2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: mauidog on October 10, 2015, 07:07:04 PM
-
BREAKING: Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Anti-Gun Senate Bill 707
Today, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 707, prohibiting gun owners issued a license by their local police chief or sheriff
from carrying handguns for self-defense on California school grounds. It also subjects those with a carry permit, issued only after
passing a strict, fingerprint-based background check and agency-approved training course, harsh new criminal liability for merely
possessing a single round of ammunition on the grounds of any school or college campus, even if they don’t also possess a firearm.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/fpc/gov-jerry-brown-signs-anti-gun-senate-bill-707/
-
Well.....that should help.
Said nobody with an ounce of sanity.
-
That'll help those criminals who WILL carry onto school grounds. :thumbsup:
Good job Kalifornia!
-
That'll help those criminals who WILL carry onto school grounds. :thumbsup:
Good job Kalifornia!
Don't worry.
You know the copy cats that live here coughCOUGHcoughCOUGHcoughCOUGHcoughCOUGHwillesperocoughCOUGHcoughCOUGHcoughCOUGHcoughCOUGH will try and emulate the same or similar thing here.
-
As far as I am concerned he just signed the death warrant for Kalifornia students. Sad, very sad. :(
-
who wants to take bets that the next MS takes place in California?
-
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/11/7d45fdcb6e9f4cfe804f107e9ef2f42c.jpg)
-
Yes, they need more signs larger in size and in different languages, just so no one could say they didn't understand English. Also, they should create a universal "gun free zone" logo. Oh, I can't forget the clever twitter hashtag to go will all this as it will prevent another violent crime with a gun on school and/or gun free zones area.
Idiots, since when does someone go to a bank teller to find out what is causing that knocking sound in their engine? So why do politicians have a say on what is the best way to defend one self? Since when did they become experts in this field?
-
BREAKING: Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Anti-Gun Senate Bill 707
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/fpc/gov-jerry-brown-signs-anti-gun-senate-bill-707/
What the Hell are we supposed to use, harsh language?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30229415/uh-manoa-offers-active-shooter-training-to-students-staff
-
What the Hell are we supposed to use, harsh language?
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30229415/uh-manoa-offers-active-shooter-training-to-students-staff
The university, though, says the seminars are aimed at alleviating concerns and empowering people.
"It educates about active shooter situations. It reduces the likelihood of victimization. It tells people how to behave
when law enforcement arrives," said UH spokeswoman Kelli Abe Trifonovitch.
Yeah, empowering students with what? Self esteem? Scissors? Using a new hashtag to raise awareness: #StudentLivesMatter?
If they want to empower students, teach them self defense and allow CCW -- both off and on campus!
-
#nogunsforISIS
#outlawgunsoutlawISIS
#ban_gunsfromAQ
-
active shooter training
"we are teaching; RUN, HIDE & FIGHT"......... ???
how the fuck does that work?
-
after 911 puts you on hold ...throw your hippie iPhone at the assailant .
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/thumbnails/i/082714/780/438/082614_texas.jpg)
-
While I think this law will do jack squat in stopping mass shootings, I don't think it will make mass shootings more likely either.
-
While I think this law will do jack squat in stopping mass shootings, I don't think it will make mass shootings more likely either.
Not having fire alarms, fire sprinklers, fire doors, and fire escapes doesn't make a school more likely to have a fire, either.
Do you believe the law will result in more, or fewer, deaths if a mass shooting occurs?
-
:crazy:
-
While I think this law will do jack squat in stopping mass shootings, I don't think it will make mass shootings more likely either.
:wacko:
Given that every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone or place that is essentially a gun free zone, please explain your logic as to how this doesn't increase the potential of another mass shooting occurring at a college in California, which are now essentially 100% gun free zones?
And to counter whatever point you make, it actually does increase the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring for the simple fact that students will be disarmed and not have the ability to protect themselves in an active shooter situation, which means potentially more victims before the shooter is stopped.
The 'mass' part of mass shooter refers to the number of people killed, so tell me how this law reduces the likelihood of more people getting killed during an active shooter?
-
:wacko:
Given that every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone or place that is essentially a gun free zone, please explain your logic as to how this doesn't increase the potential of another mass shooting occurring at a college in California, which are now essentially 100% gun free zones?
And to counter whatever point you make, it actually does increase the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring for the simple fact that students will be disarmed and not have the ability to protect themselves in an active shooter situation, which means potentially more victims before the shooter is stopped.
The 'mass' part of mass shooter refers to the number of people killed, so tell me how this law reduces the likelihood of more people getting killed during an active shooter?
I have not seen any evidence to show that being labeled as gun free makes an active shooter more likely. I think that the gun free zone aspect is coincidental. Often the shootings occur at locations that would have few if any guns even if it was not a gun free zone. K-12 schools are a common target and being made up of mostly minors you aren't going to have many guns even if they were legal. Basically, common targets for active shooters are places that are just naturally going to have fewer firearms present whether allowed or not.
During the columbine shooting there was an armed guard/police officer on the campus but it didn't stop those guys. Armed individuals have stopped active shooters before but I am focusing on a deterrent aspect. I don't think that letting teachers be armed would do much to deter an active shooter. If by chance an armed teacher is present then yes there is a decent chance to reduce the number of victims but I don't think it will reduce the number of active shooter incidents, it wont stop the problem of active shooters. Thus I don't like it when someone claims stopping "gun free zones" is a solution to the problem at hand. Even if we stop an active shooter earlier we are still going to have victims, just not as many.
Again I am looking at this proposed solution through a deterrent aspect. I think an active shooter is going to shoot up a college whether students are allowed to be armed or not.
-
I have not seen any evidence to show that being labeled as gun free makes an active shooter more likely. I think that the gun free zone aspect is coincidental. Often the shootings occur at locations that would have few if any guns even if it was not a gun free zone. K-12 schools are a common target and being made up of mostly minors you aren't going to have many guns even if they were legal. Basically, common targets for active shooters are places that are just naturally going to have fewer firearms present whether allowed or not.
During the columbine shooting there was an armed guard/police officer on the campus but it didn't stop those guys. Armed individuals have stopped active shooters before but I am focusing on a deterrent aspect. I don't think that letting teachers be armed would do much to deter an active shooter. If by chance an armed teacher is present then yes there is a decent chance to reduce the number of victims but I don't think it will reduce the number of active shooter incidents, it wont stop the problem of active shooters. Thus I don't like it when someone claims stopping "gun free zones" is a solution to the problem at hand. Even if we stop an active shooter earlier we are still going to have victims, just not as many.
Again I am looking at this proposed solution through a deterrent aspect. I think an active shooter is going to shoot up a college whether students are allowed to be armed or not.
Columbine was a aberration. No other school shootings were perpetrated by multiple shooters other than 1998, but those 12 and 11 year old kids hid in the woods and fired like snipers at the people exiting the building because one pulled an alarm. They had no chance of coming upon anyone that could stop them other than the police who did apprehend them. The Columbine shooters were emboldened by having a pair of shooters able to engage the lone resource officer and have an advantage. Lone shooters are less likely to walk into a gunfight before they have completed what t hey set out to accomplish.
Nobody claims a gun free zone is the solution to mass shootings, at least not anyone who understands the problem. Gun free zones create sitting ducks so the shooter can kill as many people as he wants without fear of armed resistance. Only when the Cops show up with guns does the rampage end.
The argument against gun free zones is: as soon as someone carrying a concealed weapon sees he is in danger, he has the means to stop the threat and limit the number of casualties to fewer than might have been. This scenario has played out more than once, where a potential victim was armed and either killed or subdued the shooter at gun point. A gun free zone eliminates the potential victims' chances of defending against the threat.
Keep arguing. I know it's what you like. Trying to say it won't stop shootings shows how little you understand the topic.
-
. I think that the gun free zone aspect is coincidental[/u]."
BUT
common targets for active shooters are places that are just naturally going to have fewer firearms present "
:wacko:
Most if not all of these "active shooters" were pussies who took their own life when armed opposition arrived.
Therefore, it is only logical that if an active shooter arrived at a "common target" where others were armed, who would just shoot himself first ! :thumbsup:
"Still going to have victims, just not as many" .
;D
-
Trying to say it won't stop shootings shows how little you understand the topic.
It leaves the chance that the shooter will be stopped earlier (I clearly stated that already) but it doesn't stop the shooting from occurring in the first place. If you think that someone wanting to go out in a blaze of glory is going to decide that he will not shoot anyone just because he cannot find a "gun free zone" sign then it shows how little you understand the topic.
-
If you think that someone wanting to go out in a blaze of glory is going to decide that he will not shoot anyone just because he cannot find a "gun free zone" sign then it shows how little you understand the topic.
As evident by all the mass shootings that took place at gun shops, gun shows and many other places where it was known that the civilians frequenting the area were armed?
Yeah, makes total sense. :wacko:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jRQHwsN.jpg)
-
As evident by all the mass shootings that took place at gun shops, gun shows and many other places where it was known that the civilians frequenting the area were armed?
Yeah, makes total sense. :wacko:
Not the point I was arguing. I don't think any active shooters show up to a school, look around and decide not to shoot up the place just because they don't see a "gun free zone" sign. I haven't seen any proof that shows a location was targeted specifically because it had a gun free zone policy or sign.
-
While I think this law will do jack squat in stopping mass shootings, I don't think it will make mass shootings more likely either.
In other words, this law accomplishes squat in regards to its supposed intended purpose.
It merely piles on the rest of the useless "Do Something!" laws that have been enacted.
Riddle me this: If you're on a campus, bent on murder and a high body count, what effect does this law have on you?
Answer: None. In point of fact it may actually embolden the type of cowardly scum that commit this type of crime, since they know THEY will be the only one in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Your point is specious.
Not the point I was arguing. I don't think any active shooters show up to a school, look around and decide not to shoot up the place just because they don't see a "gun free zone" sign. I haven't seen any proof that shows a location was targeted specifically because it had a gun free zone policy or sign.
The fact is, virtually all the mass shootings have taken place where it is common knowledge that the area is a "gun free zone". They are obviously chosen because of a lack of armed opposition, allowing the perpetrator time to kill as many as possible before taking their own worthless lives once authorities finally arrive.
The proof is in the chosen killing ground. Your point is irrelevant.
-
As evident by all the mass shootings that took place at gun shops, gun shows and many other places where it was known that the civilians frequenting the area were armed?
Yeah, makes total sense. :wacko:
I agree with eyeeatingfish of this. The presence of guns in and of itself does not guarantee stoppage of these incidents.
What it does guarantee is that persons will be able to protect themselves and/or others.
Remember Christopher Dorner? LEO gets a bad training writeup by his LEO trainer. Ultimately gets suspended/fired and goes on a wacked out murder campaign against his former co-workers/bosses. Those bosses are LEO's and have access to firearms but it never stopped Dorner.
There are always wacked out people and there always will be.
-
I agree with eyeeatingfish of this. The presence of guns in and of itself does not guarantee stoppage of these incidents.
What it does guarantee is that persons will be able to protect themselves and/or others.
Remember Christopher Dorner? LEO gets a bad training writeup by his LEO trainer. Ultimately gets suspended/fired and goes on a wacked out murder campaign against his former co-workers/bosses. Those bosses are LEO's and have access to firearms but it never stopped Dorner.
There are always wacked out people and there always will be.
Exactly.
There are no guarantees in life. Not safety, success, health or happiness.
The reason our country has been different from others is due to the fact that our Constitution attempts to guarantee only one thing. Opportunity.
What many seem to have forgotten is, opportunity is only what YOU make of it. It's not free, it's not easy and it requires effort.
Incidents like this will never stop completely, but we can reduce the ease with which criminals find their victims, and maximize our chances of survival by being prepared to do what is necessary to stop scum like this.
Laws like this are a false security blanket for those that are weak of mind and lack intestinal fortitude.
-
To date I have only seen Rambo and The Terminator attack a police station.
-
To date I have only seen Rambo and The Terminator attack a police station.
Don't forget Capt. Duvall. Even though Precinct 13 was being shutdown, and the attackers were dirty cops, I think it still qualifies.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398712/
(http://i.imgur.com/s5GL5Nq.jpg)
-
In other words, this law accomplishes squat in regards to its supposed intended purpose.
It merely piles on the rest of the useless "Do Something!" laws that have been enacted.
Exactly.
The reason I am making my comment is that there are some gun rights advocates who suggest that having gun free zone signs actually make active shooter situations more likely but I don't think that is the case and I think that argument should be avoided.