Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/04/23 17:09:50
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/04/23 17:10:13
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/04/23 17:12:48
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/04/23 22:36:35
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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".
2014/04/23 23:01:54
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 23:02:06
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2014/04/23 23:04:38
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/04/24 01:34:57
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/04/24 02:32:59
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 03:57:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/04/24 15:07:38
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/04/24 15:17:08
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 15:17:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/04/24 15:19:56
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/04/24 15:24:39
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
2014/04/24 15:26:51
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/04/24 15:33:24
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/04/24 15:43:33
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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
**edit**
Fixed color
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 15:53:34
2014/04/24 15:46:04
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
2014/04/24 15:47:46
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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
2014/04/24 15:49:59
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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."
— Quote by Senator Sharon Carstairs (Liberal)
2014/04/24 15:50:55
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
2014/04/24 15:56:42
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
2014/04/24 16:01:47
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
The Tower shooter in Austin was pinned down by civilians with deer rifles until police could get him.
Aurora - gun free zone
Sandy Hook - gun free zone
VMI - gun free zone
Hood I - terrorism - gun free zone
Hood II - gun free zone
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2014/04/24 16:02:12
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
"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.
2014/04/24 16:18:30
Subject: Re:Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
"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.
2014/04/24 17:03:41
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
Co'tor Shas wrote: Really? Making it illegal to own all guns? I highly doubt that.
This image has popped up a few times. Why can't we gun nuts just make sensible compromises? :'[
Spoiler:
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
FREEDOM!!!
- d-usa
2014/04/24 17:15:48
Subject: Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:19:17
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.
