the parking lot, at least three guns were drawn. Shots were fired, and a bystander was wounded.
It is not clear whether the new law would have changed anything. Milo’s already had “No Weapons” signs posted. Anyone there with a gun was already violating existing law as well as the bar’s policy.
Correction: March 26, 2014
An article on Tuesday about passage of legislation in Georgia that would ease restrictions on guns misstated in some editions the name of a federal agency opposed to the measure. It is the Transportation Security Administration, not the Transportation Safety Authority.
It's not that silly. Other states allow things that the Georgia bill allows. Ohio allows guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol as long as the business isn't posted with a no gun sign and the person doesn't consume alcohol. People protested before the law was past. Unsurprisingly, their predictions were wrong and it didn't turn into the wild west.
Basically every time a state expands the locations were licensed concealed-carry holders are allowed to carry, every anti-gun person comes out of the woodwork to proclaim how their state is going to turn into the wild west because of it, and every time they've been wrong.
It's mostly the government building and airport parts. I heard this one mayor saying that it would cost the town an extra $60,000 to get security guard(s?) so they could prohibit guns in the buildings. And guns are not allowed in airports and government buildings for a pretty big reason.
But in the 12 months immediately afterward, states passed 39 laws to tighten gun restrictions and 70 to loosen them.
Maybe now we can drop pretending that the government wants to steal all the guns?
I imagine like most things, it'll all be fine till someone does something stupid. What exactly is the relationship between the TSA and local laws at airports? I thought it was what the TSA said goes. The article says it blocks the filing of charges for violations, but can't the TSA still throw you out of the airport?
Also lol at silliness mixing up NHTSA with TSA. Talk about a proof reading failure.
It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs + CCW, despite them technically serving beer.
actual pubs/bars will already have a weapons ban (no knives, clubs, guns) and are still allowed to ban anything they dont want on their private property.
The net effect being that now owners of resteraunts that just happen to serve beer dont HAVE to refuse service to people with CCW or OC, due to it being illegal for them to basically be in the same building as a beer.
they are also welcome to have a no weapons sign as most bars do.
Hordini wrote: It's not that silly. Other states allow things that the Georgia bill allows. Ohio allows guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol as long as the business isn't posted with a no gun sign and the person doesn't consume alcohol. People protested before the law was past. Unsurprisingly, their predictions were wrong and it didn't turn into the wild west.
Basically every time a state expands the locations were licensed concealed-carry holders are allowed to carry, every anti-gun person comes out of the woodwork to proclaim how their state is going to turn into the wild west because of it, and every time they've been wrong.
Light weights. In Texas not only do we allow guns, but we pass out bullets at communion.
How else are we going to maintain the Austin Quarantine Zone against the Walkers er Californians? Every day, thousands of them try to breach the wall, a mindless horde. The slow ones, the "romeros" are no big thing. but the fast ones, when they break out, they can make it clear to Giddings or San Antonio, threatening to infect hundreds before they are rounded up.
The horror.
The horror.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: It makes sense because now you CAN legally walk into a dennys and have bacon and eggs
Now I'm hungry.
Oh wait I just realized this is from the NYT. Its a twofer for them. Push their pet cause and slam Southerners at the same time.
Only if you believe that Democrats wouldn't have turned it the other way.
A democrat voted for the legislation in the OP.
This happens every time there's a gun scare; some people say we should tigthen gun controls. Everyone gets crazy and buys up all the bullets in town. When the dust settles it turns out that gun laws have actually gotten loser not stricter. This is the third time in a row this has happened. The only time it went the other way in the last 30 years was when a Republican president got shot.
So say an airport one with a weapon cannot go beyond the "Search, Frisk, Xray" point with a weapon into the Gate area. Atlanta International Airport for the past ten or twelve years had a serious flow of Assault weapons, crew serve weapons and side arms go through with no incident
Alcohol and weapons are a bad combo but now pretty much Owner enforced
Teacher now can stop an active shooter if LEO do not mistake him/her as the shooter when they roll up
PA allows carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Even if you have a problem with people drinking while carrying, it's hard to make a case against someone who is DD'ing (and not drinking) carrying to, from, and in those locations.
On the subject of alcohol and guns...stupid people will do stupid things with or without alcohol. I've carried my gun in bars, while drinking, literally hundreds of times and never had a problem. Idiots are the problem, not drinking and not guns.
Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
What?
You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.
Occupational hazard, same for Irish bars. In order to converse with their equals an Irishman is forced to talk to God. Sometimes God's a little crotchety.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
What?
You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.
There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.
Occupational hazard, same for Irish bars. In order to converse with their equals an Irishman is forced to talk to God. Sometimes God's a little crotchety.
Well, old people get crotchety. People were created in God's image. God is older than all people.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Churches are usually too busy defending themselves from God's wrath most of the time. They get struck by lightning amusingly often.
The joys of generally being the tallest building combined with lightning rods to conduct the charge
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
What?
You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.
There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?
You're not being especially coherent but I'll try to respond.
The logic is probably this:
*Public schools are government buildings. They have the same limits as other state govnerment buildings.
*Lots of shooting have occurred in schools.
Churches are private.
In Texas historically it was the opposite. Schools did not have CHl permission. Churches were private and could post but it was permitted otherwise. The school part may have changed slightly. I'm a bit behind the times on that aspect. Now the wife and I obey all laws, but she's from Chicago so that concept is more flexible for some people then others.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
What?
You do know there've been quite a few shootings at churches right, which kind of makes you look like a "poopeyhead" for your statement above.
There have been quite a few shootings at schools as well, however the proposed laws above have guns being put into schools, and special protections for churches which don't want guns... so... what makes churches so special they are protected under law from allowing armed people onto the premises but schools are a free fire zone?
Schools are free fire zones because they are "gun free zones." An active shooter is almost guaranteed to face no initial armed opposition, because law-abiding citizens aren't currently allowed to carry there, in most states.
In some states, churches can choose to allow concealed carry or not (and in a few states schools have the option as well).
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
ummm, one, thats insulting to religious people, most dont think about it like that, but I am noticing a religion bashing trend with you.
second, the "mythical god" protecting people in churches sounds a lot like how gun laws or gun free zones are supposed to protect people after the lead starts flying.
three: seriously, tone it down a bit, Im as much an aetheist as the next guy, and you wouldnt bash other groups such as gays or the handi capped as you do the religious, so dont do it.
If you have nothing positive to say, dont say anything at all.
And schools are not "free fire zones" they were traditionally "gun free zones", equating them to "sitting duck targets here, no one will even try to stop you for 10-15+minutes."
This happens every time there's a gun scare; some people say we should tigthen gun controls. Everyone gets crazy and buys up all the bullets in town. When the dust settles it turns out that gun laws have actually gotten loser not stricter. This is the third time in a row this has happened. The only time it went the other way in the last 30 years was when a Republican president got shot.
At the state level, that's at least somewhat true. I don't think anyone's claiming that all state governments want to get rid of guns. The guy running the federal government certainly does, however, and some states have in fact passed much stricter legislation - the idiocy in New York and Connecticut spring easily to mind.
I can pass 30 laws tightening gun control in some states and 70 laws loosening it in others. Telling the people in the states where I tightened the laws that they're just imagining things would not be accurate.
I could also, for what it's worth, pass one law tightening gun control in 30 states, and 35 laws loosening it in two, and still get the, "You're being hysterical!" statistics.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Traditionally, crimes against churches and clergy were more heavily sentenced for, and in many parts of the modern world, still are. We still have specific laws against theft and destruction of clergical property here in Canada.
In Iowa, at least, you are allowed to carry concealed in places that serve alcohol and even drink, but your CCW is invalid if and while you are intoxicated. I myself have never drunk a drop of liquor while armed, it seems like a pretty stupid idea. Nonetheless I like this because I sometimes go to a bar nearby to get pretzels with hot cheese, they're really good. I am not a real big drinker anyway.
SilverMK2 wrote: Why do churches get special protection from people carrying guns? Is their god not strong enough to protect the people there if someone decides a voice suddenly answers their prayers and tells them to gun down everyone at the pews?
Look, you got a hard time over this comment, but I like the cut of your jib.
Our church has people carrying, off-duty and on-duty cops present in various areas of the building, we have a panic button system that locks down the entire area where our day care is located to prevent an active shooter from entering the area and there are always two cops present in that area as well.
Seaward wrote: The guy running the federal government certainly does
I'm talking about the 'goverment's gonna ban guns' hysteria which has never made any sense*. That the Federal government has allowed it's own gun controls have overall loosened in the last ten years is just a fact that people seem happy to ignore to maintain their fiction. The Supreme Court especially has made big expansions to 2nd Amendment rights. The executive actions by Obama are like drops in a bucket of water that achieve next to nothing to tighten controls in comparison.
As to the democrat bit, I'm speaking to the irony that people always hold Republicans up as the champions of gun rights. Sure, Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, but the Brady Bill was a reaction to the shooting of a Republican and was passed by a Republican controlled congress. The Assault Weapons Ban started as an executive order by Bush Senior and was pushed by the same congress as the Brady Bill (ironically further the same Congress that is today famous for deregulating certain other things). Both bills further received written support from Ronald Regan and Gerald Ford. had Bush senior been reelected you can bet he'd have signed them into law since both were pushed by him while he was in office.
The Republicans have a larger footprint in pushing gun control legislation than the Democrats at the Federal level of government.
*And we can blame our favorite federal agency, the ATF, for starting that hysteria. Thanks ATF.
Ouze wrote: Well, we have an industry to support. People won't panic buy AR-15s just for no reason.
I often think that gun sellers must feel a little guilty. Every time there's a school shooting they make bank. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place
We are talking about the same guys that decided "Obama is going to take our ammo away", so they run to the store, buy every box they can get their hands on, then look at the empty shelves while screaming "look at those empty shelves, they took our ammo!"
There are 50 million households with guns in the US. If every household buys a single box of ammo a year that would be one billion and two hundred fifty million rounds of ammo purchased a year. And that is only if we buy one single box of 25 bullets each.
5 million being purchased by the government doesn't even register on the market.
Still, derpers gonna derp. Probably whispering under their breath that the NRA is full of libs who are just lying to cover for Hussein Fartbongo; while waiting on the loading dock at Walmart to once again buy all the .40 S&W that got delivered that day.
I don't really see a problem with the law opening up to allow guns in bars and restaurants and the like. I mean, if you're going to have concealed carry laws it only makes sense for them to be permitted in the regular places that people frequent. Airports are a little weird, of course, but I guess it's just for the people waiting around to pick up or drop someone off.
But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.
sebster wrote: But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.
I agree.
As a gun owner, I have never felt the need to be armed at all times. There is a group of people from the Virginia Citizens Defense League that frequent a diner that I also patronize for breakfast with the family on weekends that I am off. They are proponents of open carrying (which is perfectly fine) but I personally don't see the need to carry a handgun and three extra magazines on my belt while I enjoy my french toast, especially openly.
sebster wrote: But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.
I agree.
As a gun owner, I have never felt the need to be armed at all times. There is a group of people from the Virginia Citizens Defense League that frequent a diner that I also patronize for breakfast with the family on weekends that I am off. They are proponents of open carrying (which is perfectly fine) but I personally don't see the need to carry a handgun and three extra magazines on my belt while I enjoy my french toast, especially openly.
Agree with both of you.
I've said this before, but when I was in America a while back, I visited some little towns/villages in the middle of nowhere and people were carrying guns (which was a shock to me being from the UK) but what got me was the sense that there was a fear gnawing away at people. These were pretty safe places (to me at least) but people I spoke to were always expecting something to happen. After a few days, I started getting a bit jittery as well, like I was expecting zombies, skynet, or aliens to make their move!
In Iowa, the requirements to get a permit to acquire handguns is good for a year and is $14, the permit to carry (which includes all the rights of acquiring) is good for 5 years and costs $40, So, I got the CCW. The option to carry is nice but I rarely actually do so.
Open Carry is for fools, in my opinion. Not only is it totally needlessly provocative, if the gak actually goes down, you're getting blasted first.
sebster wrote: I don't really see a problem with the law opening up to allow guns in bars and restaurants and the like. I mean, if you're going to have concealed carry laws it only makes sense for them to be permitted in the regular places that people frequent.
Its quite common. Typically the rule is you can go there but all laws apply to you. Texas drills into candidates that if you drink and carry your pretty much presumed to have broken the law (they hammer it so much its never been tested in court - CHLer's have the lowest crime rates of any US population outside of nuns and I am not joking).
Texas has an additional factor I like, the "51" sign. Businesses that make over 50% of their sales in open container alcohol have to put up a very specific sign. These signs are effective notice and CHLers may not enter while armed. This does not include liquor stores or groceries. I'm very fine with that.
Airports are a little weird, of course, but I guess it's just for the people waiting around to pick up or drop someone off.
Its the non federal area. Its also designed so you don't get arrested in the parking lot.
But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time.
*Why not? You can get killed any where. This was especialy drilled into us when we had (have?) the stalker situation. Everyone forgets statistically a third (and growing) of CHLers are women, and all that macho crap goes out the women with them. Its purely protection.
It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.
*For the record, Rodney the wiener dog resents this remark. He views himself as a "carryable companion" and that he's not small or fat, he's just retaining water.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Open Carry is for fools, in my opinion. Not only is it totally needlessly provocative, if the gak actually goes down, you're getting blasted first.
Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.
Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.
Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Churches are private.
But why do they need special protections,
***Because they are private, and there have been quite a few shootings there.
and why do private schools not get the same protections?
***Do you meann no guns? Thats not a protection.
What about religiously affiliated schools not directly associated with a church?
Thats location specific. In Texas IIRC those still count as schools. Again there has been some recent legislation changes and this may have changed. There has been a push here to permit CHLs in schools and arm certain school personnel. Considering the crap they teach about "shelter in place" they need to.
Frazzled wrote: Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.
Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.
Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.
Well, yes, I supposed I should have qualified my remarks a little. Open carrying in an urban situation is for fools; I'm talking about those guys in all camo at Walmart strutting about with a pistol and mag holders on their hips; like they are just back from the front to get some skoal and jerky and head back out. I also feel the same about people who go to political speeches with their AR15s, as happened during the presidential election. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
It's a little different then people wearing a sidearm where you might presumably run into a bear or something like that, or kids with rifles, or even just being near the border, as you say.
Frazzled wrote: Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.
Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.
Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.
Well, yes, I supposed I should have qualified my remarks a little. Open carrying in an urban situation is for fools; I'm talking about those guys in all camo at Walmart strutting about with a pistol and mag holders on their hips; like they are just back from the front to get some skoal and jerky and head back out. I also feel the same about people who go to political speeches with their AR15s, as happened during the presidential election. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
It's a little different then people wearing a sidearm where you might presumably run into a bear or something like that, or kids with rifles, or even just being near the border, as you say.
Pardon the pun but I got into a major gun battle with an OCer on the topic of bringing an AR into a Home Depot. My position was that that constituted a legally defensible "reasonable threat" and could legally shot by a CHLer. There was 'heated disagreement.' between the two of us.
In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.
I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.
I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.
I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.
I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.
I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.
I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.
Agreed.
As an OC state, do you actually see people OCing pistols in an urban environment?
d-usa wrote: I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.
I do get the point about not wanting to draw attention to yourself. Especially as some people treat anyone with a gun as a criminal/potential shooter, and I'm sure having to explain your innocent intentions to the police is not a fun venture. If I recall I do not think that OC has been a factor in (m)any shootings/violent attacks. But again that may be because most active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones.
d-usa wrote: I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.
As someone who goes to the range but does not own a firearm my opinion may be somewhat moot. Purely hypothetically there would be a lot of factors at play for me to consider getting involved - potential to wound bystanders, whether my wife is with me, number of perpetrators, behavior of perpetrators, available cover and concealment, etc.
d-usa wrote: I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.
If I see open carry I try and see if I recognize the firearm
As an OC state, do you actually see people OCing pistols in an urban environment?
I see some, but it appears to have died down a bit. Everybody was OCing because they could for a while, but now it has become less frequent. I'm used to guns, so I may also notice it less because it wouldn't be that unusual for me to see.
d-usa wrote: I'm not a fan of everyday OC because of loosing the element of surprise, but I carry open when hiking and visiting back country. Damn snakes...
I are disappoint.
A real man uses his bare hands to kill snakes, then puts their heads on his belt
So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine
- Aurora
- Sandy Hook
- Tucson
- Navy Yard Shooter
- Fort Hood twice
Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones
"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.
There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.
In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.
This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.
Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois' gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.
And your second link "This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control.". Which should not be surprising as two of the first links are Mother Jones, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Fact of the matter, it's not nor ever been an end-all-be-all shield. Mass shooters have their reasons and we'll never really know exactly what they're thinking.
It may be true that if "gun free zones" never had existed in the first place, the outcome wouldn't have change.
But I think it's reasonable to say that advertisinga location that is supposedly gun-free is the crux of the argument. Why do that?
Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response.
Aurora shooter picked a theater full of people in a theater expressly prohibiting firearms.
Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.
Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response.
Aurora shooter picked a theater full of people in a theater expressly prohibiting firearms.
Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.
And just because a shooting happens at a gun-free zone doesn't mean that the shooting happened there because it was a gun free zone, unless you want to argue that any bullet that struck somebody from the opposite race means that the shooter is racist.
d-usa wrote: And just because a shooting happens at a gun-free zone doesn't mean that the shooting happened there because it was a gun free zone, unless you want to argue that any bullet that struck somebody from the opposite race means that the shooter is racist.
I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.
EDIT: There were people shooting malls and schools up before 'gun free zone' was even a phrase.
LordofHats wrote: I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.
EDIT: There were people shooting malls and schools up before 'gun free zone' was even a phrase.
So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine Was targeted because the kids were in that school and the school contained all the people they wanted to kill.
- AuroraHe was impersonating the Joker and there is really no evidence that the theater was targeted for any other reason than the whole Joker connection
- Sandy Hook They are not really sure why he targeted there, although it appears that it may have been a copycat attack of Columbine.
- Tucson Not a gun-free zone as far as I can recall
- Navy Yard Shooter Looks more like a general workplace violence event than a "I'm going to shoot them because they don't have guns there" event.
- Fort Hood twice 2nd one is still under investigation. 1st one appears to be related more to the fact that his "enemies" were there and not because of lack of weapons.
There really is no evidence that they were targeted because of being gun-free zones, or that the gun-free status even came into consideration.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones
Are we doing the former? Because if we do, it sure sounds like you're admitting you were in error when you asserted that most active shooters select gun free zones. Are you? It's a common trope, but it's wrong.
So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine
(snip)
- Navy Yard Shooter
I'm snipping part of that because I have to go to bed and have limited time to research this, but in both the Columbine shooting and the Naval Yard, there were armed law enforcement on the scene right away, in the Columbine case, the armed safety officer, and at the Naval Yard, an armed security guard and former state trooper who was killed and his gun taken. So, not exactly "gun free zones" to begin with. Also, while we're dispensing of things, at least 2 prominent cases where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" was utter nonsense, huh?
Frazzled wrote: Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response. .
Oh, yeah? He looked up the closest gun free zone, and that was it, so that's why? It had nothing to do with the fact he worked there? And of course, like the other wrong-ass examples above, Fort Hood was not actually gun-free. There was, of course, armed base security, who responded almost immediately; and she got shot up and he continued his rampage. So again, the good guy with a gun trope is nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I don't think a gun free zone really does much to prevent mass shootings, but claiming that shooters shoot up a school because its a gun free zone, rather than because they have serious emotional issues about the place, is the kind of silliness that annoys me in the gun debate.
Yes. Gun free zones do precisely jack gak to help prevent these sorts of things, and abolishing them will also do precisely jack gak. It's a red herring.
What will prevent them? Hell if I know. The country is awash in guns and there is no political capital or popular desire to change that and even if we did we'd just switch to mass stabbings. Better mental health outreach might be a little more possible to accomplish, but in my opinion we're sort of good with the fact we have these semi-monthly bloodbaths and will do nothing to change it because we don't really care enough.
A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.
Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.
SilverMK2 wrote: A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.
Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.
Nonsense. Gun free zones are areas where firearms are prohibited. Thats all it requires.
The country is awash in guns and there is no political capital or popular desire to change that and even if we did we'd just switch to mass stabbings.
I'd like to think our spree killers would adopt some style. China knows how to have a good spree killing. Their spree killers just take some gasoline out and lite a bus on fire with them and every other passanger inside.
SilverMK2 wrote: A gun free zone next door to a gun ok zone is not a gun free zone unless you police the boundary to prevent guns being taken into the gun free zone.
Aside from places like airports I can't think of too many places in america which would count as gun free zones where the boundary is protected to prevent the entrance of guns.
Nonsense. Gun free zones are areas where firearms are prohibited. Thats all it requires.
Sure, however you are willfully missing the point. As with any law or protection, it is only as good as the level of enforcement you give it. If you have a 'gun free zone' where no protections are in place to prevent guns being taken into that area, you may as well not have a gun free zone other than to retroactively apply additional penalties to someone who takes a gun into that zone and is found out.
The true value of gun free zones lies in the backing of law when actually enforcing gun free policies. You may have the "right" to carry a gun and have the appropriate permits but in a gun free zone you are not legally able to carry said weapon and that gives strength to the enforcement of maintaining gun free zones.
Frazzled wrote: Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.
There is quite a gap between gun control and banning guns entirely... and as has been mentioned in this and pretty much any other thread dealing with the topic there is almost zero political will to actually ban guns and take them out of circulation.
However, this is diverging from the op slightly.
The point remains that thus proposal would appear to strip the gun free status of schools (and other places) under the law (but apparently not churches unless they elect to allow guns) while still not actually doing anything to protect people who are in/at/using said places fron gun crime.
Again, the point being that proper enforcement of current laws would give significantly greater protection than allow anyone to go wherever they want while packing heat.
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, maybe not, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well.
*BLAM!*
"Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."
whembly wrote: Do more research... that's not the original intent.
Then you were taught history incorrectly. The Bill of Rights was pushed by anti-Federalists because of specific concerns they had about a Federal government. One was that a national army would be built and used to suppress the states (in a time when the States were viewed as being far more important, and as separate countries from one another) and they felt the need to put into the Consitution law of the land that the states could protect themselves from a tyranical Federal government that might use its own army to subjugate the states. <- Which is pretty much what happened in 1865, so good call Anti-Federalists.
None of the Federalists wanted that either of course, they just put it in writing to appease their opponents.
Paranoia of government. An American tradition since 1776
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear.
You're talking to the guy who regularly mentions that the Founding Father's couldn't possibly have imagined the modern world and that their 'original intent' is about as meaningful to us as poop on the side of the road
That is why they wrote the document to be flexible, but also to last. Just because the world is different doesn't mean we can just ignore their original intent. Otherwise there would be no point in a fixed set of laws ever, just draw up a new set every ten years or so.
whembly wrote: Do more research... that's not the original intent.
Then you were taught history incorrectly. The Bill of Rights was pushed by anti-Federalists because of specific concerns they had about a Federal government. One was that a national army would be built and used to suppress the states (in a time when the States were viewed as being far more important, and as separate countries from one another) and they felt the need to put into the Consitution law of the land that the states could protect themselves from a tyranical Federal government that might use its own army to subjugate the states.
None of the Federalists wanted that either of course, they just put it in writing to appease their opponents.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Who are the militia's? For all practical purposes, the entire citizenry that has come of age and is not disqualified.
That is the explicit intent of the phrase was simply barring all federal government interference, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shallnotbeinfringed.”
The times of the founders do tend to be plain spoken at times.
Grey Templar wrote: That is why they wrote the document to be flexible, but also to last. Just because the world is different doesn't mean we can just ignore their original intent. Otherwise there would be no point in a fixed set of laws ever, just draw up a new set every ten years or so.
That path leads to madness.
Most countries get by just fine with far less frigid legal framworks than the US Constitution, not that I'm arguing against the Constitution right now, just saying that adhering stricting to the intent of the Founders is never something we've really done and we're not any worse off for it..
Think the average time RoF back in those days was three rounds a min and speed shooting was 4-5 rounds a min. Let's not forget dueling with pistols. If I remember I think we had a couple POTUS do that.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
Funny you mention Tench Coxe (he was a weird dude with a weird name). Coxe played a minor but important role in the Second Amendment and Third Amendments when the Bill of Rights was just being proposed. He was a Federalist by nature, but he was one of the first to jump ship over to the Bill of Rights side of things and was an important bridge between the two sides
But get some context Whembly That's my point. The ideal of the 2nd was to ensure the Federal government couldn't go Parliment on the colonies by enabling the states to maintain an armed populace that could form a militia.
Obviously, following the Civil War that issue became moot as the Federal government won the doomsday war of 'tyranny' anyway which left the role of the 2nd Amendment in limbo for decades until the Supreme Court finally said "it's not just about militia, but personal defense in general."
Frazzled wrote: Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.
Well that's just a blatant lie.
Its a logical statement. If they want to ban guns then by definition the US is a gun free zone (except criminals and the polizei) . Your calling me a liar is an interesting response.
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well.
*BLAM!*
"Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."
Didn't have the internet, TV, radio, or electricty then either. I guess the First Amendment should be restricted to handbills churned out on a manual press.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones
Are we doing the former? Because if we do, it sure sounds like you're admitting you were in error when you asserted that most active shooters select gun free zones. Are you? It's a common trope, but it's wrong.
So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine
(snip)
- Navy Yard Shooter
I'm snipping part of that because I have to go to bed and have limited time to research this, but in both the Columbine shooting and the Naval Yard, there were armed law enforcement on the scene right away, in the Columbine case, the armed safety officer, and at the Naval Yard, an armed security guard and former state trooper who was killed and his gun taken. So, not exactly "gun free zones" to begin with. Also, while we're dispensing of things, at least 2 prominent cases where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" was utter nonsense, huh?
I've mentioned it before, but I don't think that Columbine is really a very good example. The reason being, while there was an armed safety officer there at the time, the training and tactics used to deal with active shooter situations were extremely different at the time Columbine happened, and because of that the officer waited for backup and did not pursue the shooters, something that would be extremely unlikely to happen today.
As a counterpoint, I bring up the post-Columbine example of Officer Niggemeyer during the Alrosa Villa shooting in Columbus, Ohio, in which Dimebag Darrell (former guitarist of Pantera and Damageplan) and several others were killed. Officer Niggemeyer was one of the first, if not the first, officers on the scene. He gained entry through a back entrance alone and without waiting for assistance to arrive, and confronted and killed the shooter by himself.
In the case of the Navy Yard shooting, Aaron Alexis was still killed by police. The fact that he killed an armed security guard doesn't mean that it disproves the good guy with a gun trope, all it proves is that a gun doesn't make someone invincible. I don't think there is any meaningful argument to be made against the fact that an armed person will have a better chance of stopping an active shooter than an unarmed person, but that doesn't mean the armed person is guaranteed to succeed either.
But I think "could an armed bystander have made a difference" is a separate question than "are spree shooters more likely to target gun-free zones because of a lack of guns" or "are non-gun-free zones a deterrent to spree shooters".
Hordini wrote: I've mentioned it before, but I don't think that Columbine is really a very good example. The reason being, while there was an armed safety officer there at the time, the training and tactics used to deal with active shooter situations were extremely different at the time Columbine happened, and because of that the officer waited for backup and did not pursue the shooters, something that would be extremely unlikely to happen today.
I don't disagree with this at all, and have mentioned in previous threads that, as with the example you cite, in an active shooter the current doctrine is to engage immediately, even if you're the first officer on the scene, even if you have to step over people who need help, because seconds are lives and the chances are very good that the instant you make contact with the shooter they will kill themselves.
I think that and the other example both served well to supplement my original argument, if not as much my secondary one.
Having clearly marked armed security guards just means they are first targets in that scenario.
The only way to provide real safety is to ensure that gunman does not know WHO can stop him. Putting a single armed person in a gun free zone, just means they will be the first person that gets shot, and then it is game on like any other time. But if you have a school with 4 or 5 teachers who are carrying, there is no way that a shooter can neutralize all of those threats to his "mission" before he can accomplish it.
Having 40,000 of the 50,000 soldiers on Fort Hood carrying (which isn't an unreasonable number to guess, given my latest experience with the Army), means that an active shooter would have to be insane (more so then they already are) to try something like that.
Having 40,000 of the 50,000 soldiers on Fort Hood carrying (which isn't an unreasonable number to guess, given my latest experience with the Army), means that an active shooter would have to be insane (more so then they already are) to try something like that.
If every Joe/Joey carries a "green" weapon. The PTSD related shooting, Negligent Discharges, and the counseling to name a few. Would defeat the purpose of discipline and good conduct let alone the trust issue.
Only tool left to pound it into the Officers, NCO's and Enlisted is WARNING SIGNS and possible triggers.
Example in case you all did not get on Military Benefits thread was a possible warning sign or/and vibe that Conker described he was having in RL.
Frazzled wrote: Its the non federal area. Its also designed so you don't get arrested in the parking lot.
Yeah, it makes sense the more I think about it.
*Why not? You can get killed any where. This was especialy drilled into us when we had (have?) the stalker situation. Everyone forgets statistically a third (and growing) of CHLers are women, and all that macho crap goes out the women with them. Its purely protection.
There is no question of why not... it's legal and they're free to do it. There is no 'why not'.
The question is why, why make the choice to do it. And the answer, I think, comes in part from your comment about 'you can get killed anywhere'... which on the one hand is technically true, but when considered as a probability is fairly ridiculous. The number of instances of individuals just randomly opening up on strangers in a public place is incredibly rare (when it does it happen and the media goes nuts over it the NRA makes sure to point out that such instance are extremely rare).
I mean, you've more chance of getting killed in a one punch attack when your head hits the pavement, but people don't feel the need to walk around with bicycle helmets on just in case it happens to them.
Which gets me back to my comparison to people wearing their exercise gear when walking the dog. I mean, yeah, you're being active and maybe sweating a bit, but let's be honest that's not why you're kitted up in lycra and sweatbands. At some level, people like looking like they're active, exercising people.
Same with walking around with a gun, I reckon.
*For the record, Rodney the wiener dog resents this remark. He views himself as a "carryable companion" and that he's not small or fat, he's just retaining water.
My sebby dog doesn't retain water, he retains liver treats and pigs ears. About 5 kilos of it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
Yes. Because look at what should be very fething obvious about your each of your examples;
- Columbine
Chosen because it was the school the shooters attended.
- Aurora
Chosen because it was a theatre local to him. The idea that he needed to gun free theater to feel safe from the likelihood that a movie viewer could pick him out in the darkness and through the tear gas he'd thrown is very silly.
- Sandy Hook
Chosen because he had attended the school, and it was a few miles from where he lived.
- Tucson
Chosen because the shooter was obsessed with Giffords. As a parking lot, was this even a gun free zone?
[quote- Navy Yard Shooter
Held a grudge against the Navy, had a pass for that particular base.
- Fort Hood twice
Both shooters worked at the base.
Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones
Which is only a useful observation if we think that the only reason that a place might make itself gun free is to ensure that no massacre ever takes place there. Which simply is not the reason that schools and army facilities are made gun free.
So really your complaint only applies to a theatre that made itself gun free. Which is a really minor piece of nonsense, basically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Switching topic a bit, just for lolz... can you spot the issue with this ad?
Spoiler:
Well, there's the obvious one, where it's firing the whole round, casing and all. But given the weird ass rocket trail leaving behind the bullet, maybe it's a gyrojet round that just happens to look like a rifle round?
So instead, I'd like to answer that superman is faster than a speeding bullet, so therefore their answer to their own question is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe, maybe not, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear.
Are you claiming that you not only the absolute, true meaning of the framers of the constitution, but know their minds so well that you can claim to know how they'd react to seeing the modern world? Because that goes beyond mere research, that's some serious voodoo powers you have.
In other news, that kind of claim of knowledge is both silly and fairly pointless, the point of the constitution isn't to slavishly followed what the founding father's might have thought best. They were legislators, not Emperor Gods. Instead the point is to identify what principles they declared were placed above the status of ordinary law, and to enforce those principles over and above any ordinary law that might be passed, with an understanding that if such a principle no longer suited society, you can change it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Having 40,000 of the 50,000 soldiers on Fort Hood carrying (which isn't an unreasonable number to guess, given my latest experience with the Army), means that an active shooter would have to be insane (more so then they already are) to try something like that.
As long as everyone automatically knows who the original shooter was among the 40,000 armed people, then that works great. But when one co-worker opens up, and potentially thousands of people respond with guns and very little information about what is happening, I'm not sure if that's really much of a solution.
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well.
*BLAM!*
"Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."
Didn't have the internet, TV, radio, or electricty then either. I guess the First Amendment should be restricted to handbills churned out on a manual press.
Frazzled wrote: Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.
Well that's just a blatant lie.
Its a logical statement. If they want to ban guns then by definition the US is a gun free zone (except criminals and the polizei) . Your calling me a liar is an interesting response.
Ah, semantics issue. I'm used to people saying that anyone who wants gun restriction wants to ban guns so I interprete it as such.
On a side note, how many people do you know of that are actually trying to completely ban guns?
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well. *BLAM!* "Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."
Didn't have the internet, TV, radio, or electricty then either. I guess the First Amendment should be restricted to handbills churned out on a manual press.
Frazzled wrote: Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.
Well that's just a blatant lie.
Its a logical statement. If they want to ban guns then by definition the US is a gun free zone (except criminals and the polizei) . Your calling me a liar is an interesting response.
Ah, semantics issue. I'm used to people saying that anyone who wants gun restriction wants to ban guns so I interprete it as such.
On a side note, how many people do you know of that are actually trying to completely ban guns?
Bloomberg. Seemingly every politician on the West Coast and Yankeeland, Austin, and San Antonio.
gak man, even a former Supreme Court Justice wish he could re-write the 2nd to that effect.
Yeah but his rewrite is accurate to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (good thing RAI never flies eh?)
Maybe, but the founders would have never dreamed of taking away someone's personal firearms and if they had seen the future they would have made it abundantly clear. It was the status quo for everyone to have a gun of some kind for one reason or another. It was such an obvious thing nobody would have seen the need to make a law about it.
And it was pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a gun then as well.
*BLAM!*
"Could you just stay here for a few minutes? I have to reload."
Didn't have the internet, TV, radio, or electricty then either. I guess the First Amendment should be restricted to handbills churned out on a manual press.
Frazzled wrote: Those who wish to ban guns would turn the entire USA into such a gun free zone.
Well that's just a blatant lie.
Its a logical statement. If they want to ban guns then by definition the US is a gun free zone (except criminals and the polizei) . Your calling me a liar is an interesting response.
Ah, semantics issue. I'm used to people saying that anyone who wants gun restriction wants to ban guns so I interprete it as such.
On a side note, how many people do you know of that are actually trying to completely ban guns?
Bloomberg. Seemingly every politician on the West Coast and Yankeeland, Austin, and San Antonio.
Eric Holder.
Really? Making it illegal to own all guns? I highly doubt that.
yes its very much true that guys like bloomburg and the groups they support want to ban all guns.
They may not advertise it, but that is in fact the goal. For now, they advertise what they can get away with, make that particular cut/ban/ect, and then move on to the next thing.
They did a very similar tactic in canada, slowly banning/restricing everything bit by bit by bit, its a very effective tactic. Many of the same international organizations and big money contributers are the same between those who pushed for canadas harsh gun control (which STILL isnt enough to stop parties running on platforms to BAN ALL GUNS)
So while some low down supporters of more gun control may not want to ban all guns, the people at the top 100% do.
Well that's new to me. I think we should have some restriction on guns (no automatic weapons and registering/licencing is a about it), but getting rid of guns entirely is ridiculous. Although you can't know they want to if they haven't said so, otherwise it's just slippery slope.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well that's new to me. I think we should have some restriction on guns (no automatic weapons and registering/licencing is a about it), but getting rid of guns entirely is ridiculous. Although you can't know they want to if they haven't said so, otherwise it's just slippery slope.
Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder, and Bloomberg have made such statements.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones
Are we doing the former? Because if we do, it sure sounds like you're admitting you were in error when you asserted that most active shooters select gun free zones. Are you? It's a common trope, but it's wrong.
The error lies not with me; "a lot", or "many", does not equal "most"
d-usa wrote: There really is no evidence that they were targeted because of being gun-free zones, or that the gun-free status even came into consideration.
Looks like 31 spree shootings, and 8 of them were in gun-free zones.
Great... except for the fact that leaving intention aside, many mass shooting events happen in gun free zones.
Aug. 3, 2010: Omar Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, Conn. after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton. - Did the workplace have a restriction on firearms on private property? There are no details on this fact
Nov. 5, 2009: Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Thirteen were killed and 29 were wounded. -generally speaking a gun free zone. Very few people on this military base are permitted to carry firearms
April 3, 2009: Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in upstate Binghamton before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.- private immigration centre in New York. New York has strict gun control. Nothing on their website indicates their stance on firearms
March 29, 2009: Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, N.C. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife. - typically a building where Federal/State law prevents firearms being brought in
Feb. 14, 2008: Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing six and wounding 21. - [color=green]no details but the overwhelming majority of campuses in America do not permit firearms. Illinois is also know to have very strict gun control
Feb. 7, 2008: Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police. - local government building. Again, no details. Many local government buildings do not permit firearms
Dec. 5, 2007: A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in Omaha, Neb. Hawkins killed nine people and wounded four before killing himself. - no details, but again it is unlikely that a department store permits rifles on the premises
April 16, 2007: Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died. - known gun free zone
Feb. 12, 2007: Five people were shot to death in Salt Lake City by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talovic. - a shopping mall, typically gun free
Oct. 2, 2006: An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, Penn. was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, who separated the students by gender before killing five girls. Roberts committed suicide afterward.- another school, which typically are gun free zones per State/Federal law
March 25, 2006: Seven died and two were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Seattle, Wash. - mass shooting at the after party of a rave. Few details
March 21, 2005: Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing nine people on campus, plus himself. - another school shooting. Again, typically legislated as gun free
March 12, 2005: Terry Michael Ratzmann, a member of the Living Church of God, shot up a service at a hotel in Brookfield, Wisc. Ratzmann killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and seven others. - details unclear, but shooting took place in a church.
July 8, 2003: Doug Williams shot up a Lockheed plant in Meridian, Miss. in a racially motivated rampage, killing seven before taking his own life.- workplace incident on private property. Do Lockheed permit employees to carry firearms?
Dec. 26, 2000: Edgewater Technology employee Michael McDermott shot and killed seven of his coworkers at the office in Wakefield, Mass. McDermott claimed he had “traveled back in time and killed Hitler and the last six Nazis.”workplace incident on private property. Did the employer permit employees to carry firearms?
Sept. 15, 1999: Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally in Fort Worth, Tex. He killed seven people and wounded seven others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide. Shooting took place on church property, no details whether it was a gun free zone
July 29, 1999: Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.workplace incident on private property. Did the employer permit employees to carry firearms?
April 20, 1999: Teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Colorado. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.Another school incident which we know to be a gun free zone
So the minority of shootings happen in gun-free zones, and there is still no evidence that the gun-free zones were the reason the shootings happened there to begin with.
Ouze wrote: I'm snipping part of that because I have to go to bed and have limited time to research this, but in both the Columbine shooting and the Naval Yard, there were armed law enforcement on the scene right away, in the Columbine case, the armed safety officer, and at the Naval Yard, an armed security guard and former state trooper who was killed and his gun taken. So, not exactly "gun free zones" to begin with. Also, while we're dispensing of things, at least 2 prominent cases where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" was utter nonsense, huh?
Gun free zones typically mean that members of the public and/or staff may not carry a firearm. Having trained officers on site who are armed does not negate the fact that it is gun free.
And not utter nonsense. Were it nonsense then the armed response that came after would not have stopped the attacker. Armed guards are just an extra layer of protection. Not a magic charm
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well that's new to me. I think we should have some restriction on guns (no automatic weapons and registering/licencing is a about it), but getting rid of guns entirely is ridiculous. Although you can't know they want to if they haven't said so, otherwise it's just slippery slope.
they have said so... very explicitly. And yes, you can very much know without them admiting to it, the zebra doesnt need the lion to tell it its hungry to know it wants to eat him.
This might suprise you, but I actually used to think as you did (I HATED the NRA!!) and I naievely thought they genuinely just wanted a few simple things like extending the already in place BG checks, and the already in place licensing from the 70's. Instead, what they actually did was ban well over half of available handguns, and a plethora of rifles. They registered everything, promised it wouldnt be used to confiscate anything, then used the registry to confiscate things.
Since then, there has been nothing but more and more bans, and no matter what anti-gun legislation is put through, it is literally never enough, because they keep pushing for more.
So while they are not always public with the game plan, they often are, and in confidence they have assured me that is the goal, and that they basically can only do it by banning assault weapons first, then small handguns, then all hand guns, then all semi auto rifles, then all scoped "sniper rilfes", then all the black powder stuff that can be used to make bombs.
just to name a few examples from the states:
Spoiler:
"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.
"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, CNN Crossfire, 12/9/93.
"Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use." - Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99.
"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.
"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights or ordinary Americans to own firearms ... that we are unable to think about reality." - President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993.
"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.
"Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun. There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year." - Senator John H. Chafee, (R-RI), 6/11/92.
"Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers." - Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, 8/12/92.
"Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate." - Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration (Washington Post, 11/4/90)
some from canada,
"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."
— Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Justice
"... protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!".
— Justice Minister Allan Rock
"C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada."
d-usa wrote: So the minority of shootings happen in gun-free zones, and there is still no evidence that the gun-free zones were the reason the shootings happened there to begin with.
Did it take a lot of effort to read my comments out of context? I never said that gun free zones were a criteria that shooters used. I did say that many/a lot of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.
As outlined above your list is staggeringly short on details, and many of the shootings that took place in workplaces and places of worship may very well have been gun free zones.
d-usa wrote: So the minority of shootings happen in gun-free zones, and there is still no evidence that the gun-free zones were the reason the shootings happened there to begin with.
Did it take a lot of effort to read my comments out of context? I never said that gun free zones were a criteria that shooters used. I did say that many/a lot of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.
As outlined above your list is staggeringly short on details, and many of the shootings that took place in workplaces and places of worship may very well have been gun free zones.
But statistics and what we know about the attacks show that gun-free zones appear to be a complete non-factor in the vast majority of attacks.
As is the presence of armed bystanders it appears. What is the ratio of shootings in zones where guns are legal that were stopped by bystanders? I know we have the one mall shooting, but that is honestly the only one I can think off. It seems like the majority of times the good guy with a gun gets gunned down as well.
"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.
"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, CNN Crossfire, 12/9/93.
"Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use." - Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99.
"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.
"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights or ordinary Americans to own firearms ... that we are unable to think about reality." - President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993.
"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.
"Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun. There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year." - Senator John H. Chafee, (R-RI), 6/11/92.
"Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers." - Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, 8/12/92.
"Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate." - Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration (Washington Post, 11/4/90)
YOu know what's funny? All of these are from the 90's when the Republicans were as behind Gun Control as the Democrates and wanting to ban all guns was something that looked like it might have actually happened. 20 years ago that is.
Go anything more recent?
I never said that gun free zones were a criteria that shooters used. I did say that many/a lot of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.
Can you blame him? Ouze posted an article claiming that shooters didn't shoot in gun free zones because they were gun free zones and you responded "So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?"
I'm sure we can all agree that gun free zone were placed at schools and such because shootings at those place were frequent, and surprise, they still are rending the entire idea gun free zones for safety inherently pointless, but come on XD
d-usa wrote: But statistics and what we know about the attacks show that gun-free zones appear to be a complete non-factor in the vast majority of attacks.
And yet they keep happening there. Again, your list of examples is lacking a great deal of detail.
d-usa wrote: As is the presence of armed bystanders it appears. What is the ratio of shootings in zones where guns are legal that were stopped by bystanders? I know we have the one mall shooting, but that is honestly the only one I can think off. It seems like the majority of times the good guy with a gun gets gunned down as well.
This is harder to qualify because typically these occasions receive little media attention, and are often limited to local media only, and also it appears that early intervention by a citizen may prevent further deaths and so the incident is never recorded as a mass shooting. In the event that there is a mass shooting and a citizen curtails it then we have the argument over how effective armed citizens are. It is a Catch 22.
"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.
"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, CNN Crossfire, 12/9/93.
"Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use." - Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99.
"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.
"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights or ordinary Americans to own firearms ... that we are unable to think about reality." - President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993.
"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.
"Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun. There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year." - Senator John H. Chafee, (R-RI), 6/11/92.
"Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers." - Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, 8/12/92.
"Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate." - Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration (Washington Post, 11/4/90)
YOu know what's funny? All of these are from the 90's when the Republicans were as behind Gun Control as the Democrates and wanting to ban all guns was something that looked like it might have actually happened. 20 years ago that is.
Go anything more recent?
well I purposely chose the most obvious quotes that show people actually being honest about their agenda...
They dont normally make such obvious statements now because they know telling the truth will be counter productive to the task at hand, especially since the agenda is contrary to popular opinion. This is why the emotional angles get played so much, and why so many millions are having to be spent to attempt to socially re engineer america.
Id particularly like to hear what you make of the candian quote about "socially re engineering canada".
google yourself if you want current claims, there are plenty. I actually cannot as the net at work bans pages that deal with guns and such so you just get the ones I have basically memorised.
well I purposely chose the most obvious quotes that show people actually being honest about their agenda...
American politics are populist by nature. They do what gets them elected. The 'ban all guns' platform, isn't getting very many people elected. There is no shadowy conspiracy to trick us all into accepting ever increasing gun controls until they just go "surprise no guns for you."
The 'ban all guns' lobby is a political boogyman. It's borderline non-existant, let alone wants to ban all guns, is realistically a myth drumbed up by people who want to rage against something. The Supreme Court through Heller and McDonald basically amounting to "the government cannot ban all guns," makes any attempt to ban guns now overty unconstitutional, so no one can do it without passing an amendment which is rather unlikely.
Id particularly like to hear what you make of the candian quote about "socially re engineering canada".
Like how the NRA has spent the last 30 years reengineer the gun debate? back in the 50's and 60's (as their name might suggest) the NRA was about hunting and sports shooting. Their lobbying was minor and they didn't care much about gun control laws. They originally backed the first law that created 'gun free zones' following the Kennedy assassination. In the 90's when the anti-gun movement was at its strongest, pretty much everyone was on board with it except that the NRA had done a 180 and effectively turned a debate about controlling gun proliferation into a debate about consitutional rights.
And they were right. We're way past the point that controlling the proliferation of firearms in the US is feasible and to most Americans its not even desireable. But people still cling to that boogyman, and the NRA finding out that they like being one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in the country, decided they wanted to keep making money so they never dropped the stick. Politicians, deciding that the boogyman is a good way to get votes and that they like taking the NRA's money decided to go along with the whole thing (being populists and all).
Social engineering is just another word for lobbying directly to the public. It just sounds nefarious so you jump on it and pretend there's some grand conspiracy working against everyone who thinks like you.
Social engineering is just another word for lobbying directly to the public. It just sounds nefarious so you jump on it and pretend there's some grand conspiracy working against everyone who thinks like you.
Yeah, but then you're saying that like "lobbying" isn't just as appalling and horrifying.
d-usa wrote: They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.
I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.
Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?
Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.
d-usa wrote: Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.
d-usa wrote: They are like lawyers and politicians, we hate them except the one guy that is on our side.
I don't have any love for the NRA, in my mind they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers and not for the gun owners.
Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?
Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.
There are other organizations besides them.
They have four million members. All those members have been hoodwinked by the evil gun manufacturers? The NRA hasn't stopped a metric gakload of federal legislation in its tracks and helped recall several politicians especially in Colorado?
Wow. Its an excellent conspiracy theory, truly worthy of MSNBC.
d-usa wrote: Nope, because everything I have seen them push and lobby for over the last decade has been more focused on making sure gun-sales are up instead of anything else.
easysauce wrote: yes its very much true that guys like bloomburg and the groups they support want to ban all guns.
They may not advertise it, but that is in fact the goal. For now, they advertise what they can get away with, make that particular cut/ban/ect, and then move on to the next thing.
They did a very similar tactic in canada, slowly banning/restricing everything bit by bit by bit, its a very effective tactic. Many of the same international organizations and big money contributers are the same between those who pushed for canadas harsh gun control (which STILL isnt enough to stop parties running on platforms to BAN ALL GUNS)
So while some low down supporters of more gun control may not want to ban all guns, the people at the top 100% do.
Exactly right!
It's this thin end of the wedge, they have already got the public half-way down it. No-one is allowed nuclear weapons or nerve gas, the next thing you know cluster munitions and napalm will be on the banned list, then where will we all be?
It's this thin end of the wedge, they have already got the public half-way down it. No-one is allowed nuclear weapons or nerve gas, the next thing you know cluster munitions and napalm will be on the banned list, then where will we all be?
I only want that nuclear weapon to detonate for 4th of July to show how patriotic I am. I mean, it's an American* invention, and it'd make a hell of a firework.
Why do you HATE AMERICA ???
* Yeah, I know. Just let me have it for the purposes of the comment.
d-usa wrote: They happen less in gun free zones than in gun legal zones.
Really? Because your list does not given enough information, but seeing as many occurred in shopping malls, workplaces, schools, and houses of worship it is more likely than not that many of those were gun free zones
d-usa wrote: You know what all shootings have in common though?
Mental health issues. Which is why in gun threads I always advocate more treatment and funding for mental health
d-usa wrote: If you want to imply that (very weak) correlation = causation then you won't like where it leads the logical argument.
Yet you attempted the same logic in trying to claim that fewer mass shootings happen in gun free zones
NRA’s LaPierre: ‘Gun Rights Have Become a Metaphor for Something Larger’ National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, addressing donors and key supporters at the NRA Convention in Indianapolis this morning, said, “Gun rights have become a metaphor for something larger: a feeling, this sense of something that’s slipping away, a yearning for individual rights.”
Despite the recent victories of the Second Amendment supporters in recent years, LaPierre indicated that a key understanding and traditional Constitutionally-backed freedoms is slowly eroding: “We’re at a precipice in this country. I know every one of you feels it. These next two and a half years are going to determine how things go for the rest of our lives. I have never seen it on edge the way it is now. If it’s going to be saved, it’s in our hands. It’s in your hands. People like you throughout the country people I’m going to engage this fight every day, you’re not going to back me down, and we’re going to win it. We’ll save it, by gosh, between now and 2016.”
something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something
d-usa wrote: something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something
Had to be done
No it didnt... there is nothing racist at all in that statement, and to inject racism where there is none is far more of a racist act.
I know you dont like the NRA, as I once did, but take it from someone who used to actually work with "anti" gunners...
The NRA is doing far more to help out gun owners and the 2nd amendmant then anyone else is.
period.
Also, totally not fair to say that the NRA spokeman is being racist... obama is a 2nd term president not up for re-election who has a definate anti gun leaning.
So him making remarks on the rest of his term being important, are just that, its an important time frame.
The NRA National Convention is going on right now. There was a big sign that said "Find out what the NRA can do for you!" and the picture was Ted Nugent holding an AR-15 in one hand and an M-16 in the other with an American Flag guitar around his neck and a look on his face like he just ripped the biggest fart the world would ever know. It seemed a regressive an ill-advised bit of advertising. It didn't say 'responsible gun owner' so much as 'guy on PCP found an armory!'.
Lots of other cool things though, especially if you enjoy hunting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: obama is a 2nd term president not up for re-election who has a definate anti gun leaning.
Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait...
Manufacturers should give him an award for increasing their sales without actually having to do anything.
d-usa wrote: something something racist something something two and a half more years of a black president something something white people slipping away something something
Ahtman wrote: Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....
You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.
Spoiler:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
Exactly. Just because gun control hasn't been super victorious lately doesn't mean they're not trying.
Ahtman wrote: Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....
You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!
Ahtman wrote: Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....
You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.
Spoiler:
Look at me.
Look at my posts.
Look at me.
Now look at you.
Now look at me.
Now look at you looking at me and ask yourself:
"Has d-usa ever given a feth about what you think about him or his posts?"
If I thought he was a racist pandering to racists, I would have said he was a racist pandering to racists and I wouldn't care if it ticked you guys off if I thought he was a racist and I wouldn't bother with any sort of damage control because you guys got your internet feelings hurt.
Ahtman wrote: Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....
You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!
Sorry he couldn't just executive order this one?
He only has how many years left to double the amount he signed so far in order to catch up to Reagan?
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Look at me.
Look at my posts.
Look at me.
Now look at you.
Now look at me.
Now look at you looking at me and ask yourself:
"Has d-usa ever given a feth about what you think about him or his posts?"
If I thought he was a racist pandering to racists, I would have said he was a racist pandering to racists and I wouldn't care if it ticked you guys off if I thought he was a racist and I wouldn't bother with any sort of damage control because you guys got your internet feelings hurt.
Ahtman wrote: Because he did so much to get rid of guns while President. Oh wait....
You're right. I mean after Newtown he didn't pose with children to push his gun control agenda. He didn't help try to pass a Bill into law. When said Bill was not made law he didn't stand and berate those who didn't vote for it, and the NRA in particular.
All it took was four or so years, a couple of mass shootings, and immense political pressure to get him to do almost nothing! What an evil anti-gun radical!
all I said was he was anti gun leaning... not that he had been successful in his endeavors... and he certainly has tried.
But im sorry, would you call him a PRO gun leaning president then?
d-usa wrote: I think he has actually signed more pro-gun legislation than anti-gun. I'm not 100% certain of that though.
That is probably the case because it is what the nation has forced him to do.
But you can't say that his efforts post Newtown were not in a way to help secure second amendment rights. He made a ton of noise about using his executive powers to do what Congress wouldn't, and all that.
He kind of got quiet about it though when the CDC kind of came back and said his claims were baseless, after following through with one of those executive orders.
Well, he could have had the option of vetoing any pro-gun bill that came before him.
But he signed all the NRA-endorsed watering down of compliance measures that make sure that the BATFE remains a joke. Didn't he sign a bill allowing guns in national parks and transport via Amtrak?
d-usa wrote: I think he has actually signed more pro-gun legislation than anti-gun. I'm not 100% certain of that though.
That is probably the case because it is what the nation has forced him to do.
Do something to restrict guns gets all the blame.
Does something positive for guns gets no credit.
@easysauce: I would say he is a President that is neither, and would probably not have to do anything involving firearms legislation. It isn't something he seems to care much about in comparison to everything else he has on his agenda.
The NRA's basic point that American liberties are more restricted now is correct, though. The wave of panic anti-terrorism legislation that was rushed through after 9/11 eroded things. Gun rights did nothing to stop that, though, and weren't affected anyway, so to focus on them is a bit meaningless.
Kilkrazy wrote: The NRA's basic point that American liberties are more restricted now is correct, though. The wave of panic anti-terrorism legislation that was rushed through after 9/11 eroded things. Gun rights did nothing to stop that, though, and weren't affected anyway, so to focus on them is a bit meaningless.
How dare you. The NRA's always wrong. And racist. Racist and wrong.
Also, patriarchy and privilege.
d-usa wrote: I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.
To be fair, I don't think anyone expected you to go the self-satire route.
Perhaps even more strangely... you're completely wrong. While the NRA originally distanced itself from corporate sponsorship and worked mostly to protect hunter's rights, that's a long damn time ago now. These days less than half of NRA revenue comes from members, with the majority coming from sponsorships, direct grants and ad revenue from the NRA's various publications. This includes, by the way, multiple gun companies who contribute directly to the NRA on a per gun sold basis.
As with pretty much anything, all you have to do is follow where the money comes from, and figure out what will bring in more money, and realise that's exactly what any person or organisation will do. When the NRA's revenue is dominated by gun manufacturers and will actually increase with every gun sold, then it's no wonder they speak for the gun manufacturers first and foremost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wow. Its an excellent conspiracy theory, truly worthy of MSNBC.
Recognising that an organisation will be loyal first and foremost to its biggest contributors is now a conspiracy theory? Don't be ridiculous about this.
NRA’s LaPierre: ‘Gun Rights Have Become a Metaphor for Something Larger’ National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, addressing donors and key supporters at the NRA Convention in Indianapolis this morning, said, “Gun rights have become a metaphor for something larger: a feeling, this sense of something that’s slipping away, a yearning for individual rights.”
Isn't that pretty much what Obama said all those years ago?
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The difference I see there is that your quote opts for a vague and fairly silly notion of individual rights... as if the individual in the 1950s or 1970s had some real kind of freedom that has since been taken by govenment. Obama, on the other hand, recognises that what's been lost is prosperity - that there has been a real economic decline in many places as heavy industry and manufacturing has closed up or moved overseas, or simply stopped paying what they used to pay.
And maybe that gets to the real heart of what's essentially broken in US politics. While the Democrats mention the real issue too rarely and do something about it even less often, at least they recognise the real issue. On the other hand, Republicans and other conservative bodies can't even bring themselves to admit that's an issue, let alone the primary issue, and instead talk about nonsense like 'a yearning for individual rights' or, well, the rest of the conservative platform.
they need to.
when I see a Brick er Glock.
HATE AMERICA 
