I got to watch the transformation of schools into their present prison like form growing up in southern California between the 80s and 90s and it was *not* to prevent outsiders from shooting up the school although it would prevent an emergency exodus.
Not that being unconstitutional would stop Hillary! from using an even-more militarized police state to conduct such an act, or some self-styled "wise Latina" from signing off on it...
Hillary can bid her time to do it constitutionally. The Heller decision was 5 to 4 and if she wins, she gets to replace Scalia and then proctor a new court case to overturn Heller and get the exact ruling she requires.
On average, approximately zero are saved by good guys who aren't cops.
The good guy vigilante is a myth, even in states with open carry or liberal concealed carry.
There are compiled lists where a civilian with a firearm stopped a violent crime and it is regular occurrence but not very news worthy. Further there is a built in bias because what if a civilian with a firearm succeeds and nobody else is killed? Well, then he did not save anybody because the criminal was stopped.
If a civilian stopped a mass shooting then there was no mass shooting to stop. If the mass shooting occurred, then the civilian failed. Heads you win, tails I lose.
I agree about the legal risk. Citizens do not enjoy even qualified immunity when they do things exactly right while law enforcement does. In general law enforcement and the legal system take a dim view of civilians defending themselves and others.
The risk of friendly fire however is greater with responding law enforcement officers who lack situational awareness of the events they are responding to; the number of bystanders they manage to shoot bears this out.
And there are practical examples where a civilian stopped a criminal in the act which do not support the theories that everything will descend into a free-for-all fire fight resulting in worse results than had the criminal had remained unopposed.
Where this situation has arisen, that has not generally been the result. It is much more common for responding law enforcement officers however to shoot bystanders and there is a reason for this; someone who is on the scene in the time before the incident can have a much better situational awareness than a responding officer.
The establishment had one armed guard and I assume several bouncers and it was not enough.
The idea though to have armed guards at every establishment reminds me of one of the early WW1 or WW2 plans where someone wanted to distribute the army along the border for defense. A superior asked if the plan was to prevent smuggling.
Are there any states that allow guns in drinking establishments? If Texas doesn't, I can't imagine there are any/many that do.
Offhand I do not know how many there are but they do exist and they do not suffer from greater shootings do to intoxicated people with guns. They have the usual provision forbidding drinking while carrying of course.
That is the case with Florida; establishments which serve alcohol are gun free zones.
These types of crimes do generally happen in gun free zones however the evidence that the shooters select them because of that is circumstantial so far. For instance the Colorado shooter had to go out of his way to find a theater which prohibited firearms but I do not know of any direct evidence that his selection was based on that.
And Hillary gets her chance to overturn Heller and McDonald if she gets into office. The Heller decision was 5 to 4 and after Hillary picks Scalia's replacement, that will be 4 to 5 on whatever case they create for the US supreme court.
The better way is to make the politicians fear the public again. Start voting out the idiots in office. Show them that if you screw up and start favoring the corps, you're history.
So vote one idiot out of office allowing the other idiot to have a turn? I am sure the two idiots will be fine with that arrangement.
I went and dug up that link just to have an original source. When the DoJ reversed their earlier decision, it was discussed widely then so there are plenty of discussions about it if you search. I always saw it as public relations and had no expectation that anything has changed which as it happens was correct.
Slashdot Mirror
I got to watch the transformation of schools into their present prison like form growing up in southern California between the 80s and 90s and it was *not* to prevent outsiders from shooting up the school although it would prevent an emergency exodus.
Hillary can bid her time to do it constitutionally. The Heller decision was 5 to 4 and if she wins, she gets to replace Scalia and then proctor a new court case to overturn Heller and get the exact ruling she requires.
There are compiled lists where a civilian with a firearm stopped a violent crime and it is regular occurrence but not very news worthy. Further there is a built in bias because what if a civilian with a firearm succeeds and nobody else is killed? Well, then he did not save anybody because the criminal was stopped.
If a civilian stopped a mass shooting then there was no mass shooting to stop. If the mass shooting occurred, then the civilian failed. Heads you win, tails I lose.
I agree about the legal risk. Citizens do not enjoy even qualified immunity when they do things exactly right while law enforcement does. In general law enforcement and the legal system take a dim view of civilians defending themselves and others.
The risk of friendly fire however is greater with responding law enforcement officers who lack situational awareness of the events they are responding to; the number of bystanders they manage to shoot bears this out.
And there are practical examples where a civilian stopped a criminal in the act which do not support the theories that everything will descend into a free-for-all fire fight resulting in worse results than had the criminal had remained unopposed.
Where this situation has arisen, that has not generally been the result. It is much more common for responding law enforcement officers however to shoot bystanders and there is a reason for this; someone who is on the scene in the time before the incident can have a much better situational awareness than a responding officer.
The establishment had one armed guard and I assume several bouncers and it was not enough.
The idea though to have armed guards at every establishment reminds me of one of the early WW1 or WW2 plans where someone wanted to distribute the army along the border for defense. A superior asked if the plan was to prevent smuggling.
The shooter had an associate degree in criminal justice and years of law enforcement training. What more did he need?
Offhand I do not know how many there are but they do exist and they do not suffer from greater shootings do to intoxicated people with guns. They have the usual provision forbidding drinking while carrying of course.
Most of the states which have this gun free zone policy are not so forward thinking and I believe they prefer the ambiguity.
It is not a mass shooting when the authorities do it.
Florida law specifically makes establishments which serve alcohol gun free zones.
They are not in the same way that Jews are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Luckily it is unambiguous whether an establishment makes 51% of its sales through liquor or not and a lawful citizen will risk it.
That is the case with Florida; establishments which serve alcohol are gun free zones.
These types of crimes do generally happen in gun free zones however the evidence that the shooters select them because of that is circumstantial so far. For instance the Colorado shooter had to go out of his way to find a theater which prohibited firearms but I do not know of any direct evidence that his selection was based on that.
Dude, stay with the program. Advertising the shooter's connections with law enforcement is not cool.
And Hillary gets her chance to overturn Heller and McDonald if she gets into office. The Heller decision was 5 to 4 and after Hillary picks Scalia's replacement, that will be 4 to 5 on whatever case they create for the US supreme court.
That report was apparently in error but of course it fits the narrative so the media went with it.
https://twitter.com/SantaMonic...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
Our definition of a good politician is the same as everybody else's: once bought they stay bought and she cannot even do that right.
At the moment Trump says he is against TPP but this is the same guy who was against the right to bear arms before he supported it.
So vote one idiot out of office allowing the other idiot to have a turn? I am sure the two idiots will be fine with that arrangement.
Which one? The one who supports TPP or the other one who supports TPP?
It is too bad that they could not prefabricate the whole thing in Germany and ship it in.
Sweat of the brow was rejected in the US as a criteria for copyright.
I went and dug up that link just to have an original source. When the DoJ reversed their earlier decision, it was discussed widely then so there are plenty of discussions about it if you search. I always saw it as public relations and had no expectation that anything has changed which as it happens was correct.