US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Seth]

[


You do realize that by banning guns on school and college campuses you are creating "predator free-fire zones" don't you?

No. I went back to visit my high school, and the only way to get in there was to go through a check-in area and obtain a pass. They didn't let anyone in there armed or who was not known, registered and identified.

"Let anyone in?" If someone walks into the school with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, who, pray tell, is going to STOP them from entering the school, and how are they going to do so if they are unarmed? Or are you expecting an active shooter to change his mind after being politely asked for ID?

I suggest exactly the opposite, I suggest that it be the law that some minimum number of teachers and administrators MUST be armed at all times, and that further, strategically placed gun lockers containing shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, accessible only to trained teachers and administrators, be installed in schools, along with other security measures that can compartmentalize the school with the push of a button to keep an active shooter from moving through the school.

Interesting suggestion, but not one that I agree with.

Why not? Do you prefer to leave schools vulnerable to Columbine-like attacks? If not, what's your practical solution to the presence of an active shooter at a school? Wait six minutes (minimum) for the police? How many people do you suppose an active shooter can kill in six minutes? Clue: The last guy managed to kill 32 people and wound 25 others at Virgina Tech in the 10 to 12 minutes before the police arrived.

So, what's your solution?

(3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire,

Why? Have you heard of a lot of shootings at movie theaters?

Some, yes.

And have you ever heard of a law-abiding, licensed citizen engaging in such activity?

What happens when the gangbangers who disobey such laws decide to shoot up a movie theater with their illegal guns?

People will die

Exactly. But fewer people will die if there are armed citizens able to respond quickly when some gangbanger opens up on a crowd.

With regard to movie theaters, I think I'd leave it up to the theater owner and make him liable for negligence if he didn't take reasonable steps to keep his patrons safe.

But you'd be dead, so fat lot of good that would do you.

What defense do the law abiding of the community have then?

Guns and other weapons owned and carried lawfully. But, that doesn't mean they can carry them everywhere, anytime, and in whatever manner, without restriction.

Nobody's made any such suggestion other than you.

(4) city council meetings in session, etc.,

Why?

So that people aren't armed at a time when the city council is evaluating things and making decisions that effect the people who are sitting their armed.

How is anybody going to know anyone else is armed if they are carrying a CONCEALED weapon?

Besides, there is a beneficial effect on public officials when they know that their employers are prepared to exercise their right to veto tyrannical acts by bureaucrats.

Unless you're going to search everyone at the door,

Happens in most city, state and federal buildings around me. We have metal detectors and security guards checking things out airport-style.

You must live in DC, where paranoia and fear of an armed citizenry is at its penultimate high.

all you're doing is ensuring that when some angry nutcase with a grudge against the council shows up HE is the only one with a gun in the room. Stupid idea.

Hasn't happened around here. Things are pretty safe. I'm comfortable with it.

Where is "here" exactly? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of such things pretty much everywhere. Also, your comfort is hardly the appropriate metric.

and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters,

Seen a lot of crime committed with lawfully-owned weapons of this sort in the US? .... Didn't think so.

That's because they are highly regulated, and it is limited who can own them, and where they can be carried. Mount a minigun on the roof of one's hummer and whether it's loaded or not, you're going to be arrested if you drive that thing through the city where I work.

For what crime?

(6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc.

Did you know that of the more than 400,000 machine guns in private ownership in the US, only ONE of them has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime?

Good. Sounds like the current restrictions are working well. I'm comfortable with them as is.

I think there is room for State and local permitting of concealed weapons, perhaps background checks on potential gun owners, and maybe even required/mandatory safety and use training for different types of weapons.

The power to license is the power to deny.

Profound.

When you give the government the power to determine who may and may not possess weapons, it ALWAYS ends up forbidding weapons to all but its own agents.

Hasn't seemed to....the government has had this power for some time now, and the trend seems to be toward "shall issue" type permits.

Dangerous precedents are set by exercising prior restraint of a fundamental right.

Well, all fundamental rights have restraints -- there are prior restraints on free speech, like "no obscenity" and "no threats against the life of the President," and whatnot.

As for mandatory training, I happen to fully agree.

The power to require training is the power to make the training so difficult that only a minority of people can pass it...

Salient point, which is why the training is mandatory, just as education in math and spelling is mandatory for children, but the exercise of one's rights are not conditioned upon the training.

Firearms safety, maintenance and marksmanship training should be mandatory for EVERY CHILD beginning in the first grade and continuing through high school with graduated, age-appropriate training culminating in qualification with pistol and rifle and the issuance of a CCW permit, a government-supplied handgun and a government-supplied battle rifle to every qualified high school graduate.

I don't see why one would make that "mandatory." I don't want folks telling me what my child must do relative to guns.

I do. Your children will be adults soon enough, and they have duties to the nation that require that they be trained and competent in firearms use, just as they require training in mathematics, science, history and other subjects. In fact, because at age 18 they automatically become subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia, it's actually more important that they learn a manual of arms than that they learn about safe sex and how to roll a condom onto a banana.

Moreover, since it's mostly children who are uneducated in firearms safety when they are young who engage in unsafe behavior with firearms and kill themselves and others, public policy demands that your children be given uniform gun-safety, gun-handling and marksmanship training as a public safety measure.

If someone wants to have a gun, I think it would be fine for the State to require training. I see no reason for the State to have the authority to force someone to be trained for something they aren't doing or going to do.

The state already has that authority. It's called "conscription." It's part of the duty of all able-bodied males (and arguably these days females) between 18 and 45, who are by law members of the Unorganized Militia and are subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia when and if the country needs them. This duty makes it necessary that all persons subject to militia duty be trained to use firearms, so that they can form an effective militia when called to duty.

I merely suggest that the training start early, with gun safety training, in the first grade, and continue every year through high school graduation, so that as high school graduates all young persons have received adequate safety, handling and marksmanship training as preparation for their service in the Militia. This has the added benefit of reducing accidental gun deaths and injuries by properly exposing youth to firearms and teaching them proper safety procedures should they encounter a firearm.

But the fundamental government authority exists, and has in fact existed since before the United States was formed, and was a well-understood power of government at the time the Constitution was ratified.

[Coito ergo sum]

[


You do realize that by banning guns on school and college campuses you are creating "predator free-fire zones" don't you?

No. I went back to visit my high school, and the only way to get in there was to go through a check-in area and obtain a pass. They didn't let anyone in there armed or who was not known, registered and identified.

"Let anyone in?" If someone walks into the school with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, who, pray tell, is going to STOP them from entering the school, and how are they going to do so if they are unarmed? Or are you expecting an active shooter to change his mind after being politely asked for ID?

They can't walk in, except into the entry way. The door is locked with security glass which is bullet proof. Nobody can walk in there.

I suggest exactly the opposite, I suggest that it be the law that some minimum number of teachers and administrators MUST be armed at all times, and that further, strategically placed gun lockers containing shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, accessible only to trained teachers and administrators, be installed in schools, along with other security measures that can compartmentalize the school with the push of a button to keep an active shooter from moving through the school.

Interesting suggestion, but not one that I agree with.

Why not? Do you prefer to leave schools vulnerable to Columbine-like attacks? If not, what's your practical solution to the presence of an active shooter at a school? Wait six minutes (minimum) for the police? How many people do you suppose an active shooter can kill in six minutes? Clue: The last guy managed to kill 32 people and wound 25 others at Virgina Tech in the 10 to 12 minutes before the police arrived.

So, what's your solution?

Secure the school with safety measures. Virginia Tech is a college, not a high school.

(3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire,

Why? Have you heard of a lot of shootings at movie theaters?

Some, yes.

And have you ever heard of a law-abiding, licensed citizen engaging in such activity?

[/quote]

That begs the question. I've never heard of a law-abiding citizen committing any crime. Once you've committed crime, you're not law abiding anymore.

What happens when the gangbangers who disobey such laws decide to shoot up a movie theater with their illegal guns?

People will die

Exactly. But fewer people will die if there are armed citizens able to respond quickly when some gangbanger opens up on a crowd.

With regard to movie theaters, I think I'd leave it up to the theater owner and make him liable for negligence if he didn't take reasonable steps to keep his patrons safe.

But you'd be dead, so fat lot of good that would do you.

[/quote]

Movie theaters are private businesses. It's up to them, isn't it? Or, would your libertarianism involve forcing them to hand out guns to patrons?

What defense do the law abiding of the community have then?

Guns and other weapons owned and carried lawfully. But, that doesn't mean they can carry them everywhere, anytime, and in whatever manner, without restriction.

Nobody's made any such suggestion other than you.

[/quote]

No, I haven't made that suggestion. I told you some of the places I wouldn't allow guns. You can feel free to list yours and we'll see where we agree.

(4) city council meetings in session, etc.,

Why?

So that people aren't armed at a time when the city council is evaluating things and making decisions that effect the people who are sitting their armed.

How is anybody going to know anyone else is armed if they are carrying a CONCEALED weapon?[/quote]

Metal detectors, and other security devices.

Besides, there is a beneficial effect on public officials when they know that their employers are prepared to exercise their right to veto tyrannical acts by bureaucrats.

[/quote]

Says you.

Unless you're going to search everyone at the door,

Happens in most city, state and federal buildings around me. We have metal detectors and security guards checking things out airport-style.

You must live in DC, where paranoia and fear of an armed citizenry is at its penultimate high.

[/quote]

Tampa. The intrusion is minimal.

all you're doing is ensuring that when some angry nutcase with a grudge against the council shows up HE is the only one with a gun in the room. Stupid idea.

Hasn't happened around here. Things are pretty safe. I'm comfortable with it.

Where is "here" exactly? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of such things pretty much everywhere. Also, your comfort is hardly the appropriate metric.

Tampa. I'm sure things have happened, but your suggestions will not guarantee complete crime-free societies either. I'm comfortable with the measures being taken now.

and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters,

Seen a lot of crime committed with lawfully-owned weapons of this sort in the US? .... Didn't think so.

That's because they are highly regulated, and it is limited who can own them, and where they can be carried. Mount a minigun on the roof of one's hummer and whether it's loaded or not, you're going to be arrested if you drive that thing through the city where I work.

For what crime?

Carrying an illegal firearm illegally (unless one has the required permit/permission to carry the weapon).

(6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc.

Did you know that of the more than 400,000 machine guns in private ownership in the US, only ONE of them has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime?

Good. Sounds like the current restrictions are working well. I'm comfortable with them as is.

I don't see why one would make that "mandatory." I don't want folks telling me what my child must do relative to guns.

I do. Your children will be adults soon enough, and they have duties to the nation that require that they be trained and competent in firearms use,

There are no such legal duties. Your opinion may be that there are moral duties, but opinions are like assholes...

just as they require training in mathematics, science, history and other subjects.

No such legal requirements exist.

In fact, because at age 18 they automatically become subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia,

No such legal obligation exists.

it's actually more important that they learn a manual of arms than that they learn about safe sex and how to roll a condom onto a banana.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I think it is important for young people to learn to handle firearms too. But, it's not a legal requirement.

Moreover, since it's mostly children who are uneducated in firearms safety when they are young who engage in unsafe behavior with firearms and kill themselves and others, public policy demands that your children be given uniform gun-safety, gun-handling and marksmanship training as a public safety measure.

No such public policy actually exists. It's what you think should be public policy, but public policy is what the legislature says it is.

If someone wants to have a gun, I think it would be fine for the State to require training. I see no reason for the State to have the authority to force someone to be trained for something they aren't doing or going to do.

The state already has that authority. It's called "conscription."

"There ain't no draft no more, son." Sgt. Hulka. But, conscription is not the same thing as mandatory civilian training.

It's part of the duty of all able-bodied males (and arguably these days females) between 18 and 45, who are by law members of the Unorganized Militia

What's the citation on this law? ___ U.S.C. Section ____? Or, is it in the constitution? What article?

and are subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia when and if the country needs them.

Only if there is a draft. Nobody has needed to even register for a long time.

This duty makes it necessary that all persons subject to militia duty be trained to use firearms, so that they can form an effective militia when called to duty.

Says you, but - not a legal requirement.

I merely suggest that the training start early, with gun safety training, in the first grade, and continue every year through high school graduation, so that as high school graduates all young persons have received adequate safety, handling and marksmanship training as preparation for their service in the Militia. This has the added benefit of reducing accidental gun deaths and injuries by properly exposing youth to firearms and teaching them proper safety procedures should they encounter a firearm.

But the fundamental government authority exists, and has in fact existed since before the United States was formed, and was a well-understood power of government at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Citation needed.

[colubridae]

Sigh
@CES:-

You are rude and ill-mannered.

You were quick to take offence at my light hearted joke about internet points yet quickly call me ‘obtuse’ because I disagree with you.

I apologised. You owe me an apology. Given the circumstances only an ignorant pig-fucker would refuse, the ball’s in your court.

You specifically joined the part of the thread concerning car/gun deaths. So, yes, I’m justified in claiming that you hijacked my discussion with CH. That you did it to blather your own views on “statutes and stats” is simply the rules of the forum. It’s still hijacking.

Yes, my request for the stats was rhetorical. I will give you a clear sign next time.

Be that as it may, again,

Using risk/benefit analyses, as a reason for not banning cars whilst banning guns is simply not justifiable. You cannot quantify deaths versus benefits. That such ‘tables’ are used is simply an irrational sop to salve consciences. Sleep guiltless tonight, my preciousss, the convenience of cars that you enjoy has cost 3000 lives this year. But you sleep soundly, the risk/benefit tables say it’s OK.

You called such tables ‘reasonable’, I don’t. Calling them reasonable is simply a way of using the old theist argument “Lots of people agree with me so I’m right, now shut the fuck up or I’ll have you burned at the stake”. You have reasons so you call it reasonable; I call it callous and despicable. My word choice is at least as justifiable and ‘reasonable’ as yours.

You also said that they were necessary for life.
When I pointed out the irrationality of such i.e. if it’s necessary then any number of deaths are acceptable , you changed the meaning of your word. That comes under the ‘Five Ds of Dodgeball’ fallacy.

On top of which you are wrong with any ‘version’ of necessary. Humans have lived on the planet for, conservatively 100,000 years; cars have been around for approx 100 years and only commonplace for the last 50 years.
That means they haven’t been ‘necessary’ for 99.95% of the time.

True, you did say necessary for modern life. Once again wrong. There is a sufficiently large percentage of the global population without cars to render your claim invalid. No, I don’t have the stats nor will I provide them, we have a sufficiently large contingent of loony lefties who will be only too glad to furnish said stats. Several names spring to mind.

With regard to the ‘risks’, the car deaths under discussion are not part of some vague brushed-under-the-carpet risk factor, they are caused by humans using machines carelessly and/or recklessly. In the UK it’s now normal practice to start a criminal investigation for every car death. That you choose to call such deaths a ‘risk’ factor is to your shame.

The tables, as I ham-fistedly tried to say in my earlier post, are a post hoc elastoplast. A cover-up
Since (also as I said before – Christ! I wish you’d read these threads properly) if I went to ‘city-hall’ with a new invention, such as a star-trek transporter, if I then mention that’s it’s use would claim 3000 lives per year, my invention wouldn’t make it through the front door. Yet cars, nowhere near as useful as a star-trek transporter, are allowed. Your subtle implication that risk/benefit tables, in whatever asinine form you choose, are (even if valid) a part of carefully-considered government policy is BS.

Nowhere are the tables set-up in a way which applies to this discussion, in any case. Nowhere is there a table which says:- “Given the benefits, when the death toll reaches X our government policy will be to ban cars”. The tables you fondly wave as some sort of magic talisman are just that, a magic talisman.

I’m not sure what it is you think you bring to the table, but it’s wrong, irrelevant and you’ve brought it to the wrong table. My congrats again, a new low.

And as for your gibe about fish in a barrel, you may well be shooting fish in a barrel, but it’s some other fish in some other barrel. And if you are scoring they must be fucking big fish in a fucking tiny barrel.

May I suggest steel toe-cap boots as your next footware purchase?

[Coito ergo sum]

Sigh
@CES:-

You are rude and ill-mannered.

You were quick to take offence at my light hearted joke about internet points yet quickly call me ‘obtuse’ because I disagree with you.

I love how people who are rude and ill-mannered complain when folks aren't polite in return. Think about it. Maybe if you didn't engage in ad hominem attacks...

I apologised. You owe me an apology. Given the circumstances only an ignorant pig-fucker would refuse, the ball’s in your court.

Since you ask so nicely....

You specifically joined the part of the thread concerning car/gun deaths. So, yes, I’m justified in claiming that you hijacked my discussion with CH. That you did it to blather your own views on “statutes and stats” is simply the rules of the forum. It’s still hijacking.

I addressed your points, and answered your questions. Here you go again with personal attacks.

Yes, my request for the stats was rhetorical. I will give you a clear sign next time.

Thanks, it will save me the time of proving you wrong.

Be that as it may, again,

Using risk/benefit analyses, as a reason for not banning cars whilst banning guns is simply not justifiable.

...in your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is most certainly justifiable in light of the different purposes, uses, and needs of vehicles.

You cannot quantify deaths versus benefits.

It's done all the time. The military does it when deciding when to take a hill - how many do we think we'll lose, and is the hill worth it? They made that analysis about the Normandy invasion, etc. And, insurance companies do it and government regulators do it.

That such ‘tables’ are used is simply an irrational sop to salve consciences.

No, the irrationality is in the pretending it doesn't happen. The rationality is understanding that each choice has consequences, and that cost/benefit is one way to determine which is the best way to go.

Sleep guiltless tonight, my preciousss, the convenience of cars that you enjoy has cost 3000 lives this year. But you sleep soundly, the risk/benefit tables say it’s OK.

I do sleep soundly. You too. Unless you are lobbying your congressman to require speed limits be reduced to 20 MPH nationwide, and that all cars be outfitted with bumpers all the way around like "bumper cars" with racing car roll cages, such that we would save all those 3000 lives, then you're not in any greater moral position than me, are you?

You called such tables ‘reasonable’, I don’t. Calling them reasonable is simply a way of using the old theist argument “Lots of people agree with me so I’m right, now shut the fuck up or I’ll have you burned at the stake”. You have reasons so you call it reasonable; I call it callous and despicable. My word choice is at least as justifiable and ‘reasonable’ as yours.

Whatever. People die on the roadways. How safe is safe to you? What is the number of deaths you're willing to tolerate, and what do you think should be done to stop the road deaths? It can be done. We can ban cars, or we can make all vehicles install roll cages and 4 point seating harness systems, and require helmets, and reduce the speed limits to 20. Why don't you advocate that? Are the deaths on the road more acceptable than your convenience?

You also said that they were necessary for life.

Read it again. I said it's necessary for us to maintain our modern society and culture, and that if we eliminated cars tomorrow millions of people would die. Yes.

When I pointed out the irrationality of such i.e. if it’s necessary then any number of deaths are acceptable , you changed the meaning of your word. That comes under the ‘Five Ds of Dodgeball’ fallacy.

You're just mischaracterizing what I say. Any number of deaths is not acceptable - and it's complete idiocy to suggest that such a conclusion follows. Clearly, 100% deaths is not acceptable. How could it be?

On top of which you are wrong with any ‘version’ of necessary. Humans have lived on the planet for, conservatively 100,000 years; cars have been around for approx 100 years and only commonplace for the last 50 years.

So what? Our society is, today, dependent on internal combustion engine transportation. As I said, humans would not die out without the automobile, but millions would die if you just made them illegal, because without cars and trucks, the supermarkets would go empty, and people wouldn't have food, and without them, people wouldn't be able to get to work, and they wouldn't get paychecks, and they therefore would not be able to survive as easily. The localities in which most people live are incapable of supporting the high populations, and people would have to move out into the rural areas, and the entire fabric of our present day society would fall apart.

What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp?

That means they haven’t been ‘necessary’ for 99.95% of the time.

True, but they are necessary now for the maintenance of our society now. We live now, not then.

True, you did say necessary for modern life.

Yes. Our present day modern society.

Once again wrong.

Not even close to wrong.

There is a sufficiently large percentage of the global population without cars to render your claim invalid.

That doesn't mean that if you took all the cars out of New York, LA, Chicago, Dallas, St. Lousis, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, New Orleans, Columbia, Montpellier, Boston, Savannah, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, DC, Nashville, Memphas, Kansas City (ies), Des Moines, and all the other cities in the US (and Europe) that the entire economy would not break down, and that millions of people would die because of lack of access to food, income and other necessaries. You can't possibly not see that.

No, I don’t have the stats nor will I provide them, we have a sufficiently large contingent of loony lefties who will be only too glad to furnish said stats. Several names spring to mind.

Just because some folks in the Amazon rain forest live perfectly fine without cars doesn't mean that our fucking modern, 1st world, society could possibly survive if you banned them tomorrow. And, millions of people would die. Sure, just as I said, some people would survive and we'd live like we did pre-internal combustion engine. Rurally - on farms - spread out - smaller populations. Don't you fucking get it?

With regard to the ‘risks’, the car deaths under discussion are not part of some vague brushed-under-the-carpet risk factor, they are caused by humans using machines carelessly and/or recklessly. In the UK it’s now normal practice to start a criminal investigation for every car death. That you choose to call such deaths a ‘risk’ factor is to your shame.

Give me a fucking break. I didn't invent the practice. The fact of the matter is that the UK government hasn't made cars illegal. Why? Because people need cars, so the injuries and deaths are things we have to put up with to have the benefit of the vehicles.

And, the UK government hasn't reduced speed limits to 10 or 20 KPH, right? They could - and people would still eventually get where they were going, and deaths would drop considerably because accidents would be less severe. They could also make all cars very tiny with bumper car rubber protectors all around, roll cages and 4 point seat belts like in race cars. Why don't they? Because the cost and aggravation is too high, and nobody would be able to own cars due to the cost if they required that. So, we accept the deaths.

Is that really something that your brain can't wrap itself around?

The tables, as I ham-fistedly tried to say in my earlier post, are a post hoc elastoplast. A cover-up
Since (also as I said before – Christ! I wish you’d read these threads properly) if I went to ‘city-hall’ with a new invention, such as a star-trek transporter, if I then mention that’s it’s use would claim 3000 lives per year, my invention wouldn’t make it through the front door. Yet cars, nowhere near as useful as a star-trek transporter, are allowed. Your subtle implication that risk/benefit tables, in whatever asinine form you choose, are (even if valid) a part of carefully-considered government policy is BS.

If your transporter would claim 3,000 lives a year assuming 7,000,000,000 yearly transports, then your transporter might well be approved, since it would be proven safer than airplanes, cars, and walking.

Nowhere are the tables set-up in a way which applies to this discussion, in any case. Nowhere is there a table which says:- “Given the benefits, when the death toll reaches X our government policy will be to ban cars”. The tables you fondly wave as some sort of magic talisman are just that, a magic talisman.

I never referred to any "tables." I merely stated the painfully obvious: that we as a society and our governments are willing to accept certain risks in light of certain benefits. Where there is risk, but the benefit is perceived great, then acceptance is more likely. Where there is risk, but no or very little perceived benefit, acceptance is less likely.

I’m not sure what it is you think you bring to the table, but it’s wrong, irrelevant and you’ve brought it to the wrong table. My congrats again, a new low.

Maybe people don't address your stupid car/gun analogy because they don't want to waste time listening to your personal attacks and nonsense. That may be why you had to complain multiple times that nobody was addressing your point. So, I made the serious error in judgment of actually addressing your point and discussing it with you, and trying to show you why there would be and is a difference in the way people and governments treat cars as opposed to treating guns. I realize now that discussion was not what you were after - what you were after was "agreement." Well you won't get that from me, because you are wrong. If you want someone to pat you on the head and say how smart you are for coming up with the car/gun analogy, you'll need to run to mother.

And as for your gibe about fish in a barrel, you may well be shooting fish in a barrel, but it’s some other fish in some other barrel. And if you are scoring they must be fucking big fish in a fucking tiny barrel.

May I suggest steel toe-cap boots as your next footware purchase?

Suggest whatever you like.

[Tyrannical]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

Assuming, of course, that there is a gene for murder.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

Assuming, of course, that there is a gene for murder.

"There's an app for that."

[Tyrannical]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

Assuming, of course, that there is a gene for murder.

It may well be partly environmental, in which case you also remove the environment. Parents pass on their genes and beliefs

[Seth]

[


You do realize that by banning guns on school and college campuses you are creating "predator free-fire zones" don't you?

No. I went back to visit my high school, and the only way to get in there was to go through a check-in area and obtain a pass. They didn't let anyone in there armed or who was not known, registered and identified.

"Let anyone in?" If someone walks into the school with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, who, pray tell, is going to STOP them from entering the school, and how are they going to do so if they are unarmed? Or are you expecting an active shooter to change his mind after being politely asked for ID?

They can't walk in, except into the entry way. The door is locked with security glass which is bullet proof. Nobody can walk in there.

Good to hear, though I rather doubt it's actually bullet-proof. Most likely it's just wire-glass that will resist breaking. True bullet-proof glass is extremely expensive and very bulky and is generally beyond the budget of most school districts, even if they had the foresight to install it. However, suppose I come to the door and say that I want to talk to the principle, is there a body search performed in the sally-port area prior to being admitted to the interior? Is there an armed guard posted at all times to prevent someone from simply walking in armed during a passing period when there are hundreds of students coming and going? Is each student searched as they enter the school? Are all other exterior entrances secured at all times or guarded?

I doubt it. Seriously doubt it. And how about all the OTHER schools in the nation? I'm quite sure that most of them are ill-prepared for active shooters primarily because the leftists that run them don't want to believe it can happen to them.

I suggest exactly the opposite, I suggest that it be the law that some minimum number of teachers and administrators MUST be armed at all times, and that further, strategically placed gun lockers containing shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, accessible only to trained teachers and administrators, be installed in schools, along with other security measures that can compartmentalize the school with the push of a button to keep an active shooter from moving through the school.

Interesting suggestion, but not one that I agree with.

Why not? Do you prefer to leave schools vulnerable to Columbine-like attacks? If not, what's your practical solution to the presence of an active shooter at a school? Wait six minutes (minimum) for the police? How many people do you suppose an active shooter can kill in six minutes? Clue: The last guy managed to kill 32 people and wound 25 others at Virgina Tech in the 10 to 12 minutes before the police arrived.

So, what's your solution?

Secure the school with safety measures. Virginia Tech is a college, not a high school.

I'm all for that, and one of the best safety measures is to have armed staff available at all times, combined with physical security procedures and equipment. And it's irrelevant that Virginia Tech is a college, the "predator free-fire zone" concept applies to ALL schools, colleges and universities that ban guns from their campuses. No matter how good the physical security at a school (which is usually abysmally deficient), there's nothing as good as an ultimate backup as armed and trained staff who can respond in seconds to an attack. That was the lesson learned at Columbine by the police, who radically changed their tactical response to active shooters in the wake of that incident (which I covered as a reporter), but even so the police are still an average of six minutes away at any given time, and more if they are not individually prepared to form an ad hoc entry team, which is true of many police departments in smaller towns and cities.

The facts are simple and stark: when some nut starts shooting up classrooms full of children, you don't have six minutes, someone who is armed needs to respond within seconds to minimize the carnage by engaging the shooter and getting his attention off the kids so they can escape or be secured behind bullet-proof, locking classroom doors.

(3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire,

Why? Have you heard of a lot of shootings at movie theaters?

Some, yes.

And have you ever heard of a law-abiding, licensed citizen engaging in such activity?

[/quote]

That begs the question. I've never heard of a law-abiding citizen committing any crime. Once you've committed crime, you're not law abiding anymore.

It doesn't beg the question, it's the whole POINT. Law-abiding citizens who carry concealed are not going to suddenly become deranged and start shooting up movie theaters, and you can't point to ANY evidence that this has ever happened. However, when some criminal thug who is ILLEGALLY carrying a gun does so, and yes, it does happen, the ONLY people in a position to do anything about it in time to save lives are law-abiding armed citizens.

What happens when the gangbangers who disobey such laws decide to shoot up a movie theater with their illegal guns?

People will die

Exactly. But fewer people will die if there are armed citizens able to respond quickly when some gangbanger opens up on a crowd.

With regard to movie theaters, I think I'd leave it up to the theater owner and make him liable for negligence if he didn't take reasonable steps to keep his patrons safe.

But you'd be dead, so fat lot of good that would do you.

[/quote]

Movie theaters are private businesses. It's up to them, isn't it? Or, would your libertarianism involve forcing them to hand out guns to patrons?

Of course it's up to them. If they post a "no guns" sign, I take my business elsewhere, and I inform the management why I'm doing so and that I will recommend to all my friends that they do likewise. This sort of boycott worked well in Colorado Springs to reverse the anti-gun policy of one theater chain that has posted "no gun" signs. Enough people complained that they quietly removed the signs, and now I can once more patronize them. The same thing has happened with various restaurants and stores around town who overreacted at first to the "shall issue" law by posting signs, only to see their business drop off enough for them to reverse themselves.

But that's not what you were suggesting, you were implicitly suggesting laws to make it illegal to carry concealed in a movie theater.

What defense do the law abiding of the community have then?

Guns and other weapons owned and carried lawfully. But, that doesn't mean they can carry them everywhere, anytime, and in whatever manner, without restriction.

Nobody's made any such suggestion other than you.

[/quote]

No, I haven't made that suggestion. I told you some of the places I wouldn't allow guns. You can feel free to list yours and we'll see where we agree.

I'm comfortable with law-abiding citizens carrying guns wherever they wish, without any restrictions at all, including airliners, airports, federal buildings, courthouses and anywhere else on public property and on any private property where the owner has not posted prominent notice banning guns at EVERY public entrance to his property.

I'm comfortable with this because I know that law-abiding citizens don't often misuse their weapons, and when and if they do, or when a criminal does so, it's always better that many OTHER law-abiding people are armed and therefore are capable of dissuading or incapacitating the person who is misusing their weapon.

All gun bans do is prevent law-abiding citizens who might be able to prevent a tragedy from doing so without in the least inhibiting the ability of a criminal or deranged person to carry and use a weapon improperly and illegally. Such bans simply create known areas full of unarmed potential victims, which are attractive to deranged criminals.

(4) city council meetings in session, etc.,

Why?

So that people aren't armed at a time when the city council is evaluating things and making decisions that effect the people who are sitting their armed.

How is anybody going to know anyone else is armed if they are carrying a CONCEALED weapon?[/quote]

Metal detectors, and other security devices.

No, the question is "if you posit that armed citizens are going to influence public officials because they are carrying guns, if the guns are concealed, how would a public official know a gun is present and thereby be potentially influenced?"

And if public officials are so cowardly and fearful of their employers that they need gun bans to protect them while they deliberate, perhaps they should find other work, or carry a gun of their own.

Besides, there is a beneficial effect on public officials when they know that their employers are prepared to exercise their right to veto tyrannical acts by bureaucrats.

[/quote]

Says you.

Says the Founders as well.

Unless you're going to search everyone at the door,

Happens in most city, state and federal buildings around me. We have metal detectors and security guards checking things out airport-style.

You must live in DC, where paranoia and fear of an armed citizenry is at its penultimate high.

[/quote]

Tampa. The intrusion is minimal.

Only federal buildings, courthouses and jails generally get metal detectors in Colorado, although the cowards who work in the state Capitol recently reversed a century-long policy of allowing licensed persons to carry firearms into the building, so now we have long lines every morning the Legislature is in session...which did not prevent a nutcase from slipping past security with a gun, which he proceeded to wave about, which got him shot by a State Patrol officer, which is how it's supposed to work.

all you're doing is ensuring that when some angry nutcase with a grudge against the council shows up HE is the only one with a gun in the room. Stupid idea.

Hasn't happened around here. Things are pretty safe. I'm comfortable with it.

Where is "here" exactly? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of such things pretty much everywhere. Also, your comfort is hardly the appropriate metric.

Tampa. I'm sure things have happened, but your suggestions will not guarantee complete crime-free societies either. I'm comfortable with the measures being taken now.

Nothing will guaranteee a "completely crime-free society." The best we can do is to remain vigilant and well-armed and respond to crime as it occurs, on an individual basis. Thus the need for the average law-abiding citizen to have the right to carry a concealed weapon, since when it happens, nobody else will likely be in a position to do the job for them.

and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters,

Seen a lot of crime committed with lawfully-owned weapons of this sort in the US? .... Didn't think so.

That's because they are highly regulated, and it is limited who can own them, and where they can be carried. Mount a minigun on the roof of one's hummer and whether it's loaded or not, you're going to be arrested if you drive that thing through the city where I work.

For what crime?

Carrying an illegal firearm illegally (unless one has the required permit/permission to carry the weapon).

Um, I believe machine guns are legal in Florida. Perhaps not though. The are in Colorado, and Colorado is an "open carry" state, which means driving around with a machine gun on my Hummer is perfectly legal.

(6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc.

Did you know that of the more than 400,000 machine guns in private ownership in the US, only ONE of them has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime?

Good. Sounds like the current restrictions are working well. I'm comfortable with them as is.

I don't see why one would make that "mandatory." I don't want folks telling me what my child must do relative to guns.

I do. Your children will be adults soon enough, and they have duties to the nation that require that they be trained and competent in firearms use,

There are no such legal duties. Your opinion may be that there are moral duties, but opinions are like assholes...

You're absolutely wrong. Go check the Militia Act.

just as they require training in mathematics, science, history and other subjects.

No such legal requirements exist.

Check the Militia Act.

In fact, because at age 18 they automatically become subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia,

No such legal obligation exists.

Check the Militia Act

it's actually more important that they learn a manual of arms than that they learn about safe sex and how to roll a condom onto a banana.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I think it is important for young people to learn to handle firearms too. But, it's not a legal requirement.

Sure it is, at the option of Congress, pursuant to the Militia Act.

Moreover, since it's mostly children who are uneducated in firearms safety when they are young who engage in unsafe behavior with firearms and kill themselves and others, public policy demands that your children be given uniform gun-safety, gun-handling and marksmanship training as a public safety measure.

No such public policy actually exists. It's what you think should be public policy, but public policy is what the legislature says it is.

Indeed. What I'm saying is that the legislature has full authority to require such training in schools, pursuant to its authority to call the state and federal militias to duty. Legal requirements to keep and bear arms, and appear with them weekly for inspection and training pre-date the Constitution and are found in several Colonial-era regulations and Charters. The power to raise armies by calling the Militias to duty is one of the inherent powers of government, both at the state and federal level, and the concept pre-dates the United States by several thousand years in English law.

If someone wants to have a gun, I think it would be fine for the State to require training. I see no reason for the State to have the authority to force someone to be trained for something they aren't doing or going to do.

The state already has that authority. It's called "conscription."

"There ain't no draft no more, son." Sgt. Hulka. But, conscription is not the same thing as mandatory civilian training.

If there "ain't no draft" then why are 18 year olds required to register with the Selective Service System? The answer is because at age 18 they enter the Unorganized Militia and Congress has the power to require them to register, and keep their contact information current, so that at need Congress may call them to duty (conscript) to serve the nation. This duty remains dormant unless and until activated by the Governor of a state or the Congress, but EVERY able bodied male between 18 and 45 IS a member of the Unorganized Militia with or without registration.

The "draft" can be reinstituted by Congress at any time.

It's part of the duty of all able-bodied males (and arguably these days females) between 18 and 45, who are by law members of the Unorganized Militia

What's the citation on this law? ___ U.S.C. Section ____? Or, is it in the constitution? What article?

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia




U.S. Code

* main page
* faq
* index
* search

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

My mistake, the age is 17 to 45, not 18 to 45.

and are subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia when and if the country needs them.

Only if there is a draft. Nobody has needed to even register for a long time.

Wrong.

U.S. Code

* main page
* faq
* index
* search

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > MILITARY > ACT > § 454
Prev | Next
§ 454. Persons liable for training and service

(a) Age limits; training in National Security Training Corps; physical and mental fitness; adequate training facilities; assignment to stations and units; training period; medical specialist categories
Except as otherwise provided in this title [sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix], every person required to register pursuant to section 3 of this title [section 453 of this Appendix] who is between the ages of eighteen years and six months and twenty-six years, at the time fixed for his registration, or who attains the age of eighteen years and six months after having been required to register pursuant to section 3 of this title [section 453 of this Appendix], or who is otherwise liable as provided in section 6 (h) of this title [section 456 (h) of this Appendix], shall be liable for training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States:

This duty makes it necessary that all persons subject to militia duty be trained to use firearms, so that they can form an effective militia when called to duty.

Says you, but - not a legal requirement.

Not at the moment, but that can change with the stroke of the executive pen, and should.

I merely suggest that the training start early, with gun safety training, in the first grade, and continue every year through high school graduation, so that as high school graduates all young persons have received adequate safety, handling and marksmanship training as preparation for their service in the Militia. This has the added benefit of reducing accidental gun deaths and injuries by properly exposing youth to firearms and teaching them proper safety procedures should they encounter a firearm.

But the fundamental government authority exists, and has in fact existed since before the United States was formed, and was a well-understood power of government at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Citation needed.

I'll get right on that...

[Seth]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

I think it's sad, not silly, but, well...there it is.

On the day that a naked virgin carrying two bags of gold coins can walk unmolested from one end of the planet to the other, I'll agree to ban guns.

[Gallstones]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

• 

I shall carry because it makes me feel good then.
Guns are fun and some of them are really pretty/handsome. That is a good enough reason for me.

[Gallstones]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

I think it's sad, not silly, but, well...there it is.

On the day that a naked virgin carrying two bags of gold coins can walk unmolested from one end of the planet to the other, I'll agree to ban guns.

Fuck virgins and gold coins.

No gun ban for me, not ever, for no reason.
Fuck that---like totally fuck that idea.

My God what kind of world is it when Gallstones is more staunchly pro-gun than Seth!?
Fuckin'--A.



I must do some gun porn.

[JimC]

This thread may have reached a record for multiples of tl;dr...

[Gallstones]

Go me, go me, go me

[Tyrannical]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

I think it's sad, not silly, but, well...there it is.

On the day that a naked virgin carrying two bags of gold coins can walk unmolested from one end of the planet to the other, I'll agree to ban guns.

On that day I'll stop supporting the death penalty. But she really should put on some clothes.