A post master was shot in a post office, which we all know to be "gun free", which means to say that only law enforcement and criminals have guns in those places. Criminals like the man who shot the postmaster twice with a shotgun, police officers who weren't at the scene to protect her.
Not a sneer at law enforcement there, not at all! They cannot be everywhere, and if they could, I for one would not want them too. These fine men and women probably had something better to do than post as armed guards in a small town post office. I can only guess this was one the rare occasions that their presence had actually been warrented in that place.
Gun free zones, still aren't.
And ... two blasts from a shotgun, but she lived to call 911? Shot placement is still everything, and fortunately, the attacker wasn't a good enough marksman to kill his victim. I doubt this will do much to the familly she leaves behind, but at least the police have got a head start in finding her attacker and bringing him to justice.
Showing posts with label gun free. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun free. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Vehicular manslaughter: gun free Vs gun freedoms
Today a man in Israel tried to kill a number of people by mashing a bulldozer into them. He was able to kill three people before somebody used a gun to stop the treath.
This is Israel, where if not by a police officer, one of the many citizens who go through their everyday life carrying fully automatic submachineguns could have stopped this attacker.
This stands in stark contrast with similar events that took place in Japan:
Armed with a far less dangerous vehicle, a Japanese man drove a truck into an entire crowd of people, hopped out and went on stabbing people, killing seven. That's more than twice the amount of people killed by the guy in the bulldozer!
The guy was out on the street, running around! One need not even clim onto a bulldozer or anything similar to stop him! Point, click, lives saved.
This is Israel, where if not by a police officer, one of the many citizens who go through their everyday life carrying fully automatic submachineguns could have stopped this attacker.
This stands in stark contrast with similar events that took place in Japan:
Armed with a far less dangerous vehicle, a Japanese man drove a truck into an entire crowd of people, hopped out and went on stabbing people, killing seven. That's more than twice the amount of people killed by the guy in the bulldozer!
The guy was out on the street, running around! One need not even clim onto a bulldozer or anything similar to stop him! Point, click, lives saved.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Three more dead in Chicago
In a place with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, bodies are still being found on "gang blocks".
Friday, February 15, 2008
On the Illinois shooting
There was another shool shooting recently, this time in Illinois with a total of six fatalities, including the gunman.
Somehow, this is starting to become a "what, another one?" type of event, I started out this blog by stating that school shootings were a very rare event. If the current trent keeps up, that may soon be different.
Moving on: how do people react to this?
There will always be the "it's the guns and the bullets's fault all over again", people profoundly believing that this issue can be dealth with by banning guns. For what it's worth: yes, the removal of guns from societty will rule out these shootings. (note: removal must include law enforcement as well) This will of course not prevent school bombings, or mass stabbings. It also leaves people with obvious mental problems untreated.
Some people (like me) use these tragedies to take potshots at "gun free zones". This has been a very strong trend since the vonmaur mall shooting, where the management removed, and then replaced the gun free zone signs in the wake of the shooting.
It's difficult to say who's right here. If anything, we should recognise that people abusing guns are a real problem that has to be dealth with. We should also recognise that instituting gun free zones does not work.
Maybe metal detectors/a guard at the entrance could have prevented this, maybe he would just have been the first victim, but that would have sent out ample warning to evrybody in the vicinity as well, buying them time to escape.
Could an armed person inside the lecture hall have stoped the threat? Jeanne Assam did a pretty good job in her Colorado house of worship, would the same be possible here? I do believe that in the time someone could shoot over 20 people in a single room, a teacher would have been capable of returning fire.
If not saving lifes directly by preventing additional people from getting shot, this would at least allow paramedics to get to the injured victims immediately upon arrival at the scene with the threat removed. It won't be long untill one of these deranged kids figure out that they can triple the body count by holding emergency response away from the injured in a few hours worth off standoff before commiting suicide. That issue is at least as real as the threat from .50 rifles IMO.
Somehow, this is starting to become a "what, another one?" type of event, I started out this blog by stating that school shootings were a very rare event. If the current trent keeps up, that may soon be different.
Moving on: how do people react to this?
There will always be the "it's the guns and the bullets's fault all over again", people profoundly believing that this issue can be dealth with by banning guns. For what it's worth: yes, the removal of guns from societty will rule out these shootings. (note: removal must include law enforcement as well) This will of course not prevent school bombings, or mass stabbings. It also leaves people with obvious mental problems untreated.
Some people (like me) use these tragedies to take potshots at "gun free zones". This has been a very strong trend since the vonmaur mall shooting, where the management removed, and then replaced the gun free zone signs in the wake of the shooting.
It's difficult to say who's right here. If anything, we should recognise that people abusing guns are a real problem that has to be dealth with. We should also recognise that instituting gun free zones does not work.
Maybe metal detectors/a guard at the entrance could have prevented this, maybe he would just have been the first victim, but that would have sent out ample warning to evrybody in the vicinity as well, buying them time to escape.
Could an armed person inside the lecture hall have stoped the threat? Jeanne Assam did a pretty good job in her Colorado house of worship, would the same be possible here? I do believe that in the time someone could shoot over 20 people in a single room, a teacher would have been capable of returning fire.
If not saving lifes directly by preventing additional people from getting shot, this would at least allow paramedics to get to the injured victims immediately upon arrival at the scene with the threat removed. It won't be long untill one of these deranged kids figure out that they can triple the body count by holding emergency response away from the injured in a few hours worth off standoff before commiting suicide. That issue is at least as real as the threat from .50 rifles IMO.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Guns on KETV
Ketv just ran a story about Nebraskas concealed carry law and gun free zones.
They spend a lot of space on a local gun rights proponent who teaches people firearm safety, and who criticises the complexity of the gun law, which changes upon crossing city limits amongst others.
They also published what we've long posted about gun free zones:
It's refreshing to see a news station give the world our view on the story, and top it off with encouraging people to read into gun free zones, learing about their flaws, or learning how to start their own if they dislike the idea of guns on their property.
They spend a lot of space on a local gun rights proponent who teaches people firearm safety, and who criticises the complexity of the gun law, which changes upon crossing city limits amongst others.
They also published what we've long posted about gun free zones:
- "When you post an area and say that it's a gun free zone, what in fact you're doing is making a victim-zone, "Gun Free Zones" give criminals an unfair advantage."It does give the bad guy free reign that the building is secure, that they are not going to be challenged by anyone inside,"
It's refreshing to see a news station give the world our view on the story, and top it off with encouraging people to read into gun free zones, learing about their flaws, or learning how to start their own if they dislike the idea of guns on their property.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
A precedent for suing the Nebraska mall?
There's been a lot of speculation on whether or not families of the mall shooting victims have grounds to sue the mall. The mall prohibited civillians from carrying firearms on the premises, but one of the first things they did afterwards was remove the "gun free zone" signs. Whether it was for liability reasons or for a sence of black humor (the mall wasn't really gun free after all), the presence of these signs with legal bearing were obviously important to someone.
Sami Barrak got a 26 million dollar settlement from the mall where he was shot. He argued that the mall didn't take adequate measures to protect the safety of its costumers. Would this be a legal precedent to other suits? Mind that this was a settlement, not a court decision, although he was originally awarded more than a hundred million by a jury!
At any rate, it would be an interesting trial to watch.
Sami Barrak got a 26 million dollar settlement from the mall where he was shot. He argued that the mall didn't take adequate measures to protect the safety of its costumers. Would this be a legal precedent to other suits? Mind that this was a settlement, not a court decision, although he was originally awarded more than a hundred million by a jury!
At any rate, it would be an interesting trial to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)