Another Vile Incident

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22823290

I don't want to turn our attentions away from the fact that, yet again, innocent people have been shot dead going about their ordinary daily business, so I shall only comment that on reading this article it occurred to me that it couldn't have been timed or staged better to add fuel to the 'ban civilian gun ownership' fire.

I don't usually buy into the 'conspiracy' theories that abound about mysterious, over-arching, organisations, pulling the worlds strings to make it dance to their tune but sometimes things happen that seem to defy 'reason'.

Anyhow, as I say, I don't want to go down that path of discourse for now, for it would not be showing decent respect for those poor souls who lost their lives.

 

[billc]

Again it seems only the killer was armed with a gun. He wasn't stopped by kind words or good intentions...he was stopped by good guys with guns. It just points out that you may go your whole life never needing a gun to defend yourself, but when you do, you really need it.

Keep in mind, ordinary people are being killed by guns in the hands of criminals every day of the year, especially in Chicago.

 

[Steve]

Again it seems only the killer was armed with a gun. He wasn't stopped by kind words or good intentions...he was stopped by good guys with guns. It just points out that you may go your whole life never needing a gun to defend yourself, but when you do, you really need it.

Keep in mind, ordinary people are being killed by guns in the hands of criminals every day of the year, especially in Chicago.

Reading through that article, I have a couple of questions for you. First, how do you know that none of the victims owned firearms or were unarmed? Second, can you point out which of the victims would have had an opportunity to use a firearm, even if they had one? Since you've made it clear that you're willing to just sort of fill in the gaps.

 

[arnisador]

on reading this article it occurred to me that it couldn't have been timed or staged better to add fuel to the 'ban civilian gun ownership' fire.

I don't usually buy into the 'conspiracy' theories that abound about mysterious, over-arching, organisations, pulling the worlds strings to make it dance to their tune but sometimes things happen that seem to defy 'reason'.

It could've been the CIA, acting on Obama's orders. That's plausible.

 

[billc]

Well, I heard one witness from the college campus say he saw the killer and then ducked around the corner of a building to get away from him...if he had had a pistol he could have possibly stopped the killer. At this point no one has mentioned that the victims had firearms available, and it probably won't be reported if they did, I don't know why they don't but if they don't they probably didn't. It is California after all.

Also from the accounts he was on a public street at several points during his attack...would be nice if more people were carrying firearms...he might have been stopped before the guys with guns, the cops, arrived on the scene...

 

[billc]

For a look at California gun laws Steve...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns.

And on to the laws broken by the killer...

Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons ...

He may have killed 6 innocent people, but let's hope he didn't have more than 7 rounds in his magazine...

 

[arnisador]

Well, I heard one witness from the college campus say he saw the killer and then ducked around the corner of a building to get away from him...

Not a bad move, really, though if he could've helped it would have been good of him to take the risk...but against advice.

 

[arnisador]

He may have killed 6 innocent people

I think it's now at 4 dead plus the shooter himself. Is that right? But he had an absurd amount of ammo?

 

[billc]

I heard it was 1300 rounds...

From the report I have seen there were lots of people who might have slowed down or stopped this guy...if they had been armed...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/08/s...page-that-left-four-dead-one-gravely-injured/

 

[billc]

Hmmm...Santa Monica College...you guessed it... a "Gun Free Zone,"...unless you are a killer intent on killing innocent people...

http://www.smc.edu/StudentServices/Police/Pages/Security-Policy---Crime-Statistics---Cleary-Act.aspx

Weapons Prohibition on Campus
Possessions of firearms or replicas, ammunition, explosives, knives/blades longer than 21/2 inches, other weapons, or fireworks are against the law in the College community or at College –sponsored activities. California Penal Codes 626.9 and 626.10 also prohibit the possession of firearms (including pellet and BB guns) on College property without specific written permission of the Chief of Police.

Once again...a government mandated hunting ground for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill...

 

[Big Don]

What was the gunman's name?

 

[billc]

Sukerkin, I have other places I can post this so if you don't want it here I'll go there, so let me know...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...hooters-Don-t-Have-To-Hurry-In-Gun-Free-Zones

From the 1999 Columbine shooting to Sandy Hook Elementary to the June 7th shooting in Santa Monica, CA, an overarching narrative from public shootings in gun-free zones is the demeanor of the shooter(s)--they are confident their victims will not be able to fire back and therefore feel little reason to stop their rampages.

We saw this in the way the Columbine shooters moved through the cafeteria; we saw it again in various reports on the June 7th shooting in Santa Monica, where the shooter was described as "calm" and "methodical."

I participated in A.L.I.C.E. training a couple of weeks ago (this is training for companies in how to deal with an active shooter at your place of business ) and one of the things the trainer pointed out is mentioned above...the killers all act in a calm manner and are methodical in their killing. The reason...they choose places where they know they will have access to defenseless victims and where they know the police will take some time to arrive. Because of these two factors, their ratio between shots fired and victims killed is way out of proportion...they kill far more people than either police or civillians armed with pistols...

Gun Free zones need to end...and people need to be able to defend themselves with guns whenever they are in public because...you may never use a gun for self-defense...but if you need a gun for self-defense...you really, really need it...

According to The Christian Science Monitor, witnesses even described the Santa Monica shooter as "confident," saying he "casually took aim" before firing at his targets.

At some point lawmakers at all levels--but particularly at the state and federal level--have to come to grips with the fact that gun-free zones create victims, period.

It's time for 2nd Amendment rights to be as valid on campuses as they are in Wal-Mart, at an ExxonMobil corner store, or in a hamburger shop.

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your consideration.

I don't deny I'd be happier if the thread didn't turn into one where we just go over the same ground we've covered before but the 'whys and wherefores' of weapon use and misuse are really bound up in these horrible incidents. So too is the case that legislation only works for those of a mind to follow it and so, in and of itself, it cannot, with the best will in the world, prevent these things happening.

 

[Steve]

Isn't it reasonable that two of the victims, the shooters brother and father, also had access to guns?

And if the two people shot in their cars were armed, do you think they would have recognized the ambush for what it was? Do you think a firearm would have stopped the shooter from firing into the cars? Hard to say, really, but if it was really an ambush, where he flagged a car down and then opened fire... I don't know that a gun in the car would have helped.

From the Account in the article, its unclear. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't know what you don't know. Anyone can invent the filler to any news article and spin it to support their position.

I'm in favor of people owning firearms if they wish, and I've talked about my opinions on gun free zones before, as well. I just think you undermine your own credibility when you jump to conclusions.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

On the shooter...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-santa-monica-college-mass-murder-how-did-it-happen/

According to news accounts, the killer used an “assault-style weapon.” Unsurprisingly, the 24-year-old killer had a history of mental illness, a run-in with the police, and had been hospitalized at some point in the last few years(although it remains unclear if this was voluntary or involuntary). As regular readers of my columns know, this is the heart of the mass murder problem, not just in America, but in Europe and Canada as well.


But how could this happen? California has had an assault weapons ban since 1989, progressively tightened over a decade. This law has been on the books, and enforced, since the killer was born. The only lawful way for a Californian to possess a high-capacity magazine is if he owned it before 2000 – when the killer was eleven years old. California passed a firearms-transfer background check requirement that took effect on January 1, 1991, which checks not only for felony and violent misdemeanor convictions and pending charges, but also for involuntary mental hospital commitments. Even if you are only held for 72 hour observation and then determined to be not crazy enough for longer term treatment, you are ineligible to possess a firearm for five years. The shooter was 24– unless he was hospitalized between 18 and 19, he could not have legally purchased any firearm. You can’t drive across the border into Arizona or Nevada to legally buy a gun; federal law prohibits such transfers unless your state of residence allows such transfers — and California does not.

 

[ballen0351]

Isn't it reasonable that two of the victims, the shooters brother and father, also had access to guns?

And if the two people shot in their cars were armed, do you think they would have recognized the ambush for what it was? Do you think a firearm would have stopped the shooter from firing into the cars? Hard to say, really, but if it was really an ambush, where he flagged a car down and then opened fire... I don't know that a gun in the car would have helped.

From the Account in the article, its unclear. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't know what you don't know. Anyone can invent the filler to any news article and spin it to support their position.

I'm in favor of people owning firearms if they wish, and I've talked about my opinions on gun free zones before, as well. I just think you undermine your own credibility when you jump to conclusions.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I dont think its the Victims being armed is the point. A bystander being at the right place at the right time who was armed could stop an attack. Its happened before. Not saying it would or could have helped in this case but it has helped in other cases. It is at least a valid question to ask, with Cali's strict gun laws or gun free zones in general does it make it easier for people to do this kind of thing.

 

[Steve]

I dont think its the Victims being armed is the point. A bystander being at the right place at the right time who was armed could stop an attack. Its happened before. Not saying it would or could have helped in this case but it has helped in other cases. It is at least a valid question to ask, with Cali's strict gun laws or gun free zones in general does it make it easier for people to do this kind of thing.

Maybe and maybe not. The point I'm making is that there is a difference between saying "might have" and "would have." I'm responding to billc's simplistic perspective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[James Kovacich]

I don't see why people want the public, given the oppurtunity to "protect and serve" when the cops freely admit it's not there job to "protect and serve." Why should anyone else do it?

As far as guns are concerned, I think it's more about "take care of number 1" and thinking innocent bystanders are going to risk their lives for someone they don't know is rediculous...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

I don't see why people want the public, given the oppurtunity to "protect and serve" when the cops freely admit it's not there job to "protect and serve." Why should anyone else do it?

As far as guns are concerned, I think it's more about "take care of number 1" and thinking innocent bystanders are going to risk their lives for someone they don't know is rediculous...

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Well thankfully others don't fell the way you do. I will help anyone if I can.

 

[James Kovacich]

Well thankfully others don't fell the way you do. I will help anyone if I can.

You say that but you've also said it's not your job to "protect and serve." I applaud anyone who is willing to help others but I think it's rediculous to expect ordinary citizens to "pick up the slack" when it comes to crime fighting. A lady did try and stop the 1st carjacking and she was shot 4 times. The only reason she survived was because she "played dead."

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2