5 ms·

"Giving firearms to everyone is necessary so that shooters can be stopped, yadda yadda yadda..."

by squarefoot 7y ago

DennisP 7y ago
In fairness, if I were in that position I'd much rather have a gun than not.
- krapp 7y ago
  In fairness, you would likely be more of a danger to yourself and other innocent bystanders than the shooter if you had a gun in that position than not. edit: to clarify - most people in that situation would likely be more of a danger than a benefit. Carrying around a loaded gun on you at all times doesn't mean you're mentally prepared or well trained enough to be able to effectively engage in urban combat at a moment's notice.
- milankragujevic 7y ago
  Well, in Serbia, by law it is regulated that every school must have a police officer [with a gun+tazer+spray deterrent] at the location at ALL times, and there are random inspections that may actually fine the cop and the school principal if anything wasn't done according to the regulation. So, there's no need for students and teachers to carry guns, because there is an actual cop there. In this case it's not specified where was the police officer and why didn't they intervene. I checked on Serbian news sites, there is no info. However, carrying guns is technically legal as long as you pass a psychological, psychiatrial and practical exams, and pay for the license which renews periodically, as well as buying the gun from a legitimate source and registering it's make, model, and other details in the national database. Though, we do have 4K facial recognition cameras that send data to China (partnership between Ministry of Interior, Telecom Serbia and Huawei) on every 2nd utility pole throughout the capital. And they actually send you tickets for not wearing a seat belt or jaywalking if a camera records you and recognizes you. All adult citizens have their fingerprints recorded as well as a face model for automatic identification and profiling by the government of China which then shares that info with our police. And the cameras are all equipped with 4G modems and batteries so you can be sure they will transmit the data no matter what. Yet crime still happens, because, the cameras will maybe prevent not wearing a seat belt or jaywalking, but obviously not someone shooting a bunch of kids. In this case, that PE teacher was worth more than a multi-million euro project with the Chinese telecom giant. edit: If you want to know more about the cameras, here's a handy article in English by CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-huawei-face-recognition-cameras-serbia-other-countries-questionable-human-rights-2019-10-16/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-huawei-face-recognition-c...
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > However, carrying guns is technically legal as long as you pass a psychological, psychiatrial and practical exams, and pay for the license which renews periodically, as well as buying the gun from a legitimate source and registering it's make, model, and other details in the national database. RAND did an analysis on the effectiveness of various gun regulations and found that background checks and mental illness evaluations were the most effect measure that can be implemented: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html Add in child-access/safe storage laws, and those are the top three for reducing problems, generally. I have no issue with private ownership of firearms, but there needs to be some kind of basic filter, because there are too many people that either (a) are sloppy with safety, or (b) have poor impulse control, to allow a free-for-all: * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ And that's just for ownership in private: IMHO there should be an extra filter if you want to conceal carry (CCW). Say, having a score of >80% in IPSC/IDPA.
  - vasac 7y ago
    You can get permit to own a gun and keep it at home if you pass a psychological, psychiatric and practical exams but getting permit to carry a gun is much harder. You have to prove to the police that your safety is in danger so such permits are commonly issued to judges, prosecutors and employees of various security companies. Corruption also provides some people with permits to carry a weapon but generally there are slim chances that common people will get such permit. It's quite uncommon to see a civilian with a weapon. While installation of Huawei cameras is common knowledge I never heard anything about face models and stuff being sent to China. Is there any reputable source for such claims?
tomatotomato37 7y ago
The true counter for a gun enthusiast is the knife enthusiast; he'll quickly devolve a defense for firearms into arguments over the 21-foot rule and the short-term effect of adrenaline/meth vs small-caliber bullets. I mean I know that does nothing for saying everyone should or shouldn't be armed with a form of weaponry in the first place but it's still entertaining
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > ... into arguments over the 21-foot rule ... If anyone is wondering about this: > Sergeant Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife, or other melee weapon, could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. [...] > A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill Mythbusters did an segment on this (s10e11): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2162496/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2162496/ One critique: Adam had to cock the gun to put a bullet in the chamber, while most people who carry a firearm probably do so fully loaded.
  - shijie 7y ago
    Almost everyone within the firearm and concealed carry community consider carrying a gun with a round in the chamber as absolutely asinine and foolhardy. No instructor or enthusiast I know does that. It’s incredibly dangerous for several reasons. Most people practice a “safety off, load chamber” movement so they can do it quickly.
    - papermachete 7y ago
      Almost all modern firearms cannot accidentally discharge. There are varying safety mechanisms, one being a block of metal in front of the firing pin. You can grab a S&W and smack the hammer if you want, you won't detonate the primer.
throw0101a 7y ago
The FBI did a survey of the 160 'active shooter' incidents between 2000-2013 (PDF download warning): * https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-200... * https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_Acti... In 5 cases (3.1%) armed civilians stopped the shooter, and in 2 (1.3%) there were off-duty police. Most shootings (90; 56%) ended because the shooter themselves stopped on their own. While having a firearm may be handy, in the majority of cases it was not used, and probably not even "needed". Further, if there is an active shooter, and there is probably some level of chaos going on: how does a 'good guy with a good' (GGWG) distinguish between the attacker and another GGWG? When the police arrive, how do they make the distinction? In the UK 7/7 attacks, an unarmed civilian was killed because the police thought he was one of the attackers: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
- true_religion 7y ago
  The study is of all active shootings, not just active shootings where potential victims have arms. You can't really conclude that arms wouldn't be more useful in stopping active shooters.
- pjc50 7y ago
  While de Menezes was a tragic unnecessary police shooting, it wasn't any kind of "live" situation; it was the 22nd July and there had been bombings the day before, and he was incorrectly believed to be wearing a suicide vest (in reality, a bulky jacket). As you say, when the US police arrive at an active shooter situation a "GGWG" is very likely going to get killed if their gun is still visible.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "While having a firearm may be handy, in the majority of cases it was not used, and probably not even "needed"." That was my point, I was being ironic.
- papermachete 7y ago
cjblomqvist 7y ago
Sorry for no reference, but I remember reading about attacks in US homes, and it was more common to be shot by the gun you had at home (if you had any) than being shot by other weapon by a large margin. The most common case was shooting yourself by mistake...
- masonic 7y ago
  You have no reference because that statement is false. It's perhaps a bad misinterpretation of Kellerman.

"Giving firearms to everyone is necessary so that shooters can be stopped, yadda yadda yadda..."

DennisP 7y ago

In fairness, if I were in that position I'd much rather have a gun than not.

krapp 7y ago
In fairness, you would likely be more of a danger to yourself and other innocent bystanders than the shooter if you had a gun in that position than not. edit: to clarify - most people in that situation would likely be more of a danger than a benefit. Carrying around a loaded gun on you at all times doesn't mean you're mentally prepared or well trained enough to be able to effectively engage in urban combat at a moment's notice.
milankragujevic 7y ago
Well, in Serbia, by law it is regulated that every school must have a police officer [with a gun+tazer+spray deterrent] at the location at ALL times, and there are random inspections that may actually fine the cop and the school principal if anything wasn't done according to the regulation. So, there's no need for students and teachers to carry guns, because there is an actual cop there. In this case it's not specified where was the police officer and why didn't they intervene. I checked on Serbian news sites, there is no info. However, carrying guns is technically legal as long as you pass a psychological, psychiatrial and practical exams, and pay for the license which renews periodically, as well as buying the gun from a legitimate source and registering it's make, model, and other details in the national database. Though, we do have 4K facial recognition cameras that send data to China (partnership between Ministry of Interior, Telecom Serbia and Huawei) on every 2nd utility pole throughout the capital. And they actually send you tickets for not wearing a seat belt or jaywalking if a camera records you and recognizes you. All adult citizens have their fingerprints recorded as well as a face model for automatic identification and profiling by the government of China which then shares that info with our police. And the cameras are all equipped with 4G modems and batteries so you can be sure they will transmit the data no matter what. Yet crime still happens, because, the cameras will maybe prevent not wearing a seat belt or jaywalking, but obviously not someone shooting a bunch of kids. In this case, that PE teacher was worth more than a multi-million euro project with the Chinese telecom giant. edit: If you want to know more about the cameras, here's a handy article in English by CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-huawei-face-recognition-cameras-serbia-other-countries-questionable-human-rights-2019-10-16/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-huawei-face-recognition-c...
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > However, carrying guns is technically legal as long as you pass a psychological, psychiatrial and practical exams, and pay for the license which renews periodically, as well as buying the gun from a legitimate source and registering it's make, model, and other details in the national database. RAND did an analysis on the effectiveness of various gun regulations and found that background checks and mental illness evaluations were the most effect measure that can be implemented: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html Add in child-access/safe storage laws, and those are the top three for reducing problems, generally. I have no issue with private ownership of firearms, but there needs to be some kind of basic filter, because there are too many people that either (a) are sloppy with safety, or (b) have poor impulse control, to allow a free-for-all: * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ And that's just for ownership in private: IMHO there should be an extra filter if you want to conceal carry (CCW). Say, having a score of >80% in IPSC/IDPA.
- vasac 7y ago
  You can get permit to own a gun and keep it at home if you pass a psychological, psychiatric and practical exams but getting permit to carry a gun is much harder. You have to prove to the police that your safety is in danger so such permits are commonly issued to judges, prosecutors and employees of various security companies. Corruption also provides some people with permits to carry a weapon but generally there are slim chances that common people will get such permit. It's quite uncommon to see a civilian with a weapon. While installation of Huawei cameras is common knowledge I never heard anything about face models and stuff being sent to China. Is there any reputable source for such claims?

tomatotomato37 7y ago

The true counter for a gun enthusiast is the knife enthusiast; he'll quickly devolve a defense for firearms into arguments over the 21-foot rule and the short-term effect of adrenaline/meth vs small-caliber bullets. I mean I know that does nothing for saying everyone should or shouldn't be armed with a form of weaponry in the first place but it's still entertaining

throw0101a 7y ago
> ... into arguments over the 21-foot rule ... If anyone is wondering about this: > Sergeant Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife, or other melee weapon, could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. [...] > A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[3] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill Mythbusters did an segment on this (s10e11): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2162496/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2162496/ One critique: Adam had to cock the gun to put a bullet in the chamber, while most people who carry a firearm probably do so fully loaded.
- shijie 7y ago
  Almost everyone within the firearm and concealed carry community consider carrying a gun with a round in the chamber as absolutely asinine and foolhardy. No instructor or enthusiast I know does that. It’s incredibly dangerous for several reasons. Most people practice a “safety off, load chamber” movement so they can do it quickly.
  - papermachete 7y ago
    Almost all modern firearms cannot accidentally discharge. There are varying safety mechanisms, one being a block of metal in front of the firing pin. You can grab a S&W and smack the hammer if you want, you won't detonate the primer.

throw0101a 7y ago

The FBI did a survey of the 160 'active shooter' incidents between 2000-2013 (PDF download warning): * https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-200... * https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_ActiveShooter13B_FBI.pdf https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U-_Acti... In 5 cases (3.1%) armed civilians stopped the shooter, and in 2 (1.3%) there were off-duty police. Most shootings (90; 56%) ended because the shooter themselves stopped on their own. While having a firearm may be handy, in the majority of cases it was not used, and probably not even "needed". Further, if there is an active shooter, and there is probably some level of chaos going on: how does a 'good guy with a good' (GGWG) distinguish between the attacker and another GGWG? When the police arrive, how do they make the distinction? In the UK 7/7 attacks, an unarmed civilian was killed because the police thought he was one of the attackers: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...

true_religion 7y ago
The study is of all active shootings, not just active shootings where potential victims have arms. You can't really conclude that arms wouldn't be more useful in stopping active shooters.
pjc50 7y ago
While de Menezes was a tragic unnecessary police shooting, it wasn't any kind of "live" situation; it was the 22nd July and there had been bombings the day before, and he was incorrectly believed to be wearing a suicide vest (in reality, a bulky jacket). As you say, when the US police arrive at an active shooter situation a "GGWG" is very likely going to get killed if their gun is still visible.
squarefoot 7y ago
"While having a firearm may be handy, in the majority of cases it was not used, and probably not even "needed"." That was my point, I was being ironic.
papermachete 7y ago

cjblomqvist 7y ago

Sorry for no reference, but I remember reading about attacks in US homes, and it was more common to be shot by the gun you had at home (if you had any) than being shot by other weapon by a large margin. The most common case was shooting yourself by mistake...

masonic 7y ago
You have no reference because that statement is false. It's perhaps a bad misinterpretation of Kellerman.