United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Brooklynben]

1 gun with the right person saves lives, cancels the guns of one homicidal maniac

OFF DUTY SHERIFF STOPS SHOOTER AT MOVIE THEATER
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10644119
Monday, December 17, 2012
Terror at Southwest Side Movie Theater, as Gunman, Patron Shot in Lobby
Jim Forsyth

Two people are hospitalized after a gunman chased terrified restaurant patrons into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater during a showing of "The Hobbit" last night, 1200 WOAI news reprots.

Police detectives and sheriff's investigators say the incident started in the China Garden Restaurant on Southwest Military Drive about 9 PM Sunday, when an employee of the restaurant walked in looking for a woman. When the woman, who officials say is also a restaurant employee, wasn't there, the man pulled a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

"It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater," Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

Investigators say some of the terrified restaurant patrons poured into the movie theater, and the gunman followed. He opened fire, shooting one man in the chest, before Antu says an off duty sheriff's deputy who was working security at the theater shot him once. "The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said.

The gunman and the patron are hospitalized. Antu says the gunman never made it into the theater itself, thanks largely to the heroic work of the off duty deputy. "She did what she felt she had to do," Antu said. "I feel that she saved a lot of lives by taking the action she had to take."

Antu said the gunman, if he survives, will probably face a charge of attempted capital murder, for shooting at the San Antonio police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant to the theater.

Officials didn't know what the relationship was between the gunman and the woman in the restaurant, or what his motivation was for the shooting. Neither of the police officers involved, the officer driving the San Antonio Poilce car, or the off duty deputy in the theater, were hurt, Antu said.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!

States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.

Again, I am not saying we should force teachers, I am not saying they should not meet a training standard, etc. I am saying, allow them to have the freedom of choice and see where it leads.

FYI: my last rifle class had a local school principle in it, I turned that dude into a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Rampart]

Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!

States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.

Again, I am not saying we should force teachers, I am not saying they should not meet a training standard, etc. I am saying, allow them to have the freedom of choice and see where it leads.

FYI: my last rifle class had a local school principle in it, I turned that dude into a force to be reckoned with.

It is surprising just how far even a simple, selfish thing like self preservation will motivate apparently reluctant individuals..... The process outlined by JAB would also provide the big thing educationalists seem to live for - a piece of paper saying they have achieved the ability to etc etc etc. That on its own will legitimise and justify CCW for many is my guess. These people seem to me to be a bit like sheep. When one starts, surely the rest will follow, not for reason but just to conform with the flock.

As a foreigner, I wish each and every 2nd amendment supporter the best of luck in what appears to be an approaching milestone test for your Constitution. May common sense and sanity be the ruling force. Now is the time to get extremely busy as not only is the 2nd amendment on the line here, the ability to curtail any part of the Constitution is about to be put to the test. If one part falls, the rest is fair game to those who seek to control you.

 

[Marine0311]

Write your freakin local, state and elected officials. Speak your mind. I'm in a e-mail back and forth with my Congressman.

 

[Scotth]

What is great about the founding documents, is that they are wrote in plain fucking English, so even a retard like me can understand them.

III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Scalia writing for the majority in Heller.

I bring that up because I think which ever side your on when it comes to gun rights I think the Heller decision is a good read for everyone. Scalia covers a lot of ground on how the court came to recognize the 2nd as an individual right but not a right without limit.

The full read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It's kind of funny how the laws change over time. Early on in this country it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in public and in today's world more states only allow carrying concealed. It makes you wonder about what the laws will look like a 100 years from now.

 

[AWP]

What bothers me, this is presuming that an AWB/ high cap ban is a foregone conclusion, but not one soul is talking about how to make such a thing work. "We need to do this for our children". Great...it will take about 30-40 years to even see results. Otherwise, every shooting with one of these deadly weapons will be from what's currently on the street. So, for the safety of our children we're willing to wait a generation or two before this silly, silly law starts to work and that's assuming violent crime doesn't increase because of the ban.

But I'm not done. The other troubling issue not discussed by anyone is preventing the mentally ill from illegally obtaining guns like this clown did. To be truly effective, since short of being committed one could lie on their paperwork and the current background check won't find anything, the government would need access to our medical records.

Think about that one for a second.

Lastly, to ensure that these "crazy people" don't live in a house with legal firearms owners we'll need what? A massive registration database ti identify those who pose an increased threat because of their proximity to the existing weapons.

So, for the safety of our children we're willing to wait a few generations or more for this to work and potentially allow the gov't A) access to our medical records and B) registration of our weapons?

Seems legit.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Scotth, good post, and if you look at the date, you can see it was during the lead up to and then post civil war, which brings up the issue of when the rights of the people started to be heavily infringed upon and why we had a civil war. But that is a whole other discussion in itself. Point I will make on this is, why did it take 50-100 years for lawyers and judges to start fucking with plain English?

 

[reed11b]

But I'm not done. The other troubling issue not discussed by anyone is preventing the mentally ill from illegally obtaining guns like this clown did. To be truly effective, since short of being committed one could lie on their paperwork and the current background check won't find anything, the government would need access to our medical records.

Think about that one for a second.

Fix the lack of psychiatric emergency care and long term MH care and you would not need the .Gov to have acess to your medical records to reduce the threat.
Reed

 

[Totentanz]

Nope let’s ignore the facts that protection comes from people who provide it (i.e. the person who is armed, who is there, and who decides to act). Nope why allow those teachers to be armed, why we would want them to protect themselves, or our children…That is just CRAZY!

States already regulate the training LEO’s, Security Guards and CCW holders must complete to carry a firearm (granted most of them suck). Why is it so hard to tell teachers, you pass these (make it a high standard) training requirements, you may carry your firearm in the classroom. Everyone against the “Arm the teachers” theory is stating things like; teacher personality, teacher social views, lack of training. Well it is pretty fucking simple, set the standard, tell them that if they choose to be armed, they have to meet the standard, and then see where it goes. A few things I will bet money on that you will see, is a lot more teachers than you think will seek the training and arm themselves, that schools will learn of the importance these teacher being armed will play in active shooters/added measure of security to the school, and that a few of these schools will move to policy’s that require teachers to get the training and be armed as a condition of their employment.

Again, I am not saying we should force teachers, I am not saying they should not meet a training standard, etc. I am saying, allow them to have the freedom of choice and see where it leads.

FYI: my last rifle class had a local school principle in it, I turned that dude into a force to be reckoned with.

While I'm not opposed to allowing teachers to be armed under the conditions stated, I don't think it's a best first-option COA. IMO, placing people who already possess the training (ie, as some of us are discussing, current or retired LEO) into the environment is a better option for two reasons: primarily, they can focus on that aspect of the job, and secondarily by ensuring that the trained personnel exist in the environment rather than relying on volunteers.

I think it will be a LONG while before being armed becomes a condition of employment. When people seek employment in jobs that require use of firearms, they do so very much knowing that's what the job entails. If you choose to sign on the line and raise your hand for these jobs, you know full that it's an expectation. It's been known ever since you saw Officer Friendly when you were 4 years old. Teachers on the other hand, don't have that same image in society, and the vast majority those who moved into that career field (or wish to) have never considered that as part of the job.... nor is it truly reasonable to expect them to (based on the fact that teachers have - in US society over the last several decades - never been armed). It will take a major societal shift for people to view the job in that light. While I welcome the change in that point of view, I don't expect it to happen overnight, maybe not for several decades. It will start with allowing them to carry, with the presence of law enforcement and/or armed security in schools, and progress for there. But going down the route to where it's a condition of employment is a thousand-mile-journey, and we haven't even been allowed (due to firearms being banned in schools) to take a first step along it.

 

[AWP]

Fix the lack of psychiatric emergency care and long term MH care and you would not need the .Gov to have acess to your medical records to reduce the threat.
Reed

I agree with you, but you're talking about a long term fix and we all know how patient our society has become.

I'm troubled that we're going to essentially have some rights taken away from us under the pretense of "saving" us, but no one will be capable of making the changes effective. Of course, with the stellar display of civics and rules seen in the passing of the health care bill I shouldn't be surprised.

If nothing else, I'd hope even the most liberal of you reading this will seriously ask "How can simply banning weapons do anything without A) taking a lot of time to be effective (generations) or B) giving up other rights in the process (closing loopholes)?"

 

[Worldweaver]

I agree. Arming teachers (even if they want to) or anyone else in the school for that matter doesn't guarantee the shooting ability necessary for those situation. Off duty cops or retired cops would be a better solution. Someone that has the training and the experience of being in those critical situation and reacting thoughtfully.

Going to a range and taking a test doesn't make someone qualified to be in those situations.

If it cost more so be it, if it's important enough then it is worth the extra expense.

I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.

 

[Scotth]

The first thing we need to do as a nation is take a long deep breath and mourn the people lost. Wait a few months and let the nations blood pressure go down and then have a rational discussion and actually talk to each other. To often we talk at each other an usually insert some insults into the conversation.

I don't think the AWB is the way to go but there are thing that could be done. To often these arguments get over simplified. You're either a gun hater or your a gun freak. People trying to jam through the AWB are just as insulting at this point as the people trying to jam through legislation to arm teachers.

Nobody is putting the time and thought into what are the actual problems and what are real solutions.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.

Bingo! Damn good post.

 

[Scotth]

I respectfully disagree. How many veterans do you think teach school? I would say there are quite a few teachers I would rather have a gun instead of some retired LEO sitting out in his car (they're retired for a reason). It's easy for a person to discover the sleeping habits (sorry, work habits) of security out front, and their movement patterns, instead of worrying about which room possesses a teacher with a weapon. A security guard making entry into a building vs a teacher inside with knowledge of where their kids are and where contact is coming from. A security guard with little SA as to what the hell is going on, is just more reactionary methods, just like a police response to an active shooter. A teacher inside a room can make a determination of whether or not the locked door is going to keep a shooter out, and when breached they're the last line.

What percentage of all teacher have military training, 1-2% maybe? The problem is, unless your going to limit the teachers who can carry your going to have a whole lot of people in schools that have never shot anything but a paper targets and never shot in a high stress environment with potentially 100's of kids in the back ground.

Now I wasn't in Special Ops but I can tell you from my military experience there was a whole lot of people I served with that I wouldn't trust in that situation with a gun.

I'm all for reinforcing school doors to make them unbreachable by an invader. That would be my first school solution and that is the kind of solutions we should be talking about. A teacher should be engaged with there students and getting them safely locked down and accounted for.

I think a school has to many potential hazards without a quality shooter in place. Most police departments have entry plans into a school to deal with a shooting incident and it better to strengthen the classrooms and keep the bad guys out until the police or guard can arrive and deal with the situation.

Talking to my uncle who was a police chief after the Columbine. Police response to shootings in school has changed. In most case your talking about 3-5 min response time max before you have boots on the ground in most metro areas. Barricade the kids for those few minutes and make them safe. Adding more guns into schools can be just as dangerous. Just Google "guns left in bathrooms" to see how many "accidents" could happen.

It's not a perfect plan but no plan will ever be perfect.

 

[Gypsy]

I wonder how the anti-gun teachers would react to this though.

How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.

No teacher needs to be forced. Find a few who would, and would practice to keep up their skills. We armed pilots after 9/11...remember that uproar?

 

[Marine0311]

How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.

There will always sheep who expect others to protect them. Blinded by ignorance, fear, lack of information and education. I've also noticed some, not all, of these type of people don't exercise regularly at all.

 

[Worldweaver]

What percentage of all teacher have military training, 1-2% maybe? The problem is, unless your going to limit the teachers who can carry your going to have a whole lot of people in schools that have never shot anything but a paper targets and never shot in a high stress environment with potentially 100's of kids in the back ground.

Now I wasn't in Special Ops but I can tell you from my military experience there was a whole lot of people I served with that I wouldn't trust in that situation with a gun.

I'm all for reinforcing school doors to make them unbreachable by an invader. That would be my first school solution and that is the kind of solutions we should be talking about. A teacher should be engaged with there students and getting them safely locked down and accounted for.

I think a school has to many potential hazards without a quality shooter in place. Most police departments have entry plans into a school to deal with a shooting incident and it better to strengthen the classrooms and keep the bad guys out until the police or guard can arrive and deal with the situation.

Talking to my uncle who was a police chief after the Columbine. Police response to shootings in school has changed. In most case your talking about 3-5 min response time max before you have boots on the ground in most metro areas. Barricade the kids for those few minutes and make them safe. Adding more guns into schools can be just as dangerous. Just Google "guns left in bathrooms" to see how many "accidents" could happen.

It's not a perfect plan but no plan will ever be perfect.

I'm talking about giving them the right to carry, obviously this would carry with it mandatory quals and training. Maybe you're right about military training but I don't think LEO are much better, talk about only shooting paper targets. As i've heard from police officers, their range time is few and far between and mainly for keeping qualifications up to date. If we say that individuals have a right to concealed carry, shouldn't teachers have that ability also? These should be responsible adults, a lot more responsible than the ones getting fingerprinted and a card.

Obviously this has holes, just like waiting for the police for 3-5 min, after an active shooter presents a threat, has holes. I think we agree that taking guns away from everyday people isn't going to do much good and, short of having funds for a squad sized security force, this seems like the most feasible alternative. Once again we're not talking about putting guns in the hands of every teacher, only those that maintain their qualifications and have a desire and ability to put down a threat if it comes to that. As you said, I'm all for reinforced doors that automatically lock and "safe rooms", this would be a secondary security measure, to have weapons posted in certain rooms that would only be accessed in emergency threat situations by certain individuals.

 

[Gypsy]

There will always sheep who expect others to protect them. Blinded by ignorance, fear, lack of information and education. I've also noticed some, not all, of these type of people don't exercise regularly at all.

I suppose. The alternative of wringing hands and hoping for the best is just...well, you know.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

The first thing we need to do as a nation is take a long deep breath and mourn the people lost. Wait a few months and let the nations blood pressure go down and then have a rational discussion and actually talk to each other. To often we talk at each other an usually insert some insults into the conversation.

I don't think the AWB is the way to go but there are thing that could be done. To often these arguments get over simplified. You're either a gun hater or your a gun freak. People trying to jam through the AWB are just as insulting at this point as the people trying to jam through legislation to arm teachers.

Nobody is putting the time and thought into what are the actual problems and what are real solutions.

No disrespect Scotth but I think you are way off the mark here and I have put a lot of time and thought into the actual problem. This recent incident is nothing new; it’s been going on for a really long time. However, when gun rights are being attacked (regardless the reason) people who support gun rights MUST stand up and present their own case.

I have actually quite a bit of training in the school active shooter situation, I am actually certified to teach LEO’s in the response to active shooters within a school. I have also spent the last 8.5 years studying the issue and what has remained the deciding factor in reducing the amount of human life lost has been the time at which the shooter takes his life, or is otherwise stopped by LE. LE had a major culture shock after examining the Columbine incident and realized that their response to an active shooter could not be the 4C’s (Contain, Control, Communicate, Call SWAT). That waiting for a response from SWAT officers would increase the odds of more life being lost. So they began several programs, training patrol officers, teachers, administrators and students in how to deal with the situation. Taking it further down to action vs reaction, it is common knowledge to most experts in active shooter response that the fastest way to stop the loss of life is someone being armed and stopping that active shooter immediately as they come into contact with them. That can be an armed security guard, an on/off duty LEO, or even a CCW holder.

Are there other options? Yes sure, you could put armed guard in every class room, control all movements with armed guards, hell you could even have a SWAT team in every school. All of which will not be cost effective, all of which will make schools like prisons, and all of which still require the armed guard to be there when it happens.

The mourning of this recent incident is taking place; I am not removed from the issue or the tragedy. I have a 5 year old I drop off at school every day, I see the “security” the schools has and I am scared to death. Being a parent my two primary focuses in life are to protect my children from and educate them in wrong & right, evil & good. But, I can’t even carry my pistol on the premises of that school (as well trained as I am) and the only person who will be carrying on that school is the armed bad-guy and the RESPONDING officer. It becomes very hard to justify it to me, after I have received the training, done the research, and seen the data; that the best solution people can come up with is more gun control that has failed so miserably in the past.

Going to my other problem with some of the people who claim allowing teachers to arm themselves is crazy. Based on WHAT? Where is the supporting expertise in the issue of reducing loss of life? Where is the experience in “real” security and not just the “let’s be able to build a case after the fact” talking heads that CNN and FOX want to toss up on TV? Where are these political figures getting their information, is it even reliable, or is it just part of the agenda, and they are attempting to not let another tragedy go to waste? If the solution was more restriction on firearms, why now, why not after all the other incidents of active shooters? Did the Automatic weapons ban of 1934 stop all the gangs in L.A. from getting them and using them? Did it stop organized crime; make it easier for LEO’s to deal with it? NO IT DID NOT AS THEY ARE STILL DEALING WITH IT. It did nothing but effect the people who followed the laws (the good guys) and we know that as fact, as a matter of history. What has worked? Arming the responding LEO’s with automatic weapons, rifle, better body armor, etc.

Either way, the discussion needs to happen, it needs to be realistic and not based on fantasy land, but most of all we need to stop trying to punish the lawful gun-owners for crime they are not committing.

 

[pardus]

How anti gun can they be after they've been attacked and watched their kids dying, and all they could do was hide in a closet and hope for the best? I find it hard to believe when confronted with evil that one of them wouldn't pull a trigger to stop a crazy person from shooting up their coworkers and kids.

No teacher needs to be forced. Find a few who would, and would practice to keep up their skills. We armed pilots after 9/11...remember that uproar?

How many teachers faced that, 5 - 10 maybe? Hardly a significant number. We might be all surprised by how many teachers want to be armed, but Im pretty sure most won't want them. That said, if any of them want them I'm all for it.

How many pilots ended up being armed?