# Another Vile Incident



## Sukerkin (Jun 8, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290

I don't want to turn our attentions away from the fact that, yet again, innocent people have been shot dead going about their ordinary daily business, so I shall only comment that on reading this article it occurred to me that it couldn't have been timed or staged better to add fuel to the 'ban civilian gun ownership' fire.  

I don't usually buy into the 'conspiracy' theories that abound about mysterious, over-arching, organisations, pulling the worlds strings to make it dance to their tune but sometimes things happen that seem to defy 'reason'.

Anyhow, as I say, I don't want to go down that path of discourse for now, for it would not be showing decent respect for those poor souls who lost their lives.


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2013)

Again it seems only the killer was armed with a gun.  He wasn't stopped by kind words or good intentions...he was stopped by good guys with guns.   It just points out that you may go your whole life never needing a gun to defend yourself, but when you do, you really need it.

Keep in mind, ordinary people are being killed by guns in the hands of criminals every day of the year, especially in Chicago.


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2013)

billc said:


> Again it seems only the killer was armed with a gun.  He wasn't stopped by kind words or good intentions...he was stopped by good guys with guns.   It just points out that you may go your whole life never needing a gun to defend yourself, but when you do, you really need it.
> 
> Keep in mind, ordinary people are being killed by guns in the hands of criminals every day of the year, especially in Chicago.


Reading through that article, I have a couple of questions for you.  First, how do you know that none of the victims owned firearms or were unarmed?  Second, can you point out which of the victims would have had an opportunity to use a firearm, even if they had one?  Since you've made it clear that you're willing to just sort of fill in the gaps.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> on reading this article it occurred to me that it couldn't have been timed or staged better to add fuel to the 'ban civilian gun ownership' fire.
> 
> I don't usually buy into the 'conspiracy' theories that abound about mysterious, over-arching, organisations, pulling the worlds strings to make it dance to their tune but sometimes things happen that seem to defy 'reason'.



It could've been the CIA, acting on Obama's orders. That's plausible.


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2013)

Well, I heard one witness from the college campus say he saw the killer and then ducked around the corner of a building to get away from him...if he had had a pistol he could have possibly stopped the killer.  At this point no one has mentioned that the victims had firearms available, and it probably won't be reported if they did, I don't know why they don't but if they don't they probably didn't.  It is California after all.  

Also from the accounts he was on a public street at several points during his attack...would be nice if more people were carrying firearms...he might have been stopped before the guys with guns, the cops, arrived on the scene...


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2013)

For a look at California gun laws Steve...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California



> California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns.



And on to the laws broken by the killer...


Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons ...

He may have killed 6 innocent people, but let's hope he didn't have more than 7 rounds in his magazine...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2013)

billc said:


> Well, I heard one witness from the college campus say he saw the killer and then ducked around the corner of a building to get away from him...



Not a bad move, really, though if he could've helped it would have been good of him to take the risk...but against advice.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2013)

billc said:


> He may have killed 6 innocent people



I think it's now at 4 dead plus the shooter himself. Is that right? But he had an absurd amount of ammo?


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2013)

I heard it was 1300 rounds...

From the report I have seen there were lots of people who might have slowed down or stopped this guy...if they had been armed...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/08/s...page-that-left-four-dead-one-gravely-injured/


----------



## billc (Jun 8, 2013)

Hmmm...Santa Monica College...you guessed it... a "Gun Free Zone,"...unless you are a killer intent on killing innocent people...

http://www.smc.edu/StudentServices/Police/Pages/Security-Policy---Crime-Statistics---Cleary-Act.aspx



> Weapons Prohibition on Campus
> Possessions of firearms or replicas, ammunition, explosives, knives/blades longer than 21/2 inches, other weapons, or fireworks are against the law in the College community or at College &#8211;sponsored activities. California Penal Codes 626.9 and 626.10 also prohibit the possession of firearms (including pellet and BB guns) on College property without specific written permission of the Chief of Police.



Once again...a government mandated hunting ground for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2013)

What was the gunman's name?


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2013)

Sukerkin, I have other places I can post this so if you don't want it here I'll go there, so let me know...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...hooters-Don-t-Have-To-Hurry-In-Gun-Free-Zones



> *From the 1999 Columbine shooting to Sandy Hook Elementary to the June 7th shooting in Santa Monica, CA, an overarching narrative from public shootings in gun-free zones is the demeanor of the shooter(s)--they are confident their victims will not be able to fire back and therefore feel little reason to stop their rampages.*
> 
> We saw this in the way the Columbine shooters moved through the cafeteria; we saw it again in various reports on the June 7th shooting in Santa Monica, where the shooter was described as "calm" and "methodical."



I participated in A.L.I.C.E. training a couple of weeks ago (this is training for companies in how to deal with an active shooter at your place of business ) and one of the things the trainer pointed out is mentioned above...the killers all act in a calm manner and are methodical in their killing.  The reason...they choose places where they know they will have access to defenseless victims and where they know the police will take some time to arrive.  Because of these two factors, their ratio between shots fired and victims killed is way out of proportion...they kill far more people than either police or civillians armed with pistols...

Gun Free zones need to end...and people need to be able to defend themselves with guns whenever they are in public because...you may never use a gun for self-defense...but if you need a gun for self-defense...you really, really need it...



> According to The Christian Science Monitor, witnesses even described the Santa Monica shooter as "confident," saying he "casually took aim" before firing at his targets.





> At some point lawmakers at all levels--but particularly at the state and federal level--have to come to grips with the fact that gun-free zones create victims, period.





> It's time for 2nd Amendment rights to be as valid on campuses as they are in Wal-Mart, at an ExxonMobil corner store, or in a hamburger shop.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 9, 2013)

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your consideration.  

I don't deny I'd be happier if the thread didn't turn into one where we just go over the same ground we've covered before but the 'whys and wherefores' of weapon use and misuse *are* really bound up in these horrible incidents.  So too is the case that legislation only works for those of a mind to follow it and so, in and of itself, it cannot, with the best will in the world, prevent these things happening.


----------



## Steve (Jun 9, 2013)

Isn't it reasonable that two of the victims, the shooters brother and father, also had access to guns?  

And if the two people shot in their cars were armed, do you think they would have recognized the ambush for what it was?  Do you think a firearm would have stopped the shooter from firing into the cars?  Hard to say, really, but if it was really an ambush, where he flagged a car down and then opened fire... I don't know that a gun in the car would have helped.

From the Account in the article, its unclear.  The point I'm trying to make is that you don't know what you don't know.  Anyone can invent the filler to any news article and spin it to support their position.  

I'm in favor of people owning firearms if they wish, and I've talked about my opinions on gun free zones before, as well.  I just think you undermine your own credibility when you jump to conclusions.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Jun 9, 2013)

On the shooter...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-santa-monica-college-mass-murder-how-did-it-happen/



> According to news accounts, the killer used an assault-style weapon.  Unsurprisingly, the 24-year-old killer had a history of mental illness, a run-in with the police, and had been hospitalized at some point in the last few years(although it remains unclear if this was voluntary or involuntary).  As regular readers of my columns know, this is the heart of the mass murder problem, not just in America, but in Europe and Canada as well.
> 
> 
> But how could this happen? California has had an assault weapons ban since 1989, progressively tightened over a decade.  This law has been on the books, and enforced, since the killer _was born_.  The only lawful way for a Californian to possess a high-capacity magazine is if he owned it before 2000  when the killer was eleven years old. California passed a firearms-transfer background check requirement that took effect on January 1, 1991, which checks not only for felony and violent misdemeanor convictions and pending charges, but also for involuntary mental hospital commitments.  Even if you are only held for 72 hour observation and then determined to be not crazy enough for longer term treatment, you are ineligible to possess a firearm for five years.  The shooter was 24 unless he was hospitalized between 18 and 19, he could not have legally purchased _any _firearm.  You cant drive across the border into Arizona or Nevada to legally buy a gun; federal law prohibits such transfers unless your state of residence allows such transfers  and California does not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 9, 2013)

Steve said:


> Isn't it reasonable that two of the victims, the shooters brother and father, also had access to guns?
> 
> And if the two people shot in their cars were armed, do you think they would have recognized the ambush for what it was?  Do you think a firearm would have stopped the shooter from firing into the cars?  Hard to say, really, but if it was really an ambush, where he flagged a car down and then opened fire... I don't know that a gun in the car would have helped.
> 
> ...



I dont think its the Victims being armed is the point.  A bystander being at the right place at the right time who was armed could stop an attack.  Its happened before.  Not saying it would or could have helped in this case but it has helped in other cases.  It is at least a valid question to ask, with Cali's strict gun laws or gun free zones in general does it make it easier for people to do this kind of thing.


----------



## Steve (Jun 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think its the Victims being armed is the point.  A bystander being at the right place at the right time who was armed could stop an attack.  Its happened before.  Not saying it would or could have helped in this case but it has helped in other cases.  It is at least a valid question to ask, with Cali's strict gun laws or gun free zones in general does it make it easier for people to do this kind of thing.



Maybe and maybe not.  The point I'm making is that there is a difference between saying "might have" and "would have."  I'm responding to billc's simplistic perspective. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 9, 2013)

I don't see why people want the public, given the oppurtunity to "protect and serve" when the cops freely admit it's not there job to "protect and serve." Why should anyone else do it?  

As far as guns are concerned, I think it's more about "take care of number 1" and thinking innocent bystanders are going to risk their lives for someone they don't know is rediculous...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 9, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I don't see why people want the public, given the oppurtunity to "protect and serve" when the cops freely admit it's not there job to "protect and serve." Why should anyone else do it?
> 
> As far as guns are concerned, I think it's more about "take care of number 1" and thinking innocent bystanders are going to risk their lives for someone they don't know is rediculous...
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Well thankfully others don't fell the way you do.  I will help anyone if I can.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well thankfully others don't fell the way you do.  I will help anyone if I can.



You say that but you've also said it's not your job to "protect and serve." I applaud anyone who is willing to help others but I think it's rediculous to expect ordinary citizens to "pick up the slack" when it comes to crime fighting. A lady did try and stop the 1st carjacking and she was shot 4 times. The only reason she survived was because she "played dead."

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> You say that but you've also said it's not your job to "protect and serve." I applaud anyone who is willing to help others but I think it's rediculous to expect ordinary citizens to "pick up the slack" when it comes to crime fighting. A lady did try and stop the 1st carjacking and she was shot 4 times. The only reason she survived was because she "played dead."
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Its not my job to protect anyone.  It was at one time but due to lawsuits from when we didn't get there in time and the families sued.  Claiming we failed to protect their loved ones.  I'll protect anyone and everyone I can because its the right thing to do but its not my job and I make no promise to do it.  
I've never said its any bystanders responsibility to  pick up the slack.  But there are people out there that would do that and by limiting their ability with bad gun laws is wrong.  
There are lots of folks that will help others, you may not be one and that's fine that's your right but thankfully more people will help then would just sit by and watch.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 10, 2013)

In my opinion, the issue has nothing to do with gun laws. The real issue is why are there so many nut cases that want to shoot random people? Why are we not educating people on how to properly teach their children to respect others? Why are we not spending more trying to help these obviously insane people before they take their dive off the deep end? Why is so much of the country interested in shouting useless political rhetoric at each other, but nobody is bothering to address the root problem?

  These are the issues that need to be addressed, in my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Jun 10, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> In my opinion, the issue has nothing to do with gun laws. The real issue is why are there so many nut cases that want to shoot random people? Why are we not educating people on how to properly teach their children to respect others? Why are we not spending more trying to help these obviously insane people before they take their dive off the deep end? Why is so much of the country interested in shouting useless political rhetoric at each other, but nobody is bothering to address the root problem?
> 
> These are the issues that need to be addressed, in my opinion.



I agree to an extent.  Nailing down the actual root problem is easier said than done, and I would suspect that most people believe they are addressing the "root" issue, if asked.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 10, 2013)

A couple of things.
 Some people in this country seem to want "our" country to be the only country (that I know of) in the world to allow people to carry guns and act as crusaders.

While at the same time these shooting sprees seem to be for the most part an American thing committed by Americans against Americans...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not my job to protect anyone.  It was at one time but due to lawsuits from when we didn't get there in time and the families sued.  Claiming we failed to protect their loved ones.  I'll protect anyone and everyone I can because its the right thing to do but its not my job and I make no promise to do it.
> I've never said its any bystanders responsibility to  pick up the slack.  But there are people out there that would do that and by limiting their ability with bad gun laws is wrong.
> There are lots of folks that will help others, you may not be one and that's fine that's your right but thankfully more people will help then would just sit by and watch.



I never said I wasn't one to help. I said why should the public be expected to serve when that is not the duty of the police.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2013)

Given that we are not issued at birth with our own personal policeman (and never have been in any culture at any time) law enforcement is much more a construct of 'peer pressure' and social norms than it is of the courts and the 'long arm of the law'.  More crime is prevented by the public than the police; it has always been that way.

When you have a society with widespread access to firearms and also a sub-culture wherein lethal violence is an accepted way of resolving issues then you are going to have problems.  The guns cannot be magicked away and even if they could be temporarily removed from the continental USA it would be a matter of hours before more came in (to the hands of criminals) from elsewhere.  So the only path towards ameliorating the use of lethal force in a social context is to alter the society.

How you do that is problematic because the States has wed itself to the somewhat nihilistic concept of unregulated capitalism and that inevitably gives you a medieval inequality in outcomes, which in turn leads to those at the bottom, with little hope of legitimately improving their lot, turning to the criminal path.  Prosperity and relative equality are important attributes of a safe and peaceful society; debt and outrageous inequity leads to violence.

The cure for violent crime is not in gun legislation, it is in overturning the ludicrous financial system and constraining the freedom of capital with a few moral guidelines.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I never said I wasn't one to help. I said why should the public be expected to serve when that is not the duty of the police.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Has nothing to do with what the police can and can't do.   Its about doing what's right. There are millions of people not police that will step up and get involved.  Attitudes like yours ate what wrong with this country.  The "why should I help". Its none if my business,  blah blah blah.  I think people should be looking out for each other and helping each other out.  I see this guy shooting up cars I'm going after him and hope others help me.


----------



## Steve (Jun 10, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Given that we are not issued at birth with our own personal policeman (and never have been in any culture at any time) law enforcement is much more a construct of 'peer pressure' and social norms than it is of the courts and the 'long arm of the law'.  More crime is prevented by the public than the police; it has always been that way.
> 
> When you have a society with widespread access to firearms and also a sub-culture wherein lethal violence is an accepted way of resolving issues then you are going to have problems.  The guns cannot be magicked away and even if they could be temporarily removed from the continental USA it would be a matter of hours before more came in (to the hands of criminals) from elsewhere.  So the only path towards ameliorating the use of lethal force in a social context is to alter the society.
> 
> ...


Suk, while it's true that lower income kids can sometimes turn to crime, the recent phenomenon in America isn't about class.  The shooters are often white and from middle class families.  

Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that American society has "a sub-culture wherein lethal violence is an accepted way of resolving issues."  While there are people as described above, the commonality tends to be mental illness and alienation, rather than anything I think could be characterized as a sub-culture of lethal violence.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

Steve is kinda correct.  Mass shooters don't tend to be poor kids.  But mass shooters are a small  % of gun crime a larger portion of gun crime is committed by poor low income individuals.  More people are shoot in Chicago every year then all the mass shootings combined.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2013)

I was broadening the base of discussion somewhat away from the massacre shootings, which are, I agree, largely carried out by those with mental rather than criminal issues.

That said, other than vanishingly rare incidents, we don't get anything like that sort of thing happening over here in Britain.  Now is that because there are fewer weapons or because there is a cultural difference in how people in general resolve disputes and that difference carries forwards even amongst the less-than-sane?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> That said, other than vanishingly rare incidents, we don't get anything like that sort of thing happening over here in Britain.  Now is that because there are fewer weapons or because there is a cultural difference in how people in general resolve disputes and that difference carries forwards even amongst the less-than-sane?



Both.  But I think our culters are just that different.  I don't believe you guys have the gang issues on the scale we do.  I've talked to gang bangers that want to die before the are 30.  They can't see life beyond that and to them going out in the "game" is all that matters.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Has nothing to do with what the police can and can't do.   Its about doing what's right. There are millions of people not police that will step up and get involved.  Attitudes like yours ate what wrong with this country.  The "why should I help". Its none if my business,  blah blah blah.  I think people should be looking out for each other and helping each other out.  I see this guy shooting up cars I'm going after him and hope others help me.



Like usual, you are twisting my words. I never stated "why should I help." I spoke of the public in general. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Like usual, you are twisting my words. I never stated "why should I help." I spoke of the public in general.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Not twisting your words don't be so defensive.  That was a general statement.  I was the general I not you


----------



## Carol (Jun 10, 2013)

Lots of people do things to help others that perhaps the majority of Americans won't do.  

A week and a half ago when we were in the grips of a heat wave, many of my friends in the area were going on FB talking about going to the movies or finding other ways to beat the heat.

I strapped on a 20 pound backpack and hit the trail to help out the mountain patrol team at the park where I volunteer. I'm a northern girl, I have not hiked when it's been above 90F before....let alone with a heavy pack.  

For most of my hike it was around 91, but when I got above the erosion-made treeline, it was far worse.  The exposed granite had been soaking ip the hot sun for the last two days and was radiating so much heat it felt like hiking in an oven.

By the time I had gotten back to my car, I had assisted 3 people of dehydration, one with a sprained ankle, and hiked for a bit with on lady hiking in stocking feet because her shoes fell apart on the rocks.  

A hiker should be prepared for their trek.  It's not the park's responsibility.   It wasn't my responsibility to be there in brutal heat.  I didn't have to be there at all.

But, I was. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> I never stated "why should I help." I spoke of the public in general.


Because it is the responsibility of adults to protect those that need it. I don't care who you are, if you are an adult, that is your duty.


----------



## Steve (Jun 10, 2013)

Sorry, I missed the segue from an active shooter situation where a middle class kid named John Zawahri shot a bunch of innocent people in what looks like a one-off rampage to the entirely different topic of gang violence and poverty related crime.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

Steve said:


> Sorry, I missed the segue from an active shooter situation where a middle class kid named John Zawahrihot a bunch of innocent people in what looks like a one-off rampage to the entirely different topic of gang violence and poverty related crime.



I think he was just speaking of gun crime in general.  We will never be able to stop mentally Ill from going in a rampage. our only hope in my opinion is to limit the damage when it happens however we decided to do it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2013)

Carol said:


> Lots of people do things to help others that perhaps the majority of Americans won't do.
> 
> A week and a half ago when we were in the grips of a heat wave, many of my friends in the area were going on FB talking about going to the movies or finding other ways to beat the heat.
> 
> ...


Hiking in the heat is no joke.


----------



## Steve (Jun 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think he was just speaking of gun crime in general.  We will never be able to stop mentally Ill from going in a rampage. our only hope in my opinion is to limit the damage when it happens however we decided to do it.



So then why are some people suggesting that armed citizens would have helped in this situation?  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 11, 2013)

Steve said:


> So then why are some people suggesting that armed citizens would have helped in this situation?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



Because they could.


----------



## Steve (Jun 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Because they could.


Or they couldn't. 

Consider an active shooter situation.  For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on.  It's chaotic.  People are screaming. Say I'm armed.  By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed.  Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera.  It's fan fiction.

I think that firearms in a home are a TERRIFIC idea, if they are handled safely.  The delineation in a home between the bad guy and the good guys is very clear.  But in an active shooter situation such as the one above, I can see where an armed citizen *might* help.  I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen *would* help.  Or even that it would be likely to help.  

However, every time we see an active shooter situation like the one in this thread (which has little to do with poverty, class, gang violence or any of the other red herrings that come up), it's like clockwork.  One side spins it to support gun control.  The other side spins it to support essentially a gun free-for-all.


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2013)

> I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen *would* help.  Or even that it would be likely to help.



Hmmmm...ask the people who actually did stop active shooters, by capturing them, or shooting them, before the police arrived.  Also, if you are the individual who happens to end up eyeball to eyeball with an active shooter...it might be nice to be able to shoot him before he shoots you...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 11, 2013)

Steve said:


> Or they couldn't.
> 
> Consider an active shooter situation. For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on. It's chaotic. People are screaming. Say I'm armed. By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed. Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera. It's fan fiction.


OODA. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. This takes time. Training and experience can shorten the time, but it takes time. That's without even assessing some of the complexities of a real world violent situation -- like what's behind that target, or the effect of adrenaline on fine motor control.


> I think that firearms in a home are a TERRIFIC idea, if they are handled safely. The delineation in a home between the bad guy and the good guys is very clear. But in an active shooter situation such as the one above, I can see where an armed citizen *might* help. I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen *would* help. Or even that it would be likely to help.
> 
> However, every time we see an active shooter situation like the one in this thread (which has little to do with poverty, class, gang violence or any of the other red herrings that come up), it's like clockwork. One side spins it to support gun control. The other side spins it to support essentially a gun free-for-all.



Many, perhaps even most, of these cases have been indictments of the mental health system much more than any gun issues. Simple fact: people who aren't going to play by the rules aren't likely to start playing by the rules just because you add a new law. The real bad guys are going to still be bad guys. Knee jerk gun control legislation (like almost all other knee jerk legislation) will do nothing effective. Nor will entrenched opposition to any legislation at all.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 11, 2013)

Steve said:


> Or they couldn't.
> 
> Consider an active shooter situation.  For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on.  It's chaotic.  People are screaming. Say I'm armed.  By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed.  Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera.  It's fan fiction.
> 
> ...



Except even with all that armed citizens have stopped mass shootings.  Its a fact.  In all the confusion it's happened.  Doesn't happen every time but it does happen.  And its happens more then someone trying to help and shooting the wrong people.  So just as you think I'm silly for suggesting it could help I think your equally silly for saying it couldn't.


----------



## Steve (Jun 11, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmmm...ask the people who actually did stop active shooters, by capturing them, or shooting them, before the police arrived.  Also, if you are the individual who happens to end up eyeball to eyeball with an active shooter...it might be nice to be able to shoot him before he shoots you...


Hmmmmm....  so, you're saying that you know that a person with a gun would have saved the day in Santa Monica?  Hmmmm...  Hmmmm?  HmmMMMmmmmm....


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2013)

Welllll...we do know how it turned out when no one but the police had guns, it would be nice to have a do over and arm some people along the nut jobs path and see if it would have been any different...the same for the theater in Colorado, for Columbine, for Sandy Hook...again...all "Gun Free Zones," except for the criminal or mentally deranged individual with the gun...and we actually know, as a matter of fact, how those turned out as well...


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2013)

> Doesn't happen every time but it does happen.



The biggest reason that it doesn't happen more?  The killers choose government mandated gun free zones where the victims will be completely unarmed and defenseless.  I always enjoy when it is mentioned that civilians at the scene stop the criminals without guns more often than with guns...completely missing the fact that in a gun free zone, the victims simply don't have guns.


----------



## Steve (Jun 11, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> OODA. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. This takes time. Training and experience can shorten the time, but it takes time. That's without even assessing some of the complexities of a real world violent situation -- like what's behind that target, or the effect of adrenaline on fine motor control.


Exactly.  


Many, perhaps even most, of these cases have been indictments of the mental health system much more than any gun issues. Simple fact: people who aren't going to play by the rules aren't likely to start playing by the rules just because you add a new law. The real bad guys are going to still be bad guys. Knee jerk gun control legislation (like almost all other knee jerk legislation) will do nothing effective. Nor will entrenched opposition to any legislation at all.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, guys.  You're all giving me a goddamn headache.  I agree with this.  This is not a response to what I said.  JKS, where have I endorsed knee jerk legislation of any kind?  The only knees jerking around are in this thread, with the knee jerk responses.

In fact, I have stated several times that I think an armed bystander MAY have made a difference.  I don't know that I would go so far as to say that it is likely, but of course it is possible.  For the reasons you state above, the average armed citizen will likely have NO experience in a crisis like this and will very likely need time to assess the situation in order to act appropriately, armed or not.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 12, 2013)

I believe that these occurances have been at least mostly due to mental health. But a broader unanswered question is why does America have the most mental health catastophies?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 14, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Given that we are not issued at birth with our own personal policeman (and never have been in any culture at any time) law enforcement is much more a construct of 'peer pressure' and social norms than it is of the courts and the 'long arm of the law'.  More crime is prevented by the public than the police; it has always been that way.



I think it is called peer pressure.  A fear of some type of sanction if certain norms are violated.



Sukerkin said:


> When you have a society with widespread access to firearms and also a sub-culture wherein lethal violence is an accepted way of resolving issues then you are going to have problems.



What USA sub-culture has lethal violence as an accepted way of resolving issues?  As far as I know, I am not a member of such a sub-culture.



Sukerkin said:


> The guns cannot be magicked away and even if they could be temporarily removed from the continental USA it would be a matter of hours before more came in (to the hands of criminals) from elsewhere.  So the only path towards ameliorating the use of lethal force in a social context is to alter the society.
> 
> How you do that is problematic because the States has wed itself to the somewhat nihilistic concept of unregulated capitalism and that inevitably gives you a medieval inequality in outcomes, which in turn leads to those at the bottom, with little hope of legitimately improving their lot, turning to the criminal path.  Prosperity and relative equality are important attributes of a safe and peaceful society; debt and outrageous inequity leads to violence.
> 
> The cure for violent crime is not in gun legislation, it is in overturning the ludicrous financial system and constraining the freedom of capital with a few moral guidelines.



If by unregulated capitalism you mean big business being able to buy favored laws and regulations from those who vote for laws and regulation, I would tend to agree.  But to say overturning our ludicrous financial system (and I'm not agreeing ours in the USA is) is a cure for violent crime is something that needs defense.  There will always be people who prefer preying on the fruits of other's work over working themselves.  Some of those will be OK, or even prefer, using violence.

Also, what does our economic system have to do with people who have mental problems?  How did shootings in San jose, Aurora, or Newtown aid the economic situation of the shooters?  Was that a motive for their crimes?



James Kovacich said:


> I believe that these occurances have been at least mostly due to mental health. But a broader unanswered question is why does America have the most mental health catastophies?
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



One mental health related catastrophy is two too many.  But I don't know that the USA has the most mental health catastropies.  Do you have something to show that is so?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2013)

Couldn't find a way to respond to that that didn't have spikes in it - so I shall say nothing for a while until I can find a way to word a response that is constructive.  Might be a while ...


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 14, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> One mental health related catastrophy is two too many.  But I don't know that the USA has the most mental health catastropies.  Do you have something to show that is so?



Almost all of these mass shooting are occuring in the USA. That is what I am referring to.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 14, 2013)

James Kovacich said:


> Almost all of these mass shooting are occuring in the USA. That is what I am referring to.



OK, I see what you mean.  I was thinking more along the line that there are a lot of catastropies occurring such as genocide, many of which must be committed by mentally ill people.  But I guess I should have kept my thinking more narrow in line with this thread.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 14, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Couldn't find a way to respond to that that didn't have spikes in it - so I shall say nothing for a while until I can find a way to word a response that is constructive.  Might be a while ...



My apologies, I didn't mean to sound confrontational.  I don't agree with everything you said, and wanted to ask some questions for your comment.  I thought I might better understand what you meant, or you might understand my disagreement. 

But if you want to implant spikes, go ahead for my part.  I have a thick skin and always expect to be able to take what I give.


----------

