Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Unless one has been in a situation where curfews where imposed on citizens, a substantial part of the infrastructure was destroyed, and there was no electricity to open stores to buy guns and ammunition even if one wanted to purchase them, for weeks, it's difficult to comprehend the full gravity of the circumstances.

Military operations, at the level of national guard or higher if necessary, rule in this type of situation, because they have the collective training required to deal with this type of environment. It didn't work well in New Orleans, at first until the larger forces of the military got involved, but it worked very well in the area I lived in, just with FEMA and the National Guard, in our version of Katrina a year earlier.

There was no cell phone reception, regular telephone service, or electricity for weeks, as well as homes, roofs, bridges and roads destroyed A significant number in the US, today, in a similar situation would be distressed just over the loss of the use of their smart phones.

If a disaster were to happen large enough to seriously destroy the infrastructure of several major urban areas, whether or not someone has a gun or not, is not likely going to be the largest concern for them or the government.

Federal law, that was not in place during Katrina, currently prohibits confiscation of guns per natural disasters, except for temporary confiscation during rescues. Urban areas, don't have the potential of taking care of themselves without national guard and/or additional military support when a substantial level of infrastructure is destroyed. And, if a large enough disaster, man made or natural happens in two or more urban areas, there could be many people left out of the loop and starving. Those are no-win situation that hopefully won't happen any time soon.

As far as people fighting back, per temporary confiscations of weapons during rescues, I suppose they could attempt to hold their ground, and die per the disaster with their weapons, if the guns meant more than a rescue.

I seriously doubt that would be much of an issue, any more than people that are unwilling to leave their property, without regard to their life, that unfortunately still happens in some cases, given plenty of warning, in flood prone areas.

While some homegrown groups are readying up their small militias in preparation of unfounded fear of government tyranny, and what if any potential exists for confiscation of guns, their biggest unrealized fear may be a disaster large enough in size and scope, without enough "big government support", to assist them in survival at all.

There is no greater time of need from the government than a large scale disaster natural or man made. But, this is one area where the government is too small to handle but only a fraction of the potential scale of disaster.

And I agree with you, the plan for confiscation of guns, was not well thought out or executed in New Orleans, but neither was much of anything else until the military got involved, as the local, state, and civilian government authorities, could not do it on their own, as a bar of disaster had been passed that had not been encountered before.

I've seen some info to the affect that the Aurora shooter was not actually wearing body armor but rather an unarmored "assault vest" that amounted to little more than a magazine pouch. Anyone have any further info?

aghogday wrote:

I believe that people should have what they need before a disaster like that comes. I’ve been through a few hurricanes but they were more like downgraded hurricanes, nothing like Katrina. There are other possibilities for situations where all services are lost and rule of law at least weakens. For that everyone should keep supplies to live off of. In addition to food, water, flash lights, camp stove, etc., a gun (and knowing how to safely use it) should be part of that kit for reasons I shouldn’t have to go into.


There should be no confiscation of guns. In a scenario like that with someone shooting at a rescue/emergency vehicle or helicopter or its crew then they and whoever is standing next to them should be gunned down on the spot without further ado, period.
Leaving innocent citizens defenseless and suspending their basic rights is never right, period.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4[/youtube]

I'm curious...who authorized weapons confiscation? Sometimes I talk about the Mississippi Delta being a third world country, but New Orleans and much of Louisiana tend to be quite a foreign place compared to a lot of the south, especially in terms of culture and politics.

This looks to me like a case of illegal search and seizure. Good people who obey the law and don't own illegal weapons will tend to be more open and honest about it. You have a constitutionally-protected right against self-incrimination, so a police officer asking if you possess weapons is silly to begin with without probable cause or without a warrant. Law-abiding citizens should actually take a lesson from criminals on this one: Play dumb. "Weapons? Naw, I aint got no weapons." If you aren't breaking the law, and if the cops don't know what you have, then you have nothing to answer for. If they overstep their bounds and do an illegal search anyway, then it's just "Oh, you mean THOSE weapons. My bad. I thought you meant like an AK47 or something. Naw, I hunt deer with those."

What's funny if you watch enough cop shows on TV is how often people get arrested because they volunteer too much information or act suspicious. If you're driving too fast, you're just going to get a ticket. Big deal. A cop isn't going to ask about marijuana in your pants pocket unless he sees an actual joint carelessly thrown on the back seat. It's generally a bad idea to freak out and try to run when all the cop was going to do in the first place was give you a warning for driving a little fast.

Same principle applies. "Do you have weapons?" "No sir."

A gun is not a "basic right".

I would suggest that not being gunned down because someone next to you is shooting at a helicopter IS a basic right.

The_Walrus wrote:

The possession of arms is a right. You can misinterpret the constitution all you want but I’ve already read it and all the arguments long before this thread. I don’t need to read the progressive version.


In trying times like what we’re taking about it’s a matter of guilt by association.
Advice: If you’re standing next to someone taking shots at any emergency or rescue vehicle, including a helicopter, get the hell away from them.

It would probably be good thing if people had the ability and/or the resources to stock enough non-perishable items and drinking water for two weeks, but it's not a feasible feat for most of the population, particularly those that don't have a lot of resources, but they are advised to have enough for at least three days until FEMA comes to the rescue. If the government doesn't come in to help, and 95% of the population has nothing to eat or drink, then there is 95% of the population starving. Then one has real problems without government support.

It's not an unreasonable aspect of the new federal law to temporarily confiscate guns during a rescue, for the safety of those engaging in the rescue as well as the safety of those that are being rescued. People don't always make good decisions, in these type of stressed circumstances.

And if there are 5 family members on one roof, with one unstable shooter among the family, the rest of the family doesn't deserve to be shot and killed because there is one unstable person among the group. It's not like the rest of the family on the roof have much of an option but to be on the roof, when the other option is drowning, or that they will necessarily be able to stop the shooter from acting.

Shooting everyone standing close to a shooter would be a potential complete loss of rights, among citizens.

That's the problem of 5 or 6 quasi trained civilian shooters attempting to take the bad guy shooter out in a dark theater. The folks standing close to the shooter lose all their rights, if the quasi trained shooter misses and hits 5 or 6 other people somewhere in the line of sight to where they think the shooter is.

And if the 5 or 6 quasi trained shooters, are over estimating that they have the skills required, then it may be a problem for 25 or 30 people standing in the line of sight of the shooter, along with the confusion of whether or not the person shooting at the shooter is the good guy or the bad guy, when the perceived shooter, is not hit.

That is if anyone at that point can tell who the good guys and the bad guys are in a dark theater.

If everyone is a good citizen and are dutifully armed with a concealed weapon if it were allowed in theaters, and pulls out their gun at the same time, what are they going to do, yell I'm the good guy shooting at the bad guy, don't shoot me?

That's the problem with the concealed weapon defense in a dark theater, it is next to impossible to know who the bad guy is and who the good guy is, if there is more than one.

There is no rule that one person is going to be the good guy or the bad guy, or dress in a way or act in a way that clearly identifies them as such.

Maybe good guy florescent vests could be handed out at the entrance, not unlike what is used by deer hunters so they don't get shot by their fellow deer hunters in the woods. But, unlike the woods, that won't work either as unlike any potential offense from a deer, that makes one a target for the bad guy shooter without the good guy vest. Law Enforcement wearing identifying uniforms get paid to take that risk.

There is little potential that a room full of concealed weapons is going to lead to a positive result in a dark theater, when shooting starts to happen, unless people have amazing "bat like" psychic skills, to determine who the good and bad guys are in the dark.

It appears that too many people in the general public have been raised watching the good guys do incredible things on TV, and live to see another day, when reality doesn't work that way.

The theaters that have the signs that say no weapons, as well as malls, and other crowded areas aren't requiring this restriction for no good reason. Nor are the potential law enforcement rescue professionals whom will confiscate weapons temporarily during a rescue in a crowded helicopter or emergency vehicle, when humans are extremely stressed, without sleep, and potentially in a position to make a lethal decision that they would not have ordinarily made.

These decisions for these restrictions, aren't made without weighing the cost/benefit per risk in potential scenarios, as well as legislative agreement in the case of rescues and temporary confiscations. While I can speculate here for opinion, they most often have qualified individuals to provide advice, before these cost/benefit decisions are made. As all large private businesses/public operations do.

Carrying a concealed weapon is not a basic right, nor is it protected by the 2nd amendment, in those places determined where it is illegal to be in possession of a weapon. If everyone got to decide what their rights were without carefully determined and enforced rules and regulations from society, there would be no civilization.

Federal, State, local, and even private rules in hunting clubs are complex and restrictive, in limits of what one can't and can do when hunting deer, etc., if one one wants to hunt or even fish. Why wouldn't we expect the same or much stricter rules when there is the potential of hunting human beings?

If there were no regulations or restrictions associated with killing deer, there wouldn't be many deer left, at least not in my area. Fortunately people are generally more averse to the idea of hunting human beings, but it does rarely happen.

Being able to have weapons that can give an individual the means to defend themselves and their home from any number of possible threats is a basic right. In times and civilizations before the colonial era, that meant spears and later swords. In this era, that means firearms. Eventually it will mean ray guns, and then sometime later it will mean the next new technology.

Wow, shooting at helicopters...that's the best red herring I've heard in a while! The last active shooter to fire on aircraft was during the North Hollywood shootout 15 years ago! If you ever find yourself unarmed and near someone with their gun pointed in the air expending ammo, that's a golden opportunity to run or hit the ground, or I don't know, maybe tackle them? Are some of you people really so brainwashed into living on your knees before your government you expect to do everything for you that you think that your government will have a SWAT team and air assets in place before a gunman either runs out of ammo or shoot at anyone that ends up back within range? If you find yourself near a gunman shooting at aircraft (or anything else besides you), that means you are on the ground bleeding out!

I guess red herring gun control arguments are red herring gun control arguments wherever you are from, but at very least I'd hope that American gun control supporters who escaped an attack would still have enough self-determination to be able to change their underwear (if needed) without requiring any public services.

You Americans (or at least many of you, obviously not all of you) still worship a document that is hundreds of years old. No wonder you are so backward on issues like guns, abortion, gay marriage, health care... in fact pretty much any issue the Republican Party takes up. The world does not revolve around America.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Nothing about guns or arms on there, just like there is nothing about televisions or cars. Billions of people get along just fine without guns (or televisions or cars). Go up to a person living in squalor in a country where they are repressed and ask what rights they need.

"Would you like freedom to choose your religion, not be forced into slavery, a food supply, an education, health care, freedom from discrimination? The right to a fair trial, or privacy, or freedom of movement?"
"No thanks, I'd rather have a gun"

And the world doesn't revolve around Europe either. How would someone like you with an axe to grind know what's best for the US?

Hate to break it to you, but the UN is international (and has its HQ in New York), not a European organisation. Also, please note that Europe is not one country.

And I hate to break it to you, but the UN isn't a governing body and national sovereignty trumps what arrogant and pretentious people like you think is best for the US unless bound by an international treaty.

Did I say that or are you that desperate to patronize me?

I love it when US people talk about arrogance and pretentiousness.

I'm not from the US, but I guess someone as enlightened as you would never resort to making unfounded assumptions. Neither am I from Sean Penn, Cambodia in case you're wondering. Sorry, just thought it was worth mentioning since I figure if you're not smart enough to know that you don't have to live in a country to respect its national sovereignty, then you're probably not smart enough to realize Sean Penn isn't a city.

Aghogday wrote:

Most people can at least squirrel away a little at a time for emergencies. There’s nothing I can say about the comparative few that can’t.


Depends: For a ride in a rescue vehicle, especially a chopper, temporarily holding or stowing a weapon for a rescuee is a good idea for safety but the guns should be returned without delay once that person is no longer a passenger. If they think they have to disarm them before they rescue them then why bother to rescue them at all?
Going door to door and raiding for guns, traffic stops for no apparent reason than disarmament, or raiding people's boats for the same reason is wrong in every way, period. It’s not only a violation of their rights but also leaving them defenseless during particularly bad time. The old lady in the video that was mugged in her own home by those cops had every right to be armed and to stay at home with her dogs.
That was pure bullying and thuggery if I ever saw it.
Times like that bring out the best and worse in people so be ready for both.


If you have one rooftop (or wherever else) shooter preventing several others from being rescued or helped by pinning down the rescue resources then you do what you have to in a timely manner to resume rescue operations including clearing that rooftop or immediate area with bullets.
Even turn a blind eye while his neighbors shoot him, whatever……
Interpret or read into that whatever you want.



Back to the theater thing again.
There are no absolute does and don’ts. The opportunity may or may not present itself to neutralize an active shooter, not that everyone should automatically draw and un-ass a magazine or two in the general direction just to see if they get lucky. It all depends on the circumstances and conditions, period.

Establishing any kind of “gun-free” zone anywhere is the same as advertising it as a shooting gallery to a prospective active shooter. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

We’re thick with CCW licensees in a three county area here and we also have lots of malls, even more theaters, stadiums, auditoriums, parks, two international airports, etc. and no one jumping at the chance to whip out their pistol and start blasting at the least little provocation. If so it’d be on the news and I’d hear about it through other channels, too.
If anything I think it should be evident that the fact that there are so many people here packing heat that it’s an unseen threat to any would be active shooter. It sure as hell doesn’t welcome them to commit a massacre.

Really desperate now aren't we?
As for our Constitution I think we'll keep it. Those of us worthy of living here like it just fine and the fact that your kind hates it only adds luster to it .
I didn't bother to go to the link. It's UN so that's all i need to know.
If I and many other Americans had it our way the US would be out of the UN and the UN would be out of the US. Let's see how well they would do without us.
You live your way in your country and I'll live my way in mine. That's as good as it's ever going to get from me.