Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Street Shots  (Read 8076 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5018



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2011, 07:20:22 PM »
ReplyReply

... I've come to believe that high school teachers and college professors should be required to go through the same kind of handgun training I went through in the Air Force and be required to carry a gun at all times in the classroom. I think that'd bring the school massacres to a screeching halt!

Or the change in strategy: any self-respecting lunatic with a gun and a grudge would start his massacre by surprising and killing the gun-carrying teacher. Regardless of the technical shooting training, a decent guy would always think for a split second longer than the bad guy whether to shoot and kill another human being. That especially goes for teachers. Some things are best left to professionals.

Or how about not only teachers, but all students being allowed to carry guns (not so far fetched, as someone already proposed that)? So, when the shooting starts, and other students start shooting back, and new students with guns start entering the fray, how would they distinguish who is the original shooter and who is only shooting back? The same question goes for the police, once they enter the scene.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2011, 07:42:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Once again if you give kids a gun the thing they are most likely to do is kill themself with it.

55 Percent of Gun Deaths in America are Suicide.

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2011, 08:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Or the change in strategy: any self-respecting lunatic with a gun and a grudge would start his massacre by surprising and killing the gun-carrying teacher.

Slobodan, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a self-respecting lunatic, but assuming there is, you might be right. That's why we need more than one teacher with a gun.

Quote
Regardless of the technical shooting training, a decent guy would always think for a split second longer than the bad guy whether to shoot and kill another human being. That especially goes for teachers. Some things are best left to professionals.

What kind of professionals did you have in mind? Maybe we could supply each high school and university with a swat team? I think a decent guy, especially a decent teacher whose students are being murdered, would shoot first and think about it later. You're assuming all teachers are wusses. That's simply not true.

Quote
Or how about not only teachers, but all students being allowed to carry guns (not so far fetched, as someone already proposed that)? So, when the shooting starts, and other students start shooting back, and new students with guns start entering the fray, how would they distinguish who is the original shooter and who is only shooting back? The same question goes for the police, once they enter the scene.

That's quite a stretch, Slobodan. You've been watching too much TV. I can't think of a single case where a school was attacked by more than two guys, and Columbine is the only one I can think of where more than one was involved. One shot -- end of slaughter.
Logged

michswiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2011, 08:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ,  I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2011, 08:35:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ, given the old guy's age the most likely thing he will do with his gun is to commit suicide. Find out more here.

Cheers,

Tom, I doubt this guy will off himself. He's always on the street downtown. Usually when I pass him I tell him, "Thanks for helping to keep Manitou weird," which echoes a frequently seen bumper sticker that says: "Keep Manitou Weird."

Your reference is to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which pretty much says it all. People in what my wife calls "those punky little states back east" are obsessed with the fear of guns. Not so in the west, except in places like Denver, which has become overpopulated with refugees from California. The idea that the availability of guns makes suicide easier may be right, but if I wanted to commit suicide I'd go downtown to one of Colorado Springs's parks where, without difficulty, I could buy medicinal help that would make suicide much quieter and much less messy than swallowing a gun. Over the past three decades I've had two friends commit suicide -- both because of medical problems they couldn't overcome and couldn't live with. One went into a local mausoleum and blew his brains out. The second got in his car, closed the garage door, and started his engine. There are lots of ways to skin that cat. If guns were to disappear it's very unlikely suicide would disappear with them.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2011, 08:44:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ,  I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.

Jennifer, When I was young I always had guns around. My grandad gave me my first rifle when I was twelve, and he taught me how to use it and what not to do with it. I lettered on the rifle team in high school (Imagine that -- a high school with a rifle team -- good grief! They had guns in a high school?), and for about a month after my 15th birthday I was the Michigan junior smallbore champion. Later on, I was a pistol team captain, a handloader, etc. But I haven't packed a gun or even had one in the house since I came back from Vietnam in 1965. On the other hand I have a granddaughter who, until she decided to get married next month, was on an Olympic pistol team. She used to wear a T shirt with a green pistol on it above the words: "Green Piece."
Logged

michswiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2011, 08:54:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not necessarily against guns for sport.  In fact, one of my favourite winter olympic events is the biathlon.  An amazing test of stamina and control.  But you seem to be advocating a safer society if more people were armed at all times.  In that context and given your training, it seemed logical to me to assume you would still carry a weapon.   
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5018



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2011, 11:46:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a self-respecting lunatic, but assuming there is, you might be right. That's why we need more than one teacher with a gun.
In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? Wink) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge. 

Quote
What kind of professionals did you have in mind?
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle Wink)

Quote
I think a decent guy, especially a decent teacher whose students are being murdered, would shoot first and think about it later. You're assuming all teachers are wusses. That's simply not true.
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.

Quote
... I can't think of a single case where a school was attacked by more than two guys, and Columbine is the only one I can think of where more than one was involved. One shot -- end of slaughter.
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2011, 01:59:39 AM »
ReplyReply

When I was at school the teachers handed my friends rifles and put them in uniforms. It was called the cadets, only private schools seem to have them now. I was the third smallest boy when I entered high school, so I was the nerd who won a Sydney-wide chess championship with my teammates.

Gun reform in Australia came about after the Port Arthur massacre. Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 21 others in a remote tourist area. The two police officers in the area were attending a fake emergency call. Ironically it was a conservative government who took the gun reform actions.

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. It is amazing who countries can have such different attitudes to each other.

Cheers,





Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2011, 04:38:38 AM »
ReplyReply

In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? Wink) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge. 
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle Wink)
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.


That was my point when I replied to the idea of drivers joining in with shotguns? to stop a bank robbery: mathematical progression. Of death. Neither do I think that rifles or pistols would be any the safer: the basic problem of identification in a totally confused and terrifying situation, on the street as also per your school scenario, maintains.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2011, 09:45:39 AM »
ReplyReply

In which case any lunatic worth his salt (a better metaphor than "self-respecting lunatic"? Wink) would start his journey during a break, in teachers' lounge.

Exactly why all the teachers in the lounge should be armed. We'd hope the teachers would be worth their salt too.
 
Quote
Regular police and swat, arriving at the scene (just do not count on Norwegian swat, their preferred mode of transportation seems to be... bicycle Wink)

Yeah, that's a big help. At Columbine the cops eventually arrived but then refused to go into the building. I'd rather have teachers inside taking care of the problem than cops outside being spectators. It was three hours before the cops entered the building. By then the action was over. Police response didn't help much at Virginia Tech either, but armed professors probably would have.

Quote
I never said, nor implied anything remotely similar to teachers being wusses. On the contrary, I highly respect the profession, but they are above all humanitarians by vocation, and shooting to kill simply does not fit that profile. At the same time, I equally highly respect professionals who are trained and capable of shooting to kill. Both professions are necessary, just not easily mixed in one person.

Slobodan, I respect the profession too, probably because the majority of my immediate family were teachers. Both my dad and mother were teachers early on, and my mother went back to teaching high school after I was out of high school. All five of my aunts and uncles were K12 teachers or college professors. Yes, they all were humanitarians, but there wasn't a one who wouldn't have defended the students in his or her charge with deadly force if necessary -- your picture of humanitarian "profile" to the contrary notwithstanding. Being a humanitarian doesn't preclude doing what has to be done.

Quote
You misread my scenario: just one or two bad guys on one side, and a bunch of armed good guys among attacked students. As more and more good guys trying to be heros arrive to the scene of initial shooting, it will be next to impossible to differentiate who is shooting whom, and who are the bad guys and who are the good ones. That also assumes that all the wannabe-heros are perfectly trained and always hit where they aim, no stray bullets and no collateral damage. "One shot -- end of slaughter" theory is nothing but a wishful thinking, cherry-picking the most desired positive outcome out of dozen possible, mostly negative ones.

Slobodan, I'll concede the point. I don't like the idea of armed students any better than you do, and I'll admit that this kind of brouhaha might actually take place, though I think it's extremely unlikely.

Okay, what would be your plan to prevent the kind of massacres that occurred at Columbine and Virginia Tech? We haven't yet addressed the fact that in the long run if teachers were armed and known to be armed it's unlikely anybody would have to shoot anybody. Do you really believe Harris, Klebold or Cho would have tried their attacks if they'd known the teachers on campus were armed? I'll admit there's a possibility since all three were "lunatics worth their salt." But 32 dead and 25 wounded at Virginia Tech and 13 dead and 21 wounded at Columbine? That's a total of 45 dead and 46 wounded because there was nobody on site capable of an immediate response to the problem. This simply doesn't need to happen.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2011, 09:48:57 AM »
ReplyReply

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.

Right, Tom, and check out "Gun Crime Doubles in a Decade" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2011, 10:40:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ,  I'm assuming by all this that a camera isn't all you're packing.





Okay - I give in; bursting and can't hold it in any longer: tell me you weren't thinking along similar lines to Mae West when you penned that line!

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2011, 12:24:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not necessarily against guns for sport.  In fact, one of my favourite winter olympic events is the biathlon.  An amazing test of stamina and control.  But you seem to be advocating a safer society if more people were armed at all times.  In that context and given your training, it seemed logical to me to assume you would still carry a weapon.   

Jennifer, If I lived in a place like New York City or Detroit I'd certainly want to carry a gun, but since I live in a "shall issue" jurisdiction I know that some of my neighbors are carrying and that local criminals don't know who is and who isn't. If somebody moved on me at night probably all I'd have to do to eliminate the problem is reach into a gadget bag or a glove box.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2011, 12:52:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Jennifer, If I lived in a place like New York City or Detroit I'd certainly want to carry a gun, but since I live in a "shall issue" jurisdiction I know that some of my neighbors are carrying and that local criminals don't know who is and who isn't. If somebody moved on me at night probably all I'd have to do to eliminate the problem is reach into a gadget bag or a glove box.




Yes, and as you clutch thin air, you'd be shot, stabbed or hit on the head with a stick!

This obviously leads to the supposition that, in the cases you suggest, one would indeed want to be armed - one combat zone being much as any other when the enemy ain't in uniform.

The trouble is, it's the easy supply of guns that's led to the situation in the first place; it also seems to be what's happening in other countries, now, as a direct result of all those guys producing the damned things. At least in Spain the fuzz does carry weapons - those senior enough do, at any rate, and I support that as I would if they did the same in the UK. I feel absolutely no sense of apprehension because a policeman is armed; why should I? I'm not doing anything criminal so I assume he's on my side. In fact, I can't understand why they are not all armed; what's the use of a cop who hasn't the muscle to resolve a situation positively? In my view, the law must always be capable of having the last word in confrontations such as we understand in the sense of crime.

Maybe for the States it's too late; perhaps there are just too many guns already in circulation. But preventing new supply would be a positive step... ah, the jobs, the jobs, and wars aren't going to be enough to feed the monster!

I don't confuse sport and carrying weapons in the street; sport, in terms of target or, if one has to, hunting is another thing altogether. If one idiot in the woods hits another, well, they both know the score and sane people should keep out of them anyway - check out Blair Witch! ;-)

Quite why anyone needs assault weapons, though, sub-machine guns, rocket launchers etc. is one of life's little great mysteries.

Rob C




























 
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2011, 02:34:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately with so many guns out there it seems that the result is a lock-em-all-up approach. The numbers speak for themselves.

Cheers,
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2011, 02:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, Ordinarily I'd be downtown by now, shooting pictures, but it's hotter than blue blazes out there, so I'll stick around and philosophize.

An easy supply of guns isn't the problem. The problem is people who use guns to perpetrate crimes.

Humans have armed themselves since long before the beginning of recorded history, and they're not about to stop now. The arrival of guns -- even ancient wheellocks and flintlocks, made a huge difference in human interactions. The gun revolution was even more striking than the introduction of the English longbow, which revolutionized warfare. Then we progressed through a series of minor revolutions such as breech-loading, rifling, etc., etc., and finally developed the Gatling gun, the water-cooled machine gun, the tommy gun -- so Chicago criminals wouldn't be left out of the march of progress, and Wegee would be able to get his gory pictures -- and eventually learned how to produce the ultimate weapon by disrupting atoms.

There's no way to limit the number of guns. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in one country, guns will be manufactured in another country and smuggled in by criminals for criminals. If you make gun manufacture and possession illegal in every country in the world only criminals will manufacture guns, but you can be sure they'll manufacture them just as they manufactured booze during U.S. prohibition.

When a jurisdiction tries to limit the ability of honest people to arm themselves, what they're actually doing is trying to make sure only criminals have guns, though in sane jurisdictions they insist that their enforcers -- the cops -- are armed. But what's the difference between an armed cop on the corner and an honest man who's firearm trained, alert, and carrying a weapon? The only difference I can see is that the cop is "sworn." When I was mayor, during big downtown events we'd sometimes use a group of volunteers called the Colorado Mounted Rangers to help keep the peace. My police chief would grumble about "hobby cops," but the Rangers were well-trained and responsible. One of them was a deacon in my church.

You're right. Only people in combat need assault weapons. But people who don't know anything at all about guns will call any rifle -- semi-automatic or even single-shot -- with a flash suppressor or a pistol grip an "assault" weapon because it looks hairier than the semi-automatic rifle next to it that's mechanically identical. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S., full automatic weapons of any kind, and rocket launchers, are outlawed.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people -- either deliberately or by "accident" through ignorance. And people kill people with guns, knives, garrottes, baseball bats, crowbars, shovels, automobiles, etc., etc. If you lock up or execute all the people who want to kill, you'll solve the problem, but you won't solve it by futilely trying the rid the world of guns.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 03:30:55 PM by RSL » Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2011, 05:00:40 PM »
ReplyReply

If I lived in a place like New York City ... I'd certainly want to carry a gun

Russ, that's ridiculous and must be based of all sorts of seriously misplaced ideas about what NYC is like.

Why would you need a gun in NYC???
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5746



WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2011, 05:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, I'd want to carry a concealed weapon in any large city -- Denver if I spent much time there on the streets at night. I know that under Guiuliani NY became one of the safest cities in the U.S., but I'm not sure the situation has continued under his successor, who seems more interested in getting cigarettes and trans fat under control than getting criminals under control. But I'm open to views that may conflict with that one.
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2011, 07:25:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ ... that's silly.  There is absolutely no reason for 'civilians' to carry guns in New York City.  You don't want to get caught with one, either, the mandatory minimums for simple possession are steep!

It saddens me that you believe you live in a world where you have a need to carry a firearm in the normal course of your life.  That's very Eastern of me and very Western of you, I guess.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad