Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
Interesting piece on parents asking other parents if they have guns in the house, should their children go on a (shudder) "play-date".
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34384757
One line stands out:
"It's a sensitive situation, because most gun people don't want to advertise how they're armed, especially in their own home, and everybody tends to think they're the safest, smartest parent or gun owner. You try to keep it pretty vague and casual,"
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34384757
One line stands out:
"It's a sensitive situation, because most gun people don't want to advertise how they're armed, especially in their own home, and everybody tends to think they're the safest, smartest parent or gun owner. You try to keep it pretty vague and casual,"
Parent said:
So, err, has young Billy-Bob shot anyone lately?
TankRizzo said:
How many more before American society wakes up?
You may quote examples of why allowing guns is stupid till you run out of keyboards. If I read it right, a poster here was saying that his niece who is 8 and has an access to .22. That level of stupidity can't be reasoned with. As for when 11 year boy kills an 8 year old girl, that will be blamed on everything but ownership of guns.
You can get any statistic that you want, it will not matter, because it only happens to 'others' who are 'less responsible'.
To answer your question, the seismic cultural shift, necessary for anything to change, will not happen.
NYTimes said:
In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”
“I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags,” Ms. Harper wrote. “No one will be ‘dropping’ by my house uninvited without acknowledgement.”
Neighbors in Southern California have said that Ms. Harper and her son would go to shooting ranges together, something Ms. Harper seemed to confirm in one of her online posts. She talked about the importance of firearms safety and said she learned a lot through target shooting, expressing little patience with unprepared gun owners: “When I’m at the range, I cringe every time the ‘wannabes’ show up.”
Alexis Jefferson, who worked with Ms. Harper at a Southern California subacute care center around 2010, said the gunman’s mother sometimes confided the difficulties she had in raising her son, including that she had placed Mr. Harper-Mercer in a psychiatric hospital when he did not take his medication.
“She said that ‘my son is a real big problem of mine,’ ” Ms. Jefferson said in a telephone interview. “She said: ‘He has some psychological problems. Sometimes he takes his medication, sometimes he doesn’t. And that’s where the big problem is, when he doesn’t take his medication.’ ”
The scary part is that she's a nurse, and she still let him be around firearms despite the above. Mind boggling. “I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags,” Ms. Harper wrote. “No one will be ‘dropping’ by my house uninvited without acknowledgement.”
Neighbors in Southern California have said that Ms. Harper and her son would go to shooting ranges together, something Ms. Harper seemed to confirm in one of her online posts. She talked about the importance of firearms safety and said she learned a lot through target shooting, expressing little patience with unprepared gun owners: “When I’m at the range, I cringe every time the ‘wannabes’ show up.”
Alexis Jefferson, who worked with Ms. Harper at a Southern California subacute care center around 2010, said the gunman’s mother sometimes confided the difficulties she had in raising her son, including that she had placed Mr. Harper-Mercer in a psychiatric hospital when he did not take his medication.
“She said that ‘my son is a real big problem of mine,’ ” Ms. Jefferson said in a telephone interview. “She said: ‘He has some psychological problems. Sometimes he takes his medication, sometimes he doesn’t. And that’s where the big problem is, when he doesn’t take his medication.’ ”
Mind boggling is an understatement.
She could/should almost be arrested and tried as an accessory. The threat of 25 years in "the pen" would focus the mind of a lot of the families of the "wannabes" or more gung-ho owners, and would probably then go some way to silence this whole second amendment crap.
She could/should almost be arrested and tried as an accessory. The threat of 25 years in "the pen" would focus the mind of a lot of the families of the "wannabes" or more gung-ho owners, and would probably then go some way to silence this whole second amendment crap.
OpulentBob said:
You're right, you didn't say that. Apologies for misquoting.
The part about your wife carrying a gun made me think, though - why does she carry it?
Assuming it's for a mugging, or personal robbery or whatever it's called there. How would it go down?
If she didn't have a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She hands it over, loses a couple of hundred dollars and they run off, and you have a bit of hassle cancelling everything and getting it reissued.
If she has a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She reaches in her bag to hand the wallet/purse over, grabs her gun pulls it out, and then IF she's quick enough to get it cocked, unsafetied, and then aimed, she might get a shot off - but either way SOMEONE is going to go down, most likely the person fumbling around. It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
I assume you're not allowed to do a Tony Martin over there and shoot someone in the back after they've mugged you and are running off with your stuff, as you are no longer in fear for your life?
Are you allowed to pull a gun on someone if you merely suspect they are going to mug or rob you? Are you allowed to flash your gun in the street to let people know not to mess with you?
All serious questions.
Not much use when the mugger has taken your gun as well.The part about your wife carrying a gun made me think, though - why does she carry it?
Assuming it's for a mugging, or personal robbery or whatever it's called there. How would it go down?
If she didn't have a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She hands it over, loses a couple of hundred dollars and they run off, and you have a bit of hassle cancelling everything and getting it reissued.
If she has a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She reaches in her bag to hand the wallet/purse over, grabs her gun pulls it out, and then IF she's quick enough to get it cocked, unsafetied, and then aimed, she might get a shot off - but either way SOMEONE is going to go down, most likely the person fumbling around. It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
I assume you're not allowed to do a Tony Martin over there and shoot someone in the back after they've mugged you and are running off with your stuff, as you are no longer in fear for your life?
Are you allowed to pull a gun on someone if you merely suspect they are going to mug or rob you? Are you allowed to flash your gun in the street to let people know not to mess with you?
All serious questions.
Of course, if *everyone* is carrying guns, muggers might just shoot first and get it over with. The solution then is to shoot the mugger first. Or the potential mugger - like this guy walking up behind me, or the bloke crossing the street, or...
OpulentBob said:
Mind boggling is an understatement.
She could/should almost be arrested and tried as an accessory. The threat of 25 years in "the pen" would focus the mind of a lot of the families of the "wannabes" or more gung-ho owners, and would probably then go some way to silence this whole second amendment crap.
I bet there's a lot of people 'dropping' by her house now uninvited. Not sure how useful her firearms are against the media though. She could/should almost be arrested and tried as an accessory. The threat of 25 years in "the pen" would focus the mind of a lot of the families of the "wannabes" or more gung-ho owners, and would probably then go some way to silence this whole second amendment crap.
OpulentBob said:
It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
Carrying a gun loaded and with no safety in actually pretty common and quite safe, with the correct procedure. Modern handguns just will not go off unless the trigger is fully pulled. Drop them, drive over them, use them as a hammer, they just will not go off unless you pull the trigger. You don't need to cock them, pulling the trigger cocks them. They are therefore carried in a holster which fully covers the trigger, so that the trigger cannot be accidentally pulled. When you pull the gun out, it is ready to fire (or go on a beserker shooting spree as seems to be the opinion of what always happens based on reading this thread. )There are a lot of guns which do not even have a mechanical safety, e.g. Glocks, which the police use. The police carry them with a bullet in the chamber all the time, so if they pull it out, it will be instantly ready to fire. Nobody seems to think police carrying pistols this way is risky.
jjlynn27 said:
You may quote examples of why allowing guns is stupid till you run out of keyboards. If I read it right, a poster here was saying that his niece who is 8 and has an access to .22. That level of stupidity can't be reasoned with.
To answer your question, the seismic cultural shift, necessary for anything to change, will not happen.
You are under the impression my 8yo niece takes her 22 to the mall all by herself while all the redneck drug addled adults at home are busy shooting up smack? To answer your question, the seismic cultural shift, necessary for anything to change, will not happen.
Or you did actually read the bit about the single shot 22 being kept in a safe and only taken out by her father, who is a naval submariner, and used by my niece in a controlled environment under supervision, after which it goes back in the safe?
creampuff said:
OpulentBob said:
It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
Carrying a gun loaded and with no safety in actually pretty common and quite safe, with the correct procedure. Modern handguns just will not go off unless the trigger is fully pulled. Drop them, drive over them, use them as a hammer, they just will not go off unless you pull the trigger. You don't need to cock them, pulling the trigger cocks them. They are therefore carried in a holster which fully covers the trigger, so that the trigger cannot be accidentally pulled. When you pull the gun out, it is ready to fire (or go on a beserker shooting spree as seems to be the opinion of what always happens based on reading this thread. )There are a lot of guns which do not even have a mechanical safety, e.g. Glocks, which the police use. The police carry them with a bullet in the chamber all the time, so if they pull it out, it will be instantly ready to fire. Nobody seems to think police carrying pistols this way is risky.
jjlynn27 said:
You may quote examples of why allowing guns is stupid till you run out of keyboards. If I read it right, a poster here was saying that his niece who is 8 and has an access to .22. That level of stupidity can't be reasoned with.
To answer your question, the seismic cultural shift, necessary for anything to change, will not happen.
You are under the impression my 8yo niece takes her 22 to the mall all by herself while all the redneck drug addled adults at home are busy shooting up smack? To answer your question, the seismic cultural shift, necessary for anything to change, will not happen.
Or you did actually read the bit about the single shot 22 being kept in a safe and only taken out by her father, who is a naval submariner, and used by my niece in a controlled environment under supervision, after which it goes back in the safe?
What has his profession got to do with anything either?
OpulentBob said:
You're right, you didn't say that. Apologies for misquoting.
The part about your wife carrying a gun made me think, though - why does she carry it?
Assuming it's for a mugging, or personal robbery or whatever it's called there. How would it go down?
If she didn't have a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She hands it over, loses a couple of hundred dollars and they run off, and you have a bit of hassle cancelling everything and getting it reissued.
If she has a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She reaches in her bag to hand the wallet/purse over, grabs her gun pulls it out, and then IF she's quick enough to get it cocked, unsafetied, and then aimed, she might get a shot off - but either way SOMEONE is going to go down, most likely the person fumbling around. It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
I assume you're not allowed to do a Tony Martin over there and shoot someone in the back after they've mugged you and are running off with your stuff, as you are no longer in fear for your life?
Are you allowed to pull a gun on someone if you merely suspect they are going to mug or rob you? Are you allowed to flash your gun in the street to let people know not to mess with you?
All serious questions.
No apology necessary, I'm not taking any of this personally. I'd like to caveat that both my wife and I have benefitted from quite extensive training over the years, provided by the specialists of Orange County Sheriffs Office. A by-product of having a daughter in the mob.The part about your wife carrying a gun made me think, though - why does she carry it?
Assuming it's for a mugging, or personal robbery or whatever it's called there. How would it go down?
If she didn't have a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She hands it over, loses a couple of hundred dollars and they run off, and you have a bit of hassle cancelling everything and getting it reissued.
If she has a gun: Someone pulls a gun on her, demands her money, phone, etc. She reaches in her bag to hand the wallet/purse over, grabs her gun pulls it out, and then IF she's quick enough to get it cocked, unsafetied, and then aimed, she might get a shot off - but either way SOMEONE is going to go down, most likely the person fumbling around. It would be quicker to keep a cocked gun on her belt, in her waistband, surely, and then get all Texas Pete, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that is a ridiculously hazardous way to carry a gun, and only then if you can outdraw whoever has got one pointing at you.
I assume you're not allowed to do a Tony Martin over there and shoot someone in the back after they've mugged you and are running off with your stuff, as you are no longer in fear for your life?
Are you allowed to pull a gun on someone if you merely suspect they are going to mug or rob you? Are you allowed to flash your gun in the street to let people know not to mess with you?
All serious questions.
In answer to your questions....
My wife carries a Kahr CW9, which was my daughters original back-up weapon to her service side-arm. (OCSO patrol solo, not in pairs, so almost all deputies have at least 2 handguns on their person at work). My wife works as a nurse manager and part of her work involves home visits. That is the core reason.
She also drives a fairly distinctive and desirable (to some) car, which might present a car-jacking threat to her. The car-jacking trend here is not to just swipe the car, but to have the owner drive around from place to place emptying bank accounts and such. She'd rather avoid that.
How it would go down is that if someone accosted her as she was getting into or out of her car I think she'd run - if she was in the car, she'd shoot an assailant who was also in the car with the intention of killing them (to be brutally honest).
Re your subsequent point, allow me to answer that a different way. Back in 2009 my brother and 3 friends parked their car in a lot in Ybor City, Tampa and were going out for sushi. They were approached in the parking lot by a group of around 10 teens/young adults, the 'leader' of which (turned out to be a 15 year old kid) held them up at gunpoint and demanded their cash, valuables and cell phones - and the keys to the car of course. None of my brothers group were armed and all handed over their possessions. However, this kid thought that one of the victims was more reluctant to part with her valuables than the others, so shot her. He didn't kill her, but gravely injured her. It is not safe to assume that muggers/thieves/rapists are otherwise honorable and sensitive to the sanctity of life. A lot of them are worse than feral animals - but I do expect to be accused of scaremongering, by some who may read this.
She doesn't carry that weapon in her handbag. She uses a MIC device which shields the trigger/guard and is attached by a lanyard to her belt. Unholstering it causes the MIC to break away, to expose the trigger. She carries it loaded, racked with a round in the chamber. This weapon has no active safety, other than a grip safety.
A quick point about concealed carry weapon readiness. I never used to carry my gun ready to fire, because I was worried about shooting my balls off. In discussion with my trainers, they persuaded me otherwise. Their philosophy is that if the weapon is not ready to fire, it becomes a liability to the carrier. I was advised that if I wasn't comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber and the weapon in battery and ready to fire, I shouldn't carry it at all. That makes sense to me - and to my wife too.
Carrying a gun this way is by no means ridiculously hazardous, if you use the right equipment and are trained on how to use it.
You are not allowed to fire on anyone who is not presenting an immediate threat to you, where you might reasonably be in fear of serious injury or death - there's a lot of quite subjective scope there - the truth is - the second you open fire, there are going to be some potentially life changing implications one way or another.
Brandishing a weapon is a felony that has serious ramifications in concealed carry states. Our training has ingrained in us, that the only time we would ever draw the weapon is if we fully intend to use it.
Lucas CAV said:
What has his profession got to do with anything either?
It requires considerable self-discipline and external psychological verification to be a submariner in any navy. Such work is unlikely to be undertaken by the reckless dumbarse rednecks which gun owners seem to be portrayed as in this thread. creampuff said:
Lucas CAV said:
What has his profession got to do with anything either?
It requires considerable self-discipline and external psychological verification to be a submariner in any navy. Such work is unlikely to be undertaken by the reckless dumbarse rednecks which gun owners seem to be portrayed as in this thread. creampuff said:
It requires considerable self-discipline and external psychological verification to be a submariner in any navy. Such work is unlikely to be undertaken by the reckless dumbarse rednecks which gun owners seem to be portrayed as in this thread.
*cough*http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/19/navy-sai...
*cough*
Oakey said:
Hmm, I see he is British and on a British submarine. Perhaps if the British armed forces didn't have guns something could be done?For the gun nuts, the Second Amendment is not merely law, it's Holy Writ. Law, Jim, but not as we know it. One sign of a free people is that they live in accordance with laws that are flexible and which change as society changes. Herodotus (I think it was him) observed that the laws of the Medes and Persians were fixed and never changed, and look what happened to them.
Breadvan72 said:
For the gun nuts, the Second Amendment is not merely law, it's Holy Writ. Law, Jim, but not as we know it. One sign of a free people is that they live in accordance with laws that are flexible and which change as society changes. Herodotus (I think it was him) observed that the laws of the Medes and Persians were fixed and never changed, and look what happened to them.
They spent less on lawyers? 
I add that there is an irony in the strict originalist position on the Constitution, which chooses to let history govern the present, as most of the gun nuts haven't a clue about the history of the American Revolution or the early history of the USA. Most of them, for example, would be appalled to learn that the US only came into existence because of French military and naval assistance, have never read Locke, Paine, or Jefferson, and have no clue what the ideas of citizen armies and lawful resistance to tyranny meant then or mean now.
randlemarcus said:
Breadvan72 said:
For the gun nuts, the Second Amendment is not merely law, it's Holy Writ. Law, Jim, but not as we know it. One sign of a free people is that they live in accordance with laws that are flexible and which change as society changes. Herodotus (I think it was him) observed that the laws of the Medes and Persians were fixed and never changed, and look what happened to them.
They spent less on lawyers? 
es but before lawyers). Also, got they butts conquered by some floppy haired Macedonian dude.
Breadvan72 said:
Probably not, alas. Second oldest profession, and all that (probably third oldest really, as soldiers maybe started after wes but before lawyers).
Also, got they butts conquered by some floppy haired Macedonian dude.
Quite true. He was then assassinated while entering a theatre in Aegae, having dismissed or at least instructed his bodyguards to stand by by some distance. Imagine if guns had been invented then. Instead of being the victim of assassination he would have whipped out his gun and BAM, 2000 years of history would be quite different. es but before lawyers). Also, got they butts conquered by some floppy haired Macedonian dude.
Er, no , that didn't happen. He went on a drink up and died of illness some time later, either pissed or poisoned (probably just pissed). Sorry to disrupt your monotheory of everything.
You are thinking of his dad, who although he was from Macedon did not have very floppy hair and did not conquer the Persian Empire.
Is your knowledge of early US history as poor as your knowledge of Hellenistic history?
You are thinking of his dad, who although he was from Macedon did not have very floppy hair and did not conquer the Persian Empire.
Is your knowledge of early US history as poor as your knowledge of Hellenistic history?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 7th October 16:16
Breadvan72 said:
Er, no , that didn't happen. He went on a drink up and died of illness some time later, either pissed or poisoned (probably just pissed). Sorry to disrupt your monotheory of everything.
You are thinking of his dad, who although he was from Macedon did not have very floppy hair and who did not conquer the Persian Empire.
Is your knowledge of early US history as poor as your knowledge of Hellenistic history?
Things are a bit hazy due to all the meth I've been smoking, Breadvan. I'm always getting confused between Alexander and his dad, Cleopatra and her husbands and indeed between Elizabeth Taylor and her many varied husbands. I preferred to study the Assyrians - hard but fair. There are some good reliefs of the Assyrians hacking people to bits in the British Museum. You are thinking of his dad, who although he was from Macedon did not have very floppy hair and who did not conquer the Persian Empire.
Is your knowledge of early US history as poor as your knowledge of Hellenistic history?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff