SharkD schrieb:
> On 11/6/2009 7:01 AM, somebody wrote:
>> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are 
>> quick to
>> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter 
>> would have
>> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
>> their angle now.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one 
> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side 
> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The 
> gun companies are getting richer.

Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.

If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns 
(which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) - 
would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok 
run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

If /everyone/ is carrying a gun around, then the first reaction to 
someone drawing one is probably "gee, what's happening here? Is there 
any danger? Damn, this is serious - he's having a real firefight with 
those guys over there! Man, if only I knew who's the good guys here!", 
rather than "*OH SHIT, HE'S GOT A GUN! HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL! DUCK AND 
COVER! RUN! GET THE FREAKIN' HELL OUTTA HERE!!*"

Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before 
anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take 
him out.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> clipka wrote:
> 
>> Of course that's doing it wrong: You have to /first/ establish a
>> comparatively safe society, by addressing crime arising out of habit or
>> dire need (the former by force and punishment, the latter by trying to
>> improve the economic situation), and /then/ take away privately owned
>> guns to reduce the acts (or the lethality thereof) of spontaneous "blown
>> fuse" type violence (or accidents).
> 
> Sounds about right.

I agree.
 
>> North America, OTOH, /is/ a somewhat tame society by now.
> 
> Um... Is this the same North America where seemingly even the police are
> not above harassing people who deny the Christian faith?
> 
> For example, the story about the little girl who wouldn't say the Lord's
> Prayer in class, and got expelled from school. Her dad said she
> shouldn't be forced to say the prayer, and soon the entire family found
> themselves being virtually driven out of the town. And then it ended up
> being a court case, I forget why...
> 
> Sounds like Britain in the Dark Ages to me. :-P

Tee hee hee! Naw... they didn't burn the child and her family at the stake
for apostasy. But stay tuned, who knows what may come out of the Deep
South...?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> >> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one
>> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side
>> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The
>> gun companies are getting richer.
> 
> Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.
> 
> If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns
> (which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) -
> would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok
> run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

Have any of you guys been in the military? It seems to be a common
misconception that a military base is awash in guns. In my albeit limited
experience of the old SADF, this was NOT the case, and neither does it seem
to be the case with the US Army at Fort Hood. Besides gate guards (in a
civilian setting, compare to an armed policeman on patrol) and sentries,
MOST people on a military base in "peacetime" are -not- armed. In a well
disciplined force, weapons are held in a central storage location. If
troops on base DO have LOADED weapons (UNLOADED ones are much more common -
for training and drill) they are usually on the way to an operation, or
coming back in. Properly trained soldiers will also NEVER just fire back,
if fired upon - it depends on what orders they have been given. Granted, a
soldier that has got no orders might just take cover, instead of
automatically returning fire. I vividly remember how it was hammered into
our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND your
target. The sequence was always "wait for my command" - especially if you
had loaded weapons and a properly trained officer.

A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

> Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before
> anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take
> him out.

Or they had to wait until they could get hold of somebody with a LOADED
weapon, ready to fire. And then that person too, if properly trained, would
have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
which can cause just as much harm.

Incidentally, this has happened twice here in SA where a subordinate shot
his commanding officer, on a military base, mostly over racial tensions. In
one situation the murderer wasn't shot, for the same reason the American
officer wasn't shot - nobody had a loaded weapon at hand. In the other
occasion, a gate guard (if I remember right) shot the perpetrator.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

> I vividly remember how it was hammered into
> our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
> without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND 
> your
> target.
...
> And then that person too, if properly trained, would
> have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
> which can cause just as much harm.

A very good example of why people who are not continuously trained should 
not be allowed to have guns.

Can you imagine someone trained in firing guns doing this?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7091904.stm

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> I vividly remember how it was hammered into
>> our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER
>> fire without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is
>> BEHIND your
>> target.
> ...
>> And then that person too, if properly trained, would
>> have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
>> which can cause just as much harm.
> 
> A very good example of why people who are not continuously trained should
> not be allowed to have guns.

Which is a requirement here for ownership. You have to be shown to have
regularly gone shooting with your firearm (there is a register at every
shooting range you must sign), and you have to pass a training course at an
accredited training facility here to be allowed to have possesion of a
firearm.
 
> Can you imagine someone trained in firing guns doing this?:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7091904.stm

You can't fix stupid. Its like a guy I once turned out to who has working on
his car after jacking it up and placing plastic milk-bottle crates as
supports. No surprise, the car fell of the braces he put up and squashed
his head literally as flat as pancake. If you're stupid, you can injure
youself with an ice cream cone! :)
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/6/2009 11:24 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
> or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
> which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
> told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> had the other people had guns as well, 

I don't think the doctors and nurses carry their rifles with them on a base 
on US soil in the hospital.

What's your alternative to shooting back at such a person? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Because if guns are illegal, it makes it that much harder to get hold of 
> them. Not impossible, surely, but very much harder.

If guns were illegal for everyone to own, that would likely be true. 
However, there's lots of stuff that's illegal in one place and legal others, 
and lots of large locked shipping containers moving from one place to another.

Plus, this isn't nuclear weapons. People were making really excellent 
firearms by hand 200 years ago. Ever hear of a "zip gun"?

> Certainly there have always been a small minority of armed police. You 
> don't see them very often, however. (Even back when it was legal to have 
> guns in this country.)

I think it's more that police in the UK don't need guns because of the 
culture there, than it is the police lacking guns makes the crime less violent.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

> You can't fix stupid.

If "stupid" can pass the training requirements to own a gun, then that makes 
the training requirements stupid.

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> He merely replied "In Texas people want guns, and they CAN get
> them. Texans will ALWAYS be free."

I have a friend who was at a business meeting over dinner in France. He 
wanted some ice tea. The waiter doesn't understand. "Tea, cold, with ice in 
it."  "We don't have that."   "Well, bring me a pot of tea and a glass of 
ice."  "What do you want in the ice?"  "Nothing."  "We don't do that."

At that point, his host muttered something in french to the waiter, who ran 
off, brought ice tea, and in general acted like my friend was royalty the 
rest of the night.

The friend asked "What did you say to him?"

The host said "My guest here is American. You should do what he asks, as he 
*may* have a gun!"

  * * * *

I was also amused to be watching a cop show with french subtitles, and the 
one cop says "who's that?"  The other cop says "A big name in the organized 
crime department. A real gang-buster."  And the subtitles said
   Un vrai cowboy.

I realized that the stereotype other countries have of Americans probably is 
close to the Wild West.  It never hit me how often someone talks about gun 
ownership in modern america like we're all walking down dusty streets with 
guns on our hips.

> and in the back of the Sierra they had 12 gauge shotguns,

Cops here usually have a Glock 9mm semi-automatic, a backup gun (like a 
small revolver in a leg holster or something), and a shotgun in the trunk of 
the car. Lots of paperwork if you actually take one out of the holster, in 
theory.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message