Printable View
One security guard stands firm and saves a few lives in the process. Despite a response time of less than 180 seconds (kudos to them!), the police arrived only to mop up. ....score one more for the virtue of an armed citizenry.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...25NxMzVoWm8rrQ
Security guard = well regulated militia not Joe Smith citizen.
Another argument for an armed citizenry? Of course, by completely ignoring that argument, I'm sure you were waiting for someone to bring it up :wink:Quote:
The Colorado shootings came just days after a teenager armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on Christmas shoppers at an Omaha shopping mall in Nebraska on Wednesday, killing at least eight people before turning the gun on himself.
Edit:
I think you've missed a point here Seamus, self defence is the argument for an armed citizenry, shootings in the street are exactly the opposite.
Your statement sounds almost like you're saying more shootings are a good thing!
:no:Quote:
score one more for the virtue of an armed citizenry.
Sorry if the phrasing is off, I am in no way calling for more such shootings. I'd rather the phenomenon dissapated entirely.
From what I know of security guards, Pappy, I'm not really inclined to put them in the category of well-regulated militia. I do understand the point your are making, however.
My thoughts were simple. One person, armed and willing to act in defense of others, is more valuable than the most responsive police force in these situations. This is no fault of the police -- they cannot be all places at all times.
It's true, but one unstable teenage kid with a semi-automatic rifle in a shopping mall, willing to harm others and himself, is much worse than the worst thug armed with a broken bottle.Quote:
One person, armed and willing to act in defense of others, is more valuable than the most responsive police force in these situations.
EDIT:
Or is it? CR would disagree. I guess at the end of the day, that's what the entire gun debate boils down to. Which is worse: easy access to guns for criminals/nutters/scuiciders, or a lack of the very best weaponry for self defence.
True but how much people would have died if the attacker only had access to a set of steak knives he got with his ab builder bought at 3am...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm pretty sure that it is people that kill people, and that we arm our military with guns because they beat pointy sticks.
I'm also pretty sure that even if you armed everyone at some point the wacko is going to go batty and use a sniper rifle from the belfry.
No matter what, having guns freely available means that there are going to be deadly consequences. Are guns licensed and trained like cars? If not, why not. Surely both are tools that in the wrong hands (inexperienced, drugged, nutcase etc) can be disastrous.
Oddity: in the Omaha mall-shooting, one might think that someone on security staff would be armed. I've not seen reports that they were.
In Colorado, a church felt the need (apparently, correctly) to have armed security.
Somehow, that seems incongruous.
You can build an AK-47 in your basement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Gun control as a method to reduce violent crime is such a red herring that it sets progress back by years.
No, I can't. Maybe you can Sasaki, but I'd be really interested to see you try, and make some ammunition that doesn't blow up in your face. Maybe if you had an AK47 in bits you could put it back together in your basement.Quote:
You can build an AK-47 in your basement
Besides, even if you could, it doesn't add anything. An unstable teenage kid in a country where he has to build an AK47 in his basement, or an unstable teenage kid in a country where he can walk into a shop and buy one, which one's going to go shoot some people?
As for it being a red herring, I'd agree. It's not the differences in control, it's the differences in culture and attitude to guns that makes the difference in violent crimes.
Actually, you could build an AK-47 in your basement.
If your basement happened to be a USSR arms factory.
Nice points here. I don't think most of the Backroomers would like my answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I would assume that the licensing registry would have to
a) Be limited to a state authority.
b) Not be allowed to be viewed by or used by any Federal authority.
Hahaha! You are misinformed. The average person with a concealed weapons permit is a better shot than the average security guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And even than, security guards have nothing to do with a well regulated militia, which demolishes your attempted cleverness.
A false choice. Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.Quote:
Which is worse: easy access to guns for criminals/nutters/scuiciders, or a lack of the very best weaponry for self defence.
And these events, while tragic, are very rare exceptions.
Indeed, the shooting at the mall in Omaha was at a 'gun-free' zone. There was a shooting at a different mall over a year ago; again, a gun free zone. But an off-duty cop ignored the sign and brought his gun and he was the one to end the shooting.
With some machine tools and knowledge, it's be pretty straightforward. With no fancy tools and hardware supplies, you can build a submachine gun.Quote:
No, I can't. Maybe you can Sasaki, but I'd be really interested to see you try, and make some ammunition that doesn't blow up in your face. Maybe if you had an AK47 in bits you could put it back together in your basement.
Oh, and this was no kid; he was a felon who could not legally possess, much less buy, a gun.
The one time that happened in the US, at a university in Texas, the local population, students and professors included, helped police by breaking out their rifles and shooting at the murderer in the tower, severely restricting his ability to shoot at people.Quote:
I'm also pretty sure that even if you armed everyone at some point the wacko is going to go batty and use a sniper rifle from the belfry.
Because owning guns is a right, owning cars is not. And I'd think the anti-gunners in the US would whine if, with an easy to obtain license, one could obtain any machinegun or firearm money can buy. Also, licensing doesn't do **** to stop crime, but does make it easy for states to later ban guns (which has happened in some states).Quote:
Are guns licensed and trained like cars? If not, why not. Surely both are tools that in the wrong hands (inexperienced, drugged, nutcase etc) can be disastrous.
But the point should be that there are much more important issues to the omaha mall shooting than gun control.
CR
So it does make it easy for States to get guns off people who legally had guns but due to changes in circumstances are no longer allowed to have guns , like when they are convicted of a felony .Quote:
Also, licensing doesn't do **** to stop crime, but does make it easy for states to later ban guns (which has happened in some states).
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.
Think again , the study used didn't prove that at all . Infact the study said that it didn't prove anything .
so a nutjub wants into a public place and starts shooting people....a trained security officer stops him with another gun...
and this is a pointed out as a virtue of an armed citizenry? :dizzy2:
isn´t the whole problem that the nutjub had easy access to guns in the first place?
The armed security guard did the right thing - stopped the instance of this crime from spreading farther.
Any other arguement begins to degenerate into several fallacies concerning gun control.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Gonna make the bullets as well? ~DQuote:
With some machine tools and knowledge, it's be pretty straightforward. With no fancy tools and hardware supplies, you can build a submachine gun.
It does lower the chances of getting blasted to pieces by a submachine gun, however.Quote:
A false choice. Taking guns away from the people does not lower crime - a point I think I proved in the debate with W&F's.
Bullets are easy to make. A complicated gas or recoiled operated automatic weapon is not. Brass can be reused, primers replaced, and bullets cast from molten lead. I really don't buy this "Make an AK at home" idea but if you can do it with planes and cars, then why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I'm quite sure these shooters would take their time to construct a machine gun....
Breaking News from CNN.com;
The 'security guard' was a volunteer at the church, who used her personal handgun, is not a law enforcement officer or 'trained security guard' hired from a company.
To bad we don't have a smiley offering a nice platter of crow.
Also, it is believed the shooter at both churches was the same man - Matthew Murray.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/col...ngs/index.html
Well done by that woman.Quote:
The shooter at both a missionary center and a church Sunday in Colorado was a man who once worked on a mission with the center, a source familiar with the events said Monday.
The source said the gunman -- who was killed by a security guard at the site of the second shooting -- was Matthew Murray.
...
A security guard confronted him and shot him.
The source said there were three security guards in the area of the shooting, only one of whom had a weapon. That guard fired at him, causing him to fall down, and she told him to drop his weapon, the source said. But Murray appeared to try to grab something that may have been a grenade, so the guard shot him again, the source said.
...
A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed the gunman after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.
Two teens, identified by police as Rachael Works, 16, and Stephanie Works, 18, were killed in what Boyd called "a senseless, random attack."
Boyd said the teens were sisters and were shot in the parking lot. Police said their father David Works, 51, was also shot and is hospitalized in fair condition with two gunshot wounds.
Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.
"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.
:laugh4:Quote:
Security guard = well regulated militia not Joe Smith citizen.
CR
this changes nothing...
the fact remains that without a weapon the incident wouldn´t have taken place to begin with.
How Simple! Just confiscate all of the weapons! Why didn't I think of that....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Ronin:
Sarcasm aside, it is -- at best -- impracticable (if not outright impossible) to remove firearms from a society wherein they were a basic tool of survival for nearly half a millenium. Even today, there are a few individuals who live by their ability to hunt for food, though this is now rare. Firearms are literally integral to US culture.
Yes, you could make it very difficult and completely illegal for someone like this shooter to openly purchase firearms, but little could be done to prevent "black market" sales and the like.
That being the case, I would head the other direction -- compulsory firearms ownership and training for all mentally competent non-felons over the age of 16. Licensure would be required, but only to demonstate one's competence as evaluated on a test following training.
Odd as it sounds, in the nearly ubiquitously armed "old west," there was comparatively little violence when compared to the present era.
Food for thought.
I never said that taking away all guns in a society like the USA was reasonables solution....at least not in the short run.....there are just too many of the blasted things around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
i´m not even against all guns.....hunting rifles are legal over here...I don´t have a problem with that...but the moment you make all guns legal, specially those you can carry concealed you´re just asking for trouble.
I just pointed out what the problem is......you have easy access to guns..you get this kind of problem....in my society a guy gets pissed off he might punch a couple of guys in the local bar...over there...well......I don´t even understand how you can function as a society with the knowledge that a simple argument can push someone over the edge like that......i´m better not argue with the guy at the poultry shop...hell he might go get his shotgun and come back to blow me away.
and yes you can´t stamp out the "black market" completely......but you can try to cut out the source....the source is the legal gun market....those guns that are illegally sold to criminals don´t fall out of the sky...they start out as legal firearms and then are then stolen or sold illegally.
..how does compulsory firearms ownership gels with the "land of the free" idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
forcing someone to own a lethal weapon they are not necessarily comfortable with seems like a pretty big infringement on a person´s right to live their life the way they want, but that´s just me.
besides....the US constitution says "the right to bear arms"....it doesn´t say duty....
actually it would probably be a good idea if you guys re-wrote the damn thing...it would be a good place to start...using plain English that everyone can understand and agree on what it means would be something I would aim for.
well....you have got a point there....Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
the Canadians are heavily armed too but they don´t kill each other at the rates Americans do....the only other conclusion I can reach is that there is something wrong with your society....are you people deeply disturbed on some base level or something? ...anyways..... it always seemed to me that if you´re disturbed having guns around is probably not a good idea....so there we are back at the same point.
A great idea that I wish we could implement. However that has been used in the past as the first step toward confiscation. Once the governing body knows where they all are, it's so easy to take them (e.g. Chicago).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm really waiting to hear what happens with the DC firearm ownership case at SCOTUS. Rabbit: Do you have an update on this? If the fear of confiscation is laid to rest then maybe we can move toward comprehensive firearm training education.
It wouldn't matter in this case as he stole the rifle from someone else. In my opinion, if someone steals a firearm from you due to your negligence and commits a crime with it, you share part of the blame.
Notice the distinct lack of the word "GUN" :furious3:
So, your whole position is based off a fundamental mis-perception of American society? Easy access to guns has nothing to do with it.Quote:
I just pointed out what the problem is......you have easy access to guns..you get this kind of problem....in my society a guy gets pissed off he might punch a couple of guys in the local bar...over there...well......I don´t even understand how you can function as a society with the knowledge that a simple argument can push someone over the edge like that......i´m better not argue with the guy at the poultry shop...hell he might go get his shotgun and come back to blow me away.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear it, sometime in spring '08. They should have a decision on it before July, I think. Legally, it's open and shut, but that's what I thought about Kelo vs New London and the statists in the SCOTUS screwed that one.Quote:
I'm really waiting to hear what happens with the DC firearm ownership case at SCOTUS. Rabbit: Do you have an update on this?
More info: http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/
Are you basing your judgment of a nation of 300 million people on the actions of a very rare selection of people? Society is not violent, it's other factors (gangs and drugs, and the fact that with 300 million people, you're going to have a few crazies) that matter.Quote:
the only other conclusion I can reach is that there is something wrong with your society....are you people deeply disturbed on some base level or something?
No, you are not. Do you have any factual evidence for anything in your post?Quote:
but the moment you make all guns legal, specially those you can carry concealed you´re just asking for trouble.
CR
i have the fact of living in a place where people don´t walk into church, or school, or the post office, or Macdonald's (I´m losing track and that´s just what I remember from the top of my head in the last 12 months) and shoot up the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
what is your factual evidence for the idea that everyone having guns is a good idea?
Wow, look at your history. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
As far as I can see it is more of a score draw. Or rather crazy-dude with gun: 4, volunteer security guard: 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Let's see if I can think of a time when I avoided an argument for fear of getting blown away . . . hmm, no, it's just not coming. If you think Americans live in daily fear of a lightly provoked shooting incident, you just don't get it. The consequences that come with shooting another human being make it not worth it unless you're already a hardened criminal or you're crazy, and for all the stories we generate about such people, their concentration is pretty low in most of the country. Remember, America is a big place. I've never personally seen a shooting take place in my life, and that includes a few years living in the Long Beach ghetto. You're definitely overstating the danger firearms pose to the average citizen on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Ajax