Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

[BarcaDeac]

Do you just sit around and read gun case law? My God, you're always bringing up one case or another.

 

[elkman92]

More of a restraining order case if I recall correctly. Regardless, that case should be common knowledge for everyone...

 

[BillBrasky]

Something I'll have to think about if I ever get in a situation like that. You can't just assume people will act as good Samaritans when you're black. Definitely can't expect the police to help you.

Or if you're a white kid in a predominately black part of town.

But yeah, you're right.

 

[RJKarl]

If everyone had a gun..........

 

[Wakeforest22890]

This will be fuel for the fire for both sides. If the guy gets taken down by someone with a gun Fox News will herald this as a triumph for Second Amendment rights. Of course the more obvious position is that someone came in and opened fire killing multiple people and wounding several others while on a campus teeming with trained officials with guns.

 

[BarcaDeac]

This will be fuel for the fire for both sides. If the guy gets taken down by someone with a gun Fox News will herald this as a triumph for Second Amendment rights. Of course the more obvious position is that someone came in and opened fire killing multiple people and wounding several others while on a campus teeming with trained officials with guns.

also people will say gun bans are useless (since DC has one)

 

[Wakeforest22890]

also people will say gun bans are useless (since DC has one)

Good point, hadn't even thought of that one.

"BUT GUNS ARE BANNED AND THIS GUY WAS STILL ABLE TO HAVE A GUN AND GET IN! THEREFORE I'M GOING TO KEEP MY GUN TOO SO I CAN TAKE DOWN THE BIG BAD GUY WITH THE GUN MYSELF."

Yeah. Okay.

 

[Deacon923]

made national news

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The police have no obligation to help you. Check out Castle Rock v. Gonzales SCOTUS case.

The Castle Rock case has about as much relevance to the incident in Charlotte as Marbury vs. Madison.

In any case, the officer has been charged with felony manslaughter for unlawful use of force. Not that this will be much comfort to the victim's family, but it's good to see a cop being held accountable. Unfortunately in my opinion this one cop is just a symptom of the overall malady of trigger happiness and militarization that has infected too many of our country's LEOs.

 

[19deac92]

This will be fuel for the fire for both sides. If the guy gets taken down by someone with a gun Fox News will herald this as a triumph for Second Amendment rights. Of course the more obvious position is that someone came in and opened fire killing multiple people and wounding several others while on a campus teeming with trained officials with guns.

Who are the trained officials with guns that teem this campus that you are talking about? The security guards at the front gate?

 

[RJKarl]

How many more mass killings before the gun nuts allow reasonable gun laws to pass?

Only crazy people think having to have a background check on even gun sale or transfer of ownership hinders in any way anyone's right to keep or bear arms.

Only those who protect gun or ammunition companies and killers think there is any rational reason that 20, 30 and bigger magazines should be legal for private citizens.

 

[RacerDeac]

Of course the more obvious position is that someone came in and opened fire killing multiple people and wounding several others while on a campus teeming with trained officials with guns.

That's just not true. Clinton's law in 1993 specified "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." The Ft. Hood shooter shot for 10 minutes, killed 13 and injured 30 more before anyone fired back at him. Only MP (Military Police) and civilian police carry guns on bases, and many MP are overseas, so their presence on homeland bases is limited. A military base is no more "teeming with trained officials with guns" than most any other office environment (i.e. there are usually 2 armed cops in the lobby areas of my office building on any given day).

 

[RacerDeac]

Only crazy people think having to have a background check on even gun sale or transfer of ownership hinders in any way anyone's right to keep or bear arms.

Only those who protect gun or ammunition companies and killers think there is any rational reason that 20, 30 and bigger magazines should be legal for private citizens.

HYPERBOLE IS AWESOME!!! YEAH!!!

 

[19deac92]

That's just not true. Clinton's law in 1993 specified "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." The Ft. Hood shooter shot for 10 minutes, killed 13 and injured 30 more before anyone fired back at him. Only MP (Military Police) carry guns on bases, and they are all mostly overseas, so their presence on homeland bases is limited.

That's essentially my point as well from my previous post.

Other than the MPs/contracted security guards manning the entrance gates, and MPs patrolling the installation just like civilian police do on their beats, no one is armed on a military installation (unless they are out at a weapons range or otherwise conducting training exercises miles away from the populated part of the post). All of the weapons are locked up in arms rooms. The idea that Soldiers/Marines, etc. in CONUS garrisons walk around all of the time carrying weapons is not true. The Fort Hood terrorist certainly knew this.

 

[RacerDeac]

That's essentially my point as well from my previous post.

Other than the MPs/contracted security guards manning the entrance gates, and MPs patrolling the installation just like civilian police do on their beats, no one is armed on a military installation (unless they are out at a weapons range or otherwise conducting training exercises miles away from the populated part of the post). All of the weapons are locked up in arms rooms. The idea that Soldiers/Marines, etc. in CONUS garrisons walk around all of the time carrying weapons not true. The Fort Hood terrorist certainly knew this.

Even if you see a group of soldiers about to deploy and carrying weapons, they are unloaded and empty. Their ammo is either in canisters in the cargo area of the plane/ship they are heading to or already at the base they are being deployed to. There simply aren't armed people walking around a military base. In fact, I believe soldiers who live in base housing or barracks must keep their personal weapons in the armory. The exceptions, as you noted, are those who are on the range for practice, MP and, I believe, pilots who carry a sidearm whenever they fly.

 

[WFFaithful]

If everyone had a gun..........

 

[jhmd2000]

That's essentially my point as well from my previous post.

Other than the MPs/contracted security guards manning the entrance gates, and MPs patrolling the installation just like civilian police do on their beats, no one is armed on a military installation (unless they are out at a weapons range or otherwise conducting training exercises miles away from the populated part of the post). All of the weapons are locked up in arms rooms. The idea that Soldiers/Marines, etc. in CONUS garrisons walk around all of the time carrying weapons is not true. The Fort Hood terrorist certainly knew this.

The who?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

That's just not true. Clinton's law in 1993 specified "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." The Ft. Hood shooter shot for 10 minutes, killed 13 and injured 30 more before anyone fired back at him. Only MP (Military Police) and civilian police carry guns on bases, and many MP are overseas, so their presence on homeland bases is limited. A military base is no more "teeming with trained officials with guns" than most any other office environment (i.e. there are usually 2 armed cops in the lobby areas of my office building on any given day).

Is concealed carry allowed on military
bases?

 

[19deac92]

Is concealed carry allowed on military
bases?

No.

See this article, for example. http://www.army.mil/article/32659/

From the article:

"A state-issued concealed handgun permit does not allow owners to carry their concealed weapons on Fort Bragg. This is because they are invalid on post.

"Under no circumstance will the transportation of loaded or concealed handguns, shotguns, or rifles be permitted on post, except by duly authorized law enforcement personnel or by military personnel in the performance of their official duties," said Olavarria."

 

[19deac92]

The who?

Pardon me. I misspoke. I should have said, "a disgruntled employee who resorted to violence in the workplace against his co-workers."

 

[Deacon923]

The military is the institution in this country that (a) one would expect to have the most institutional knowledge about the benefits and dangers of personal firearms; and (b) is made up of individuals who have been highly trained in the proper handling, use, and storage of personal firearms. That institution has concluded that the best and safest course of action is to restrict the possession and concealed carry of personal firearms to law enforcement officers on duty and to prohibit the possession of firearms by those highly trained individuals in the workplace, except when necessary for training, and then under highly controlled circumstances.

And yet for some reason, a good chunk of our society both (a) worships the military and (b) believes the best way to be "safe" is to let any yahoo who feels like it tote around a firearm anytime and anywhere he wants.

It's strange.