After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
This is obviously a move that swings away from ever banning guns but if your going to allow it there’s not really any point half assing it. Or making stricter rulings on legal gun owners as opposed to people who are going to break those laws anyways to harm people.
Unless they are willing to start at the top and make it harder to get guns period then at least allowing legal owners more rights of where they can carry helps protect people from the nut jobs they allow to buy guns with next to no vetting.
I guess my point is if I live in a place where just about anyone can buy a gun, which is the root of the problem. I’d want to legally be able to carry mine just about anywhere I went. Someone who is going to carry out one of these shootings won’t care what the laws about storage in an area are when they mow a group of people down.
After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
This is obviously a move that swings away from ever banning guns but if your going to allow it there’s not really any point half assing it. Or making stricter rulings on legal gun owners as opposed to people who are going to break those laws anyways to harm people.
Unless they are willing to start at the top and make it harder to get guns period then at least allowing legal owners more rights of where they can carry helps protect people from the nut jobs they allow to buy guns with next to no vetting.
I guess my point is if I live in a place where just about anyone can buy a gun, which is the root of the problem. I’d want to legally be able to carry mine just about anywhere I went. Someone who is going to carry out one of these shootings won’t care what the laws about storage in an area are when they mow a group of people down.
So essentially that's just giving up. Adding more guns in more places isn't a cure, it's a placebo that might just kill you.
After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
The police responded in about 30 seconds in Dayton. Unless a cop is standing right in front of the shooter with his gun drawn, I don't see how much more responsive trained professionals - let alone regular people - can do to stop high-pressure, fear-inducing situations.
At the end of the day, the gun is causing more damage than even the best "good citizens" could possibly react with. It would take a miracle situation for an active shooter to get shot first before he even fires a single bullet and hurts anyone.
People will always have complex mental issues, gun ownership or not. It's in the human physiology. This is not something we can "prevent" in people like a surefire solution. Guns are at least an objective parameter that society can control to minimize these incidents. It pains me to see the U.S. proliferate firearms as a response and expect less incidents to happen.
It's like giving boatloads of sugar to a group of six-year olds and telling them to enjoy their candy responsibly - then trusting them to self-organize and minimize chaos.
Last edited by Ozy_Flame; 08-07-2019 at 08:45 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
This is obviously a move that swings away from ever banning guns but if your going to allow it there’s not really any point half assing it. Or making stricter rulings on legal gun owners as opposed to people who are going to break those laws anyways to harm people.
Unless they are willing to start at the top and make it harder to get guns period then at least allowing legal owners more rights of where they can carry helps protect people from the nut jobs they allow to buy guns with next to no vetting.
I guess my point is if I live in a place where just about anyone can buy a gun, which is the root of the problem. I’d want to legally be able to carry mine just about anywhere I went. Someone who is going to carry out one of these shootings won’t care what the laws about storage in an area are when they mow a group of people down.
Will teachers diligently lock up their guns or leave them in desks or purses where bad seed Johnny can get hold of them? I can’t see how allowing amateurs with guns in public places is going to lead anywhere good.
After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
This is a horrible idea. The last thing you want is giving someone with a gun in their car having the ability to get involved an active shooter engagement.
The proper response to an active shooter is RUN, HIDE, FIGHT. RUN away from the commotion do your best to get off and away from campus as quickly as possible. If you are caught in a situation where you can't run, HIDE in as secure location as you can. Get into a classroom with a lock on the door, turn out the lights, and dog pile with your friends in a corner as far from the door as you can. Stay silent!!! If the shooter tries to come into your room, prepare to FIGHT and everyone rush the shooter in mass. Someone may take a round. Someone may die. But the collective action will save lives.
I stress that the last thing in the world that you should do is go to your car and retrieve a weapon to "go hunting." You are not a first responder. You are not prepared to engage a shooter or know what the response plan is. You become a secondary target in the response plan and become noise for the responders. SWAT will be involved and they do not discriminate between friend or foe with a gun. They see gun in the hands of someone not in uniform, they see a foe. You become a target and one first responders are trained to put down with extreme prejudice. Do not become a target. Get off campus and stay off campus.
Any law that encourages weapons to be on campus is a bad law and will only make these scenarios worse instead of better. The best law is one that gets guns out of the hands of people and keeps them out of the hands of people with bad intentions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
You really think your neighbours will turn into a bloodthirsty militia that will lead to complete societal collapse?
This comment really got me thinking, especially on my way into work this morning as I scanned the traffic on the freeway and observed bumper and window stickers. Do I really think that my "neighbors" will turn into a bloodthirsty militia that will lead to societal collapse. No, not MY neighbors, but there are elements in my county and in my state that have that potential, and they advertise it on their clothes and vehicles. Whether it be the Molon Labe/Aabe set, the III percenters, the Oathkeepers, Arizona Border Recon, or the Patriot Movement, there is an element that preparing for an opportunity to go nuts.
Don't discount the power of a small group to get major social unrest started. It was a very small percent of the colonists who got the revolutionary war started, and where the term three-percenter comes from. The fanatics are the ones that concern me, and Trump has enabled these fanatics to become much more visible and attract the like minded. Do I fear for this happening? No, not really. But I also don't routinely think about having to evacuate in the event of chemical spill, nuclear accident, or severe weather event either. That doesn't mean I don't have a plan and train on what to do in the event of any of these events. Better to be prepared than left wanting.
A civil war is not starting in the US. There has been talk of that for decades now and it never materializes.
Further to that, the US military and their allies have the most sophisticated surveillance and weapons systems ever created. Any uprising will be crushed swiftly and mercilessly. Billy Bob from West Virginia with his AR15 isn't going to overthrow the US government.
The Following User Says Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
A civil war is not starting in the US. There has been talk of that for decades now and it never materializes.
A civil war is highly unlikely. If anything it will be an uncivil war, not following traditional conventions and likely a guerrilla style engagement between militias, and like minded individuals, in an effort to disrupt and cause confusion. The separation that currently exists in the political mechanisms makes this type of engagement very possible with potential for a reasonable degree of success. The effort would be to divide and conquer through psychological means.
The intent of any engagement is to build on displeasure or distrust of government and society structure/institutions. The table is really set in the US for some type of "disorganized uprising" that would strike at the foundations of government. The drivers are very simple and have been the cause of many changes in nations around the globe. For instance, here are six reasons why social unrest could easily develop.
1. The tilted playing field. The top 1% has been doing great and continues to receive windfall after windfall. The 99% not so much. There comes a point where the public tires of eating the crumbs of the cake they have been promised. The system needs to change, and it will only change through dramatic means.
2. Property rights. Corporations have bought up the majority of farms across the United States. Corporations control what can be planted by the others. Control over one's property has been assumed by private interests, and the people need the government to break this grip. The current governments are doing nothing to loosen this grip. They are actually cooperative in choking out the remaining property owners.
3. Greed isn't good. This goes back to the 1% and their control of the economy. The middle class has been pretty well choked out. Without a healthy middle class a country is ripe for social unrest.
4. Failure of law and order. When the people don't believe the mechanisms of law and order are working for them, they will take it into their own hands. Law and order is very much questioned in this country. The abuses of blacks and browns at the hands of law enforcement has greatly impacted the level of trust toward this institution. Trump's continual attacks against the FBI have eroded the trust in this institution as well. Couple that with the failures of law enforcement to quash recent events in Nevada and Oregon, and the belief is the rule of law is weak and incapable of maintaining order.
5. Failed Public Services. Infrastructure in the United States sucks. Every man and his dog knows this and have been demanding improvements for the past three decades. Confidence in the government to get these big issues resolved is again at an all time low. The guys running the show in Washington and at the state legislatures have done a great job at eroding public confidence and trust in the very institutions they maintain.
6. Weakness in government, both local and federal. Governments have been polarized in the United States and created gridlock at getting serious issues addressed. Only the most inconsequential issues are addressed, and only those that help the few. Government is pretty well viewed as being broken in the US, so distrust in the institutions are at an all time high.
Quote:
Further to that, the US military and their allies have the most sophisticated surveillance and weapons systems ever created. Any uprising will be crushed swiftly and mercilessly. Billy Bob from West Virginia with his AR15 isn't going to overthrow the US government.
First, the "US military" would not be called up to quell any sort of localized engagement. The National Guard would be the response, and only after a prolonged engagement that local and federal law enforcement proved incapable of dealing with. The weaponry associated with the "US military" would never be used to put down such a series of events. You will not see tanks or bombers used unless first used against military targets. The type of engagement we should be expecting are likely actions against local government institutions and critical infrastructure, all meant to cause chaos and disrupt the lives of common citizens. The intent is get people to question the ability of the local government to provide common services, and feed the distrust of government to provide promised services. Thinking this will be a traditional engagement where battle lines are drawn is crazy.
Should something like the US military get dragged into an engagement like this, they would have significant troubles of their own. A large number of the groups like Oathkeepers and Molon Labe are populated by military families and have developed their radicalized perspective while serving in the military. Also, the military bases are entrenched in the very same communities where some of their political identifications and militia groups hold sway. There is no guarantee the military would follow though in engagements where they may be battling family and friends.
Thirdly, the allies of the US would not get involved in any internal action. The US likely wouldn't want help anyways and would likely reject any offers for intervention. The US will deal with its own problems, even if it means eating its own.
I don't see a widespread traditional war, but I could see regionalized disruptions meant to further shake the confidence in institutions and leverage distrust of government to force change. Small changes can have great impact. Look at the Texas School Board for proof.
After reading the laws it does make sense (it hurts to use that word here though) to make those changes. Considering they aren’t going to outright ban guns and obviously favour the whole “counter a psycho shooter with a legal carry shooter” idea. It would potentially save lives for teachers to be able to store their guns in their cars rather then leave them at home etc.
This is obviously a move that swings away from ever banning guns but if your going to allow it there’s not really any point half assing it. Or making stricter rulings on legal gun owners as opposed to people who are going to break those laws anyways to harm people.
Unless they are willing to start at the top and make it harder to get guns period then at least allowing legal owners more rights of where they can carry helps protect people from the nut jobs they allow to buy guns with next to no vetting.
I guess my point is if I live in a place where just about anyone can buy a gun, which is the root of the problem. I’d want to legally be able to carry mine just about anywhere I went. Someone who is going to carry out one of these shootings won’t care what the laws about storage in an area are when they mow a group of people down.
The problem is that the more guns you add the more likely guns are to be used. How many times does the good person with a gun fallacy have to be proven for what it is before we acknowledge that the problem is that every single person has the potential to be a killer and adding guns makes it worse.
A civil war is highly unlikely. If anything it will be an uncivil war, not following traditional conventions and likely a guerrilla style engagement between militias, and like minded individuals, in an effort to disrupt and cause confusion. The separation that currently exists in the political mechanisms makes this type of engagement very possible with potential for a reasonable degree of success. The effort would be to divide and conquer through psychological means.
The intent of any engagement is to build on displeasure or distrust of government and society structure/institutions. The table is really set in the US for some type of "disorganized uprising" that would strike at the foundations of government. The drivers are very simple and have been the cause of many changes in nations around the globe. For instance, here are six reasons why social unrest could easily develop.
1. The tilted playing field. The top 1% has been doing great and continues to receive windfall after windfall. The 99% not so much. There comes a point where the public tires of eating the crumbs of the cake they have been promised. The system needs to change, and it will only change through dramatic means.
2. Property rights. Corporations have bought up the majority of farms across the United States. Corporations control what can be planted by the others. Control over one's property has been assumed by private interests, and the people need the government to break this grip. The current governments are doing nothing to loosen this grip. They are actually cooperative in choking out the remaining property owners.
3. Greed isn't good. This goes back to the 1% and their control of the economy. The middle class has been pretty well choked out. Without a healthy middle class a country is ripe for social unrest.
4. Failure of law and order. When the people don't believe the mechanisms of law and order are working for them, they will take it into their own hands. Law and order is very much questioned in this country. The abuses of blacks and browns at the hands of law enforcement has greatly impacted the level of trust toward this institution. Trump's continual attacks against the FBI have eroded the trust in this institution as well. Couple that with the failures of law enforcement to quash recent events in Nevada and Oregon, and the belief is the rule of law is weak and incapable of maintaining order.
5. Failed Public Services. Infrastructure in the United States sucks. Every man and his dog knows this and have been demanding improvements for the past three decades. Confidence in the government to get these big issues resolved is again at an all time low. The guys running the show in Washington and at the state legislatures have done a great job at eroding public confidence and trust in the very institutions they maintain.
6. Weakness in government, both local and federal. Governments have been polarized in the United States and created gridlock at getting serious issues addressed. Only the most inconsequential issues are addressed, and only those that help the few. Government is pretty well viewed as being broken in the US, so distrust in the institutions are at an all time high.
First, the "US military" would not be called up to quell any sort of localized engagement. The National Guard would be the response, and only after a prolonged engagement that local and federal law enforcement proved incapable of dealing with. The weaponry associated with the "US military" would never be used to put down such a series of events. You will not see tanks or bombers used unless first used against military targets. The type of engagement we should be expecting are likely actions against local government institutions and critical infrastructure, all meant to cause chaos and disrupt the lives of common citizens. The intent is get people to question the ability of the local government to provide common services, and feed the distrust of government to provide promised services. Thinking this will be a traditional engagement where battle lines are drawn is crazy.
Should something like the US military get dragged into an engagement like this, they would have significant troubles of their own. A large number of the groups like Oathkeepers and Molon Labe are populated by military families and have developed their radicalized perspective while serving in the military. Also, the military bases are entrenched in the very same communities where some of their political identifications and militia groups hold sway. There is no guarantee the military would follow though in engagements where they may be battling family and friends.
Thirdly, the allies of the US would not get involved in any internal action. The US likely wouldn't want help anyways and would likely reject any offers for intervention. The US will deal with its own problems, even if it means eating its own.
I don't see a widespread traditional war, but I could see regionalized disruptions meant to further shake the confidence in institutions and leverage distrust of government to force change. Small changes can have great impact. Look at the Texas School Board for proof.
Good post. You bring up some interesting points that I hadn't thought about.
I'm still not convinced it can happen. There has always been maniacs down there threatening the end of times or whatever. I guess we'll wait and see for now, but I'm not holding my breath.
Is it bad that I'm hoping this happens though? The US is so messed up that only a hard reset so to speak will fix it.
Good post. You bring up some interesting points that I hadn't thought about.
I'm still not convinced it can happen. There has always been maniacs down there threatening the end of times or whatever. I guess we'll wait and see for now, but I'm not holding my breath.
Is it bad that I'm hoping this happens though? The US is so messed up that only a hard reset so to speak will fix it.
I imagine they would end up more with a Waco scenario than any kind of real war.
Good post. You bring up some interesting points that I hadn't thought about.
I'm still not convinced it can happen. There has always been maniacs down there threatening the end of times or whatever. I guess we'll wait and see for now, but I'm not holding my breath.
Is it bad that I'm hoping this happens though? The US is so messed up that only a hard reset so to speak will fix it.
When predicting another civil war one thing many don't take into account when brushing it aside is that the western world is very likely headed for massive unemployment in the coming decades.
Not recession level unemployment that eventually comes back, like "Hey, the bottom just fell out of employment in America/Canada because of automation".
Millions of unemployed young men will change the formula for predicting civil war, ten fold. And yes, of course it will take on a different form this time. But there will be almost assuredly be major unrest and deadly fighting in the US in the next few decades.
One would imagine that any half-assed sane Police Corps when asked:
"What is your stance on Average Joes being heavily armed? More guns or fewer guns? Which would you prefer?"
Most would, one would imagine, without hesitation, declare that their preference would be for the vast majority of the population not be armed.
It would solve a lot of problems. Not all of the problems. But a lot.
Not in the US. Most police are extremely conservative and very pro gun. Even though you would think they would want guns off the streets to make their jobs easier, they hold a pretty universal position that people have the right to bear arms and that right should be exercised. The position is a contradiction IMO, but so are a lot of cops. 91% of police support more guns, more concealed carry, and are against a ban on assault style weapons.
