Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
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.
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
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You can't call other people delusional whilst advocating changing the constitution! Less than a third of Americans own guns but well over half think upholding the right to bear arms is more important than gun control. WTF! The practicalities of disarming 100 million people of their 300 million guns don't even bear thinking about. anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'll give you that. How about 'utterly futile'?anonymous said:
[redacted]
Having lived in the US for a number of years IMO a significant increase in gun killings would lead to a hardening of opinion that law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves and an increase in gun ownership. Matt Harper said:
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.
creampuff said:
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?
I guess what's normal is relative. I spent a lot of time in Central America as a kid. I don't remember the first time I fired a Browning or M16 but I was 13 when I fired an M60, fully auto, it didn't seem all that remarkable at the time but after living 20 years in the UK subsequently I guess it was. 
This article assesses the notion that a good guy with a gun is the effective counter to a bad guy with a gun. Its conclusions won't please creampuff et al, but they will brush them aside in the usual way.
http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destr...
http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destr...
From that article: "While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered. Veteran John Parker later explained to MSNBC, “We could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was… if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”
If even the responsible ones ignore gun free zones, then is there much hope?
Also, this seems screamingly obvious:
"It’s insane,” says Stephen Benson. He recalls an anecdote from his first pistol class in basic training. “We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent.’ That’s a lesson that a lot of people don’t get. More guns means more gunfights. And the idea that in a chaotic, pressurized, terrifying situation, they’re going to do the right thing is ridiculous.”
If even the responsible ones ignore gun free zones, then is there much hope?
Also, this seems screamingly obvious:
"It’s insane,” says Stephen Benson. He recalls an anecdote from his first pistol class in basic training. “We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent.’ That’s a lesson that a lot of people don’t get. More guns means more gunfights. And the idea that in a chaotic, pressurized, terrifying situation, they’re going to do the right thing is ridiculous.”
Edited by OpulentBob on Thursday 8th October 07:01
Corpulent Tosser said:
Oakey said:
Article said:
A case in Texas two weeks ago highlights the risks of civilians intervening in chaotic situations. Police say that as two carjackers struggled with the owner of a car at a gas station in northeast Houston, a witness decided to take action into his own hands. He fired several shots, but missed the perpetrators and shot the owner of the car in the head. He then picked up his shell casings and fled the scene. Police are still looking for the shooter.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-wit...
Oakey said:
creampuff said:
I think it doesn't because the state would need to prove collusion or aiding of the carjackers by the person who shot the car driver in the head. OK for practical purposes, shooting the car owner in the head may well have aided the carjackers but I don't think that is the intent of the law. Someone the likes of Breadvan will also have to comment on if there is a felony attempted murder rule on the Texas statutes, or just a felony murder rule.
Speaking of dangerous things, did you know bicycles are VERY, VERY DANGEROUS! The risk of getting killed on a bicycle is multiples that of being killed in a car and it is not that much lower than being killed on a motorbike. Parents, keep your kids away from bikes!
Again, when someone rides into a school and murders 20 kids with bicycle you'll have a point. =
Speaking of dangerous things, did you know bicycles are VERY, VERY DANGEROUS! The risk of getting killed on a bicycle is multiples that of being killed in a car and it is not that much lower than being killed on a motorbike. Parents, keep your kids away from bikes!
The theory raised by Corpulent tosser that the shooter may have been in league with the car jackers sounds to me like a crackpot theory. The shooter is reported to have been someone filling up at another pump. Two car jackers bring along a deep cover backup guy to pretend to be a bystander and intervene if the victim of the heist resists? Yeah right. Why not just bring three guys up front? Said backup dude is ace shot and hits resisting victim in head on purpose? Yeah right, using a pistol in a confused barney really works that way.
IIRC, some Statutory regimes in some States of the Union provide that anyone engaged in a felony during which someone is murdered could face a murder rap, regardless of joint enterprise. I may be making that up. If such a statute exists in Texas, a keen prosecutor might try his luck against the jackers if they are caught and the victim dies. Possibly ditto for attempted murder. I am speculating. I do not know Texas law. It starts from English law principles but is embellished in many ways, good or bad. For example, the idea of "no duty to retreat" (stand your ground) was, IIRC, a legal principle developed in frontier regions including possibly Texas in the C19. Thus, much self defence law in various US jurisdictions departs from self defence law elsewhere in the common law world (ie: the UK and most of the Commonwealth, also Ireland and other ex UK possessions not ion the Commonwealth). But that by the by.
creampuff's truly fatuous bicycle point is an insult even to his own level of intelligence, and that is saying something. creampuff appears now to be trolling, and may have been from the start. His niece with the gat may be a figment, to wind others up.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 9th October 13:42
Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter plan to rob McGregor's Bank. During the robbery, they are confronted by PC Squirrel Nutkin. Peter produces a gun and shoots Nutkin dead. Flopsy, Mopsy and Cottontail are not armed and did not know that Peter had a gun. Flopsy and Mopsy are in the bank with the swag when Peter shoots. Cottontail is outside at the wheel of the getaway car. Discuss the criminal liability of each of Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter.
(Actual criminal law exam paper circa 1985)
(Actual criminal law exam paper circa 1985)
Spin the question a bit more. PC Nutkin has run to the bank on hearing the alarm, but he is unfit from eating too many acorns, and has a heart attack and dies on the steps. Peter thinks that the constable is just taking cover or has fallen over, and shoots him, intending to kill him, but Nutkin is dead before Peter shoots. Discuss!
Criminal law is fun to study, but not so much fun in real life, most of the time.
Criminal law is fun to study, but not so much fun in real life, most of the time.
Well, I'm glad the Americans can keep their sense of humour over a subject like a load of dead kids. The cold dead hands happen, in these cases, to be holding schoolbooks. But yeah, not worth bothering about. Mask the problem with sarcasm and an attempt at humour.
Yet make a joke about 9/11 and watch them cry. Different when it's them goddam Islamics, ain't it boy?
Yet make a joke about 9/11 and watch them cry. Different when it's them goddam Islamics, ain't it boy?
williamp said:
Breadvan72 said:
Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter plan to rob McGregor's Bank. During the robbery, they are confronted by PC Squirrel Nutkin. Peter produces a gun and shoots Nutkin dead. Flopsy, Mopsy and Cottontail are not armed and did not know that Peter had a gun. Flopsy and Mopsy are in the bank with the swag when Peter shoots. Cottontail is outside at the wheel of the getaway car. Discuss the criminal liability of each of Flopsy, Mopsy, Cottontail, and Peter.
(Actual criminal law exam paper circa 1985)
is the getaway car the Jensen or the Lotus??(Actual criminal law exam paper circa 1985)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff