[TheForge] todays shooting in school.

[Andrew Vida]

On 12/15/2012 10:32 AM, Bruce . wrote:
> No, we don't have a national policy.  We have a national consensus,
> but not a policy.
>
> I am rather gratified to learn the police took a different approach in
> the Clackamas shooting -- they got right IN there and confronted the
> shooter before he'd killed more than two (or 3?) people.

I hate to break this to you pal, but cops did NOT stop the guy in the 
mall.  A young man armed with a .45 did the deal.  A civilian carrying 
concealed saved what may have been dozens of lives, though we will never 
know that with any certainty.


> but I long ago "gave myself permission" to counterattack at risk to
> myself, on the grounds that I can only die once and it's better to die
> resisting than passively.

A correct attitude.  Never go quietly.


> I've long felt that an immediate
> counter-response by a mass of people would be the best means of
> stifling a murderer.  (An untested hypothesis.)

ANY forceful response is better than none.  Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDBJtALd1h0

And that is one person taking the initiative.  The bad guy never had a 
chance.

> I do think that diminishing
> the rate of fire of available weapons would be a good thing.  (I
> really don't buy the argument that meat hunters need a semiautomatic
> rifle with a high rate of fire and a 100-round magazine.)

But those acting in self-defense DO.  Restraining everyone for the sake 
of possibly stopping the very few nuts cannot be justified.  It is 
analogous to putting everyone in prison in order to ensure all the 
criminals are caught and punished.  It is senseless.
>
> Many times we've seen it said that "those people" (mass murderers)
> should not be able to get their hands on weapons.   Maybe there really
> IS a criterion that one can use to distinguish somebody who's about to
> kill people.  I've seen the idea in fiction, but AFAIK nothing of the
> sort has ever been proposed technologically.  The closest I've seen
> are monitors that can be placed on the scalp that MIGHT discern the
> thoughts or emotions of the person wearing it.  Not exactly a
> practical solution.

Forget all that.  It is a violation of one's privacy and that alone puts 
and end to such discussions.  Period.

I would also remind folks of two things.  Firstly, "mental illness" is a 
very fluid concept - so much so today as to have nearly zero meaning, 
save at the extreme end.  Secondly, unless one is going to posit that 
the "mentally ill" hold no right to life, which is the only basis upon 
which one may rationally assert they hold no right to defend themselves, 
which in its own turn is the only rational basis for denying them the 
means of exercise, you have no basis for denying such people those 
means.  Because you are "depressed" you should be barred access to 
firearms because you *might* kill yourself or others?  That makes as 
much sense as two monkeys humping a football (thank you Max  Burnette).

> Myself, I'm leery of the NRA's idea that if all citizens were armed
> all the time, these things would never happen.

Jesus tap dancing across the sea, Bruce.  Neither NRA nor any credible 
source makes such claims.  Shame on you.  Bad Bruce.  Bad BAD Bruce!

The statistics are clear.  As public carriage of firearms has risen, 
rates of violent crime including homicide have gone steadily down. 
Prior to 1990 the rates were high and climbing.  Florida enacted their 
CCW law and crime IMMEDIATELY began falling, and the precise same has 
been the case in EVERY state where shall-issue permitting has been 
adopted.  In shit holes like NJ where God himself has been denied a 
carry permit, crime rates have climbed.  But do not take my word for it, 
to to fbi.gov and download the UCR data (Uniform Crime Report).  It is 
all there in black and white - hundred or so Excel sheets that spell it 
out any of a large number of ways, the conclusions the same no matter 
how the pie is sliced.

> And NObody should carry a gun
> who cannot hit what he shoots at!  Judging by how well the cops do at
> shooting (e.g., 41 shots to kill Amadou Diallo, fewer than 50% hitting
> him, despite the fact that he was not shooting back because he was
> unarmed), that may mean that nobody should be carrying a gun...

Holy shit... You better show up Thursday with armor because I am going 
to have to smack the crap out of you.