New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[crashhelmet]

Let's keep it simple, then.

If an action causes harm to another without provocation, it's Wrong.

If an action prevents harm to someone undeserving of harm, then it's Right.

Given those criteria and with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

Especially, as you said, juries have the right to acquit based on justification. (knowledge of which will usually guarantee you never get on a jury)

^-.-^

So you're saying that the people that are bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors are right?

Their provocation is the act of committing abortions, killing innocent unborn babies.

Their actions prevent the further deaths of said babies. Babies they believe to be undeserving of harm.

Your rules define these people to be "right" and the laws to be "wrong."

Yes, our legal system grants juries the power to convict innocent people and acquit those that are guilty. We hope and pray that they will get it right, but it doesn't always work out that way. We're forced to take the good with the bad until things are changed. If they're ever changed.

[Hyena Dandy]

We are getting distracted from the matter at hand. Can we please focus on the main point.


Which was, in Andy's post.

with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

[Canarr]

Being German and thus raised in a completely different "gun culture" than citizens of the US, I've nonetheless been able to follow your argument(s) pretty well so far. Meaning, I can get where you're coming from, even though I find myself more partial to Gravekeeper's opinion that armed civilians are bound to cause more problems than they solve. Because, let's face it: for every sensible, level-headed person with a concealed gun like Wingates or Vash, there'll be at least one moron who thinks carrying a gun everywhere is cool, or one nutjob who thinks at any moment a government official will jump him to take his guns, or one wannabe-hero just itching for that chance to prove his worth.

But here, you lost me:

Those two quotes are incredibly out of context. If you watch the full video interview he details how he assumed at first that the man holding the gun was the shooter but re-evaluated when he noticed that the gun was empty and the man was clearly not using it. Not wanting to take anything for granted, he opted instead to approach the man and demand that he drop the weapon until the situation was established.

Now, if the goal of the whole idea of being a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun is being able to defend yourself and others from criminals - why would you ever drop your gun just because another guy with a gun tells you to? In the example case, the guy had neither badge nor uniform to identify him as a LEO (because, well, he wasn't) - so how do you know he isn't an accomplice of the shooter? Just because he isn't shooting indiscriminately at unarmed civilians, but is purposely going for the guy with a gun?

Wouldn't prudence dictate that you treat any other armed civilian in the crowd as potential hostile, until the people in uniform arrive to sort it all out? After all, the other guy would be free to shoot you once you're no longer able to shoot back. But if two people with guns each demand the other drop theirs... hm. Not seeing a positive development there, personally.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Being German and thus raised in a completely different "gun culture" than citizens of the US, I've nonetheless been able to follow your argument(s) pretty well so far. Meaning, I can get where you're coming from, even though I find myself more partial to Gravekeeper's opinion that armed civilians are bound to cause more problems than they solve. Because, let's face it: for every sensible, level-headed person with a concealed gun like Wingates or Vash, there'll be at least one moron who thinks carrying a gun everywhere is cool, or one nutjob who thinks at any moment a government official will jump him to take his guns, or one wannabe-hero just itching for that chance to prove his worth.

Not an entirely unfounded opinion on paper but in practice there are a number of factors that tend to weed out many of the problem persons. The individuals who think it's cool tend to give it up after a week or two due to the inconvenience , nutjobs tend not to leave their property or for that matter apply for government permits. Most people that come off as wannabe heroes are just genuinely well-intentioned and enthusiastic, IMO only a slender fraction is over-enthusiastic and therefore a problem.
The majority of concealed-carriers are former or off duty LE and Military, followed closely by specifically threatened individuals (worried about crime in their neighborhood and the like.) and sheepdogs.

But here, you lost me:

I'll see if I can help, do you have a map of Budapest?

Now, if the goal of the whole idea of being a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun is being able to defend yourself and others from criminals - why would you ever drop your gun just because another guy with a gun tells you to? In the example case, the guy had neither badge nor uniform to identify him as a LEO (because, well, he wasn't) - so how do you know he isn't an accomplice of the shooter? Just because he isn't shooting indiscriminately at unarmed civilians, but is purposely going for the guy with a gun?

The man that Zamudio approached and disarmed was holding the shooter's weapon which was either empty or jammed (most likely empty due to Zamudio's description) so the man, if he felt threatened, wouldn't have been able to use it anyway.
Moreover with a permit holding rate of 1% there were probably at least half a dozen bystanders with weapons somewhere in the mall or in the vicinity. Couple that with the fact that an accomplice, if targeting armed resistance, would most likely just shoot said armed resistance and not approach into arms reach where their range advantage is moot and it's entirely logical that an armed person acting as Zamudio did was not an accomplice.

Wouldn't prudence dictate that you treat any other armed civilian in the crowd as potential hostile, until the people in uniform arrive to sort it all out? After all, the other guy would be free to shoot you once you're no longer able to shoot back. But if two people with guns each demand the other drop theirs... hm. Not seeing a positive development there, personally.

Again, target identification is dependent on behavior. Calling for disarmament is the behavior of friendly, not a hostile.
It's possible that a shooter might do so as to appear to be friendly, but ultimately it's in their favor to simply shoot and scoot.

[Gravekeeper]

The man that Zamudio approached and disarmed was holding the shooter's weapon which was either empty or jammed (most likely empty due to Zamudio's description)

If I recall right, he ran out of rounds, went to change clips, dropped the fresh clip and thats when he got beaten with a lawn chair and dog piled. So Zamudio came upon the struggle itself, had he bad judgement or made a snap decision it might have been bad. But luckily they yelled at him, which likely caused him to reassess.

[Canarr]

I had a map of Budapest once; didn't work out too well for me, seeing as I was trying to find my way around Munich. But that's a different story.

Moreover with a permit holding rate of 1% there were probably at least half a dozen bystanders with weapons somewhere in the mall or in the vicinity. Couple that with the fact that an accomplice, if targeting armed resistance, would most likely just shoot said armed resistance and not approach into arms reach where their range advantage is moot and it's entirely logical that an armed person acting as Zamudio did was not an accomplice.

Okay, so it might be logical that someone calling for you to drop your gun is not an accomplice, but rather someone like yourself, using their legally purchased personal firearm to protect people around them. I'll accept that for now.

But it still doesn't explain to me why you would follow such an instruction. I mean, apparently you are unwilling to trust into the proper authorities to protect you -. that's why you want the right to carry a gun (provided you have the permit), correct? Now, if you don't trust that police, armed security guards and whatnot can keep you safe, why would you trust some random other guy with a gun to do so? Why would you be willing to surrender your weapon - your only defense, unless you're also carrying a chair - in a situation that is not yet definitely cleared? Even if he *is* a friendly, you don't know that there isn't an accomplice somewhere in the vicinity - so why would you give up your gun and hope that the other guy is capable of defending you in case it becomes necessary?

[Andara Bledin]

I mean, apparently you are unwilling to trust into the proper authorities to protect you -. that's why you want the right to carry a gun (provided you have the permit), correct?

That's a fallacious assumption.

It's not that people who carry don't trust the police to protect them so much as facing the reality that there just aren't enough police to protect everybody.

If there were, we wouldn't buy burglar alarms; after all, the police will protect us, right?

There's a major difference between not trusting someone who may or may not be present, and the fact that more often than not, there are none of those who are specifically assigned for protection on hand to do so.

^-.-^

[blas87]

Andara said it better than I could.

If someone breaks into my apartment, why call the police and wait, and hope I don't get killed, when I could grab my gun and hope that scares them away, if it doesn't, shoot them and get rid of the problem before I end up raped or killed myself.

That argument could go against any kind of self defense. Should I let a guy rape me while I wait and hope the cops get there in time? Fuck no. I'll do my best to get him away from me and hopefully get him on the ground and unable to get up and get me, then I'll call the cops.

[Gravekeeper]

You call the police, then you do something about it in the meantime to protect yourself until the police arrive. This directly puts you at the mercy of the effectiveness and funding of your local police department though. As Ninja pointed out, there seems to be some rather brutal response times in some areas down there.

Here in Van, the VPD's response time is on average just under 9 minutes. I can hold someone off for 9 minutes if they're trying to break in an kill my arse. And my security alarm would bring down the neighbourhood to help, luckily.

If you're actually downtown in public when something happens, they'll be there in minutes if that. Downtown Vancouver is very well patrolled and very visibly patrolled. Hence I've never once worried about my safety working night shifts all these years.

Not even on transit, which while it has its weirdos, transit has its own seperate fully armed police force. Who spot patrol the Skytrain riding random cars from stop to stop.

[blas87]

I don't know the response time from the police here. I don't want to know.

I can tell you, down by the university bars, there are cops hovering at every corner, so that response time is of gazelle speed. But as far as in any other part of the city, I'm not sure. I don't want to know. I'd rather nothing ever happened so that I'd have to find out.

[MadMike]

Here in Van, the VPD's response time is on average just under 9 minutes. I can hold someone off for 9 minutes if they're trying to break in an kill my arse.

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

This reminds me of something I saw on another board -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

[Canarr]

That's a fallacious assumption.

It's not that people who carry don't trust the police to protect them so much as facing the reality that there just aren't enough police to protect everybody.

Okay, assumption discarded.

It still doesn't answer my question: would you ("you" in this case generally meaning concealed carriers) give up your gun to someone like Zamudio, who's approaching you with gun out and ordering you to? Or, in Zamudio's shoes, would you turn your back on an armed man who's refusing to give up his gun and continue checking the surrounding area for hostiles - when there's a potential hostile right behind you?

I'm not trying to be dense here; I'm really interested. Apparently, there are some people here who have given this potential situation some thought, so I'd like to learn their thoughts on this. The good thing about police as armed response is: they wear uniforms. You can easily identify them as (supposedly) good guys. How do you do this with someone like Zamudio?

[Ninja_Sushi]

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

This reminds me of something I saw on another board -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

That And 9 minutes is still a long time. I mean, have you ever just sat for 9 minutes? It feels like forever. Thats like almost 2 smokes for me. I dont think I could hold anyone off for that long physically. During my PT tests, after 2 minutes of continuous pushups my arms are toast. Yes Im trained to fight, but I learned a very important phrase.

The longer you fight the better the chance you get hurt. A gun to the head is enough to stop people. (Trust me)

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It still doesn't answer my question: would you ("you" in this case generally meaning concealed carriers) give up your gun to someone like Zamudio, who's approaching you with gun out and ordering you to? Or, in Zamudio's shoes, would you turn your back on an armed man who's refusing to give up his gun and continue checking the surrounding area for hostiles - when there's a potential hostile right behind you?

Well first of all if I had gained possession of the shooter's weapon I wouldn't just be standing there with it (not a good idea as it invites some potential problems) instead I would safe it and set it down. If I had drawn my own weapon than it would go back to it's holster absent further threats, if someone like Zamudio were to approach me before that happened I would holster it and explain the situation if possible. There are some varying schools of thought here, this is just my own.

I'm not trying to be dense here; I'm really interested. Apparently, there are some people here who have given this potential situation some thought, so I'd like to learn their thoughts on this. The good thing about police as armed response is: they wear uniforms. You can easily identify them as (supposedly) good guys. How do you do this with someone like Zamudio?

Ultimately, the likelihood of encountering other armed citizens or, for that matter, law enforcement whilst still engaged (and thus, weapon in hand) is almost zilch. Once the threat has been dealt with it's important to de-escalate and re-establish environmental awareness. If someone is approaching with a weapon you need to see it early and observe their behavior to determine if they are an active threat.

This sort of situation is unique to Active Shooter Scenarios as in other abroad DGU instances the user has almost 100% already GTFO by the time the authorities arrive.

[Gravekeeper]

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

Well, as they're not likely to have a gun here, my chances are pretty good and I do have armaments.. >.> Just not pew pew ones.

Well first of all if I had gained possession of the shooter's weapon I wouldn't just be standing there with it (not a good idea as it invites some potential problems) instead I would safe it and set it down.

My first impulse would be to get it as far away from the scene and thus the guy's reach as possible. Toss it or kick it away. As not to invite a wrestling match over it.