“When seconds count, the cops will be there in minutes.”
2 Likes
The solution to that would be to get a better government. I can’t say much for the spying, but if you would care to look beyond the US you might notice the whole rest of the first world all have governments they can count on to provide a lot of services, and manage to have a great deal less gun violence…and somehow without shifting responsibility to every citizen for being prepared at all times to be surprised by a deadly encounter, something it is pretty clear by now does not work terribly well.
9 Likes
I think this, at least, most of us can agree on. 
2 Likes
In before the comments on “strong anti-government views” start taking off (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you will soon enough).
After every shooting there seems to be a desperate search to find out if the shooter was a liberal or conservative. Was he one of our guys or one of theirs? Why is the political ideology of the shooter important? Do we win if this shooter was a conservative? Does that then give us the right to say: “Ha! We were right! You guys are actually completely behind these shootings, and now we have proof”? And if he was one of “our guys” do we have to go into damage control mode? This blame game actually mirrors another one, about the evil government employee or the anti-government crusader. In the comments above, it is clear that many people hoped that the evil government employee caused the shootings because that would discredit the TSA. But what if the shooter was an anti-TSA crusader? One of our guys? Are we at fault then? Should we prepare for fallout?
I guess what I’m saying is that we can’t take the actions of one person, who may or may not have been deranged, wronged, or just angry, and use them to apply to entire groups. I hate how the TSA operates, but I wouldn’t be hoping for a shooter to be a TSA officer. Nor would I hope the shooter was a conservative. I can see the rumor mill on Twitter going wild on this, and it is not going to be pretty. People are getting ready to blame some group and they are going to try as hard as possible to make it stick.
6 Likes
One of my friends took this opportunity to point out mass-media hadn’t assumed that the white guy was a terrorist.
Honestly…people died. Someone got a gun into a busy terminal and flipped the fuck out. Do we have to prove points about racism, sexism, prejudice against religion, liberalism, or conservatism right now?
1 Like
Not sure what you are claiming there:
- That gun free zones do not prevent all shootings?
- That gun free zones do not prevent any shooting at all?
Some context: This particular gun free zone is in the US.
Yes, but it proves that it’s not about the people’s safety, doesn’t it? It’s more about protecting the targets of planes. Which would be the Pentagon, the White House and so on. They are protecting the government first and foremost, themselves.
2 Likes
It occurred to me as well, that this would be a great distraction for a more elaborate plan. Passengers in the terminals were evacuated out onto the tarmac. They’re out by the planes where travelers are generally not allowed. There’s no way they can keep track of everyone at that point.
Seems like it’s really mostly common sense applied to an uncommon situation/thought process.
Before everyone jumps on the Assault Weapon Banwagon, I just want to say something: The 2013 AWB, proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, is the most pants-on-head retarded, piece of shit, legislation I have ever seen. The features that define an “assault weapon” are almost purely cosmetic, and the stigmatization of the AR-15 is based on irrational fear. Let’s go over the characteristics that make an “assault weapon”, for funzies:
1.) Pistol Grip
Makes the rifle more ergonomic for certain people; does NOT make it more deadly.
2.) Forward grip
Again, makes it more ergonomic. This is a feature that any dumbass with a block of wood and some screws could add to their firearm.
3.) Folding/Telescoping/detachable stock
While it does make the gun smaller, it is by no truly significant amount. You can’t hide an AR-15 in your waistband, regardless of what kind of stock you have on it.
4.) Grenade launcher or Rocket launcher
I shouldn’t even have to explain why this is fucking stupid.
5.) Barrel Shroud (A.K.A. the shoulder thing that goes up)
Again, something someone could easily make in their garage. The language used in the bill is too loose as well.
6.) Threaded barrel
A threaded barrel is primarily used for attaching three types of muzzle devices: sound suppressors, flash suppressors, and muzzle brakes. I think it would be safe to assume that Feinstein doesn’t want you putting any of these things on your scary semiautomatic rifle. The problem is, none of these things really increase the deadliness of the firearm. First of all, sound suppressors are already tightly regulated, requiring a $200 tax, background check, and around a six month wait. Secondly, flash suppressors are used to reduce the muzzle flash apparent to the shooter. Contrary to what some may believe, they don’t completely suppress the flash; a person firing such a rifle is still quite visible. They also work quite well for night hunting, where it’s legal. Thirdly, Muzzle brakes reduct the recoil of a firearm. They are useful for new shooters, or shooters of slighter build.
Most of the features that the AWB bans are cosmetic, and can be implemented by some idiot with parts from a hardware store. These types of bans are, as another commenter put it, “security theatre” and are useless in preventing extensive mass shooting casualties. For example, Anders Breivik killed 69 innocent people, with a weapon that is specifically exempted from the 2013 AWB.
2 Likes
Do not prevent any shootings. As I mentioned in another post in this thread, “No potential mass shooter has ever got to the planned location, seen a sign that said “no guns allowed”, said “aw nuts!”, turned around, and gone home.”
Not even a distraction, If the airport itself was bombed, or shot up, there would be no flights in or out. That would halt travel (and commerce) all over, if it happened in any major hub.
And once again, the NSA didn’t stop an actual attack, albeit a small one.
they always do it in the place where people are prohibited form carrying guns …
this ALWAYS happens somewhere guns are restricted or posted as being so.
Except that that’s not actually true. A number of mass shootings in the last couple of years have taken place where there was no gun ban and in fact guns were being carried (and had no effect on the outcome). Mass shooters are often looking to commit suicide - either at the hands of others, or by their own hand. They aren’t necessarily looking to shoot the maximum number of people before they get taken out. Which means they aren’t gravitating towards places where people are unarmed.
2 Likes
Depends how big the gun free zone is. if it were the size of the entire country then it would make a difference.
2 Likes
A lot of security was already in place pre-2001 – they were supposed to protect planes from being hijacked. I guess you could read that as protecting the government from dealing with hijackers’ demands, but to be fair, to me it looks like they’d like to protect the act of flying, i.e. stopping issues from developing once the plane takes off, when you can’t call for police backup. That’s the weak spot, from a government perspective; airports per se are just buildings with lots of people inside, like so many others: the risk of random nutters barging in with loaded weapons is the same as everywhere else, and it’s something we accept in exchange for living in a (more or less) free society, I think. I wouldn’t like to have “safe” shopping malls full of riotgear-clad police, even if they were there to protect me and my family.
(It’s all academic anyway, we all know most of these measures are just security theatre to remind you to BE AFRAID! AL-QAEDA IS OUT THERE! WE’RE DEFENDING YOU! and so on)
1 Like
By definition, any shooter can reach the outskirts of a gun free zone (again, this is the US, with its 300+ mass shootings every year.)
The point of those zones is to reduce the risk inside.
How many shootings, in recent years, inside the following areas:
- any large passenger plane
- the Oval Office
- any nuclear missile launch site
- etc
Any chance at all that this may be due to the enforcement of gun free zones around those?
Or still [quote=“chipandre, post:51, topic:13277”]
Do not prevent any shootings.
[/quote]
really?
From the link that @bwv812 posted:
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Washington, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier detailed how local police officers arrived at the Navy Yard within two or three minutes of the first shots ringing out, and that even before that, “internal security” at the Navy Yard was firing at the gunman.
So how do you know that only the cops had guns?
How many shootings, in recent years, inside the following areas:
- any large passenger plane
- the Oval Office
- any nuclear missile launch site
- etc
Any chance at all that this may be due to the enforcement of gun free zones around those?
Not to be argumentative, but those “gun-free” zones are really more like “gun-free-unless-you’re-an-agent-of-The-State” zones.
Better examples would be the already-mentioned Fort Hood and Navy Yard shootings, where guns were apparently tightly controlled.
2 Likes
To the people arguing against gun-free zones: are you saying that we should let people carry guns everywhere? Is this because when one person starts shooting, the best response is to have lots of people pull out their guns and start shooting also?
4 Likes
Navy Yard security was shooting at that guy right away, city police in minutes. You’re wrong.
The “gun free zone” myth is one of the more despicable and stupid gun nut narratives out there. Never mind that gun violence per capita is highest in gun friendly “red” states and parts of the country.
3 Likes
