Gun free zones and eventual reality...

Clipper: Therin lies my query: do you think the powers that be will crucify a hero to maintain the status quo

Click to expand...

Yup!! No doubt in my mind.

(remember that they will have public opinion and reaction to deal with)

Click to expand...

Most show little concern in this regard.

or do you think the public will finally see logic and demand the removal of these restrictions?

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The sheeple in this country?

Do you think the powers that be will crucify a hero to maintain the status quo (remember that they will have public opinion and reaction to deal with), or do you think the public will finally see logic and demand the removal of these restrictions?

Click to expand...

It will all depend on the situation. If this guy clearly saves the day the reaction would be muted. I think the Bernie Goetz story would not happen these days. Goetz's shooting was on the iffy side really, and he still walked even in NYC.

In a more clear thinking part of the world I suspect it would work out.

The problem comes in where no shots are necessarily fired, which is the case for most defensive firearm situations. The presentation of a defensive threat most of the time stops things.

If that happens, the other side will argue that things were not bad anyway, and there will be no way to know for SURE that they are wrong.

It's easier for these small minds to simply count dead bodies and tout those numbers than to guess how many survived because of a defensive firearm.

The sheep don't fear the sheepdog, they envy him and rather than strive to be like him, they simply want him removed.
They would rather die than admit they did not have the personal strength of will and mind to be a sheepdog.

There have been many events where the heroes ran from a "gun free zone" to their cars to get their firearms.

These heroes immediately disappear from the news.

Readyontheright is ... right. This has already happened a couple of times, the media inevitably replaces "suspect held at gun point" with something like was "apprehended or tackled by" students. Case in point is the incident a few years ago at Appalachian. Essentially, you get a pass but no accolades.

Sort of a gun-free zone:
In Brooklyn, a few years back, a man from Florida who had moved to NY shot an intruder in his son's bedroom. He had applied for his NY permit, but in NYC it takes about a year to complete. It's illeagal in NY to posess a pistol without a permit. He was charged with illegal possesion. Don't know how the case turned out.

I'd say it depends on the location. Some prosecutors will look the other way, or plead down to something innocuous. In Brooklyn, you get sent up.

The sad reality is that the people who enact such ridiculous legislation are not easily persuaded in the other direction, no matter how substantial the evidence is. It's like trying to get a horse out of a burning building. The best thing we can do is keep in contact with our state senators and remind them that our gun rights are still important and that they should support that.

The place where I work ensures that I have to mingle with some of the world's worst people, both directly and indirrectly, and after a couple of incidents where people driving the same vehicle as I do and doing the same job I do were shot and killed and their vehicles stolen, so I carry multiple items to ensure that if this event happens to me as well that I'm as prepared as I possibly can be to deal with the situation and hopefully live through it.

Nevertheless, my job bars weapons outright, period. No 3D cell maglights, no firearms, knives, bats, etc etc.

Don't care, and neither do any of the other employees. I asked my supervisor a hypothetical situation along the lines of "If the drivers that got killed had shot the robber instead of the other way around, would the driver risk any criminal violations even if the shooting was totally justifiable in any other instance?"

and my area supervisor said that weapons are explicitly prohibited and criminal charges may be sought.

Civil charges are a no brainer though. My employer and myself would definately be sued for quite a large sum of money, and I may be looking at various degrees of criminal offenses if I protect myself in an otherwise legal manner.

That leads me to believe that the "hero" probably would be crucified by a plethora of different parties, but I guess that's just the risk we have to take if we want to insure our own safety or the safety of people around us who don't have crotchberries the size of ours.


It pissed me off though the other day, my boss was talking about the VT shootings and said that if any whacko decided to walk in the door and start blasting, how could any of us defend ourselves? I wasn't about to admit to anything so I kept my mouth shut, but as soon as he said that I had millions of different ways to quickly end such an event. Instead I just told my boss that if only one person here had a firearm and knew how to use it as well as knowing how to pay attention to one's surroundings at all times, that a situation like that could easily be prevented with few to no casualties whatsoever.

"But you're not allowed to carry weapons!" is his reply.

oh well, what he doesn't know won't get me fired.

'Gun-Free Zones'

'Gun-Free Zones'
By DAVID B. KOPEL, Wall Street Journel SEE: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117686668935873725-lMyQjAxMDE3NzE2ODgxNjg2Wj.html

April 18, 2007; Page A17

The founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, understood the harms resulting from the type of policy created at Virginia Tech. In his "Commonplace Book," Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare Beccaria, the founder of criminology, which was as true on Monday as it always has been:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Jefferson had the common sense to see that criminals by definition will not obey gun bans, but will take advantage of citizens who do.

I see alot of discussion in the media that does not dismiss the right to carry and how it may have saved lives at VT. Of course I am not watching CNN or MSNBC.

This question answers itself.
There have been four incidents that I can think of where citizens intervened to stop a rampaging killer. The fact that this question has been asked shows that most people don't even know that.

I'll take media coverups for $1000, Alex.

It will all depend on the situation. If this guy clearly saves the day the reaction would be muted. I think the Bernie Goetz story would not happen these days. Goetz's shooting was on the iffy side really, and he still walked even in NYC.

Click to expand...

Goetz was convicted of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree and initially sentenced to six months in jail, one year psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a fine of $5,000. He appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and ordered a resentencing for a period of one year in jail without probation. The order of the appellate court was affirmed because the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that, if it found the People had proved each of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it "must" find defendant guilty. This was not a directed verdict.

I think if a person had a permit, but was carrying in a place where no guns were allowed, he would be charged with something, even if he prevented a crime. He probably would not be crucified though.

The press will try to ignore the facts but the truth will come out and people will rethink the whole 'unarmed victims' zones idea. Change will be small, slow, and accompanied by much pi$$ing and moaning in the press.

it wouldn't because it wouldnt be seen as what it may have been, it would be seen as the much smaller shooting it was. maybe if the guy killed 32 people first and THEN got killed by a ccw holder before he was able to kill more, then it might have some effect

Here's an idea! When any one of us sees a "Gun Free Zone" sign, we should walk into the school/establishment and ask about the free guns they are giving away!

it wouldn't because it wouldnt be seen as what it may have been, it would be seen as the much smaller shooting it was.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If it's stopped short, low body count = no rampage = not sensational enough to be deemed worthy of media coverage by the MSM.

Already happened once... Several years back there was a kid in a HS shooting it up when the Principal when to his car, retrieved his 1911 and stopped it, the principal was quoted as saying "I just wanted him to stop hurting my kids" N they squashed that one real good.

WinchesterAA -Whatever your salary is it ain't enough!

in the situation

I would do what I could to protect life and wouldnt be concerned with fallout, given that training and prior understanding of possible consequences would give me a range to operate within.

If I dropped at killer and potentially saved one person, that's enough for me. I don't like bullies, especially psycho bullies with guns against unarmed civies.

st

Another perspective if you will.

Recall Ayn Rand shared how when everything is a "criminal" offense, then the "criminals" will be become the 'Policeman'.

Here we have Politicians, those in position to enact policies, and anti-gun folks always going on how "bad" guns and how "bad" gun owners are.

It is easy to find valid references showing how gun controlled areas have increases in crime, including those with guns, and areas where Folks are allowed to exercise Rights, including CCW and other Gun rights, crime and gun related crime is decreased.


Reality has always been Real.
All through history, those that have the means to arm themselves prevail against evil.
The better armed a society is, the less evil they have.
Cold War is a good example.

I do not recall Politicians , Gun Control Advocates taking steps for the US to get rid of Military, all weapons, all weapon systems, all anti-weapons systems during the Cold War ( or any other time in history) and this is exactly what some Politicians and Gun Control folks are suggesting.

WE The People - once again have to be the Policeman and Keep Reality Real.