Handycams and Handguns.

[weltschmerz]

Because Lord knows you really, really need a gun at a 1st grade talent show.

How messed up is that?

Lawsuits in Fulton, Douglas and Gwinnett counties seek to allow parents to carry guns into school events.

Citing the “guns everywhere law” passed by the Legislature in March and signed by the governor in April, three fathers insist they have a legal right to be armed when attending assemblies, field days and open houses at their children’s public schools.

The attorney for the men says the Legislature passed conflicting laws in an attempt to appease both sides of the gun debate. However, the state maintains the new laws do not clear the way for guns in schools.

According to the AJC's ace reporter Rhonda Cook:

Two more lawsuits have been filed by fathers who want to be allowed to bring a gun to functions at their children's elementary schools. That brings the number of such complaints in light of a recent change in Georgia law to three.

www.myajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2014/sep/03/first-grade-talent-show-alpharetta-should-dad-be-a/

[Tennesseer]

When will the insanity stop.

[Virgil Showlion]

Unfortunately, mass shootings seem to be more likely at schools than any other venue thus far, except maybe universities.

[Deleted]

Considering the shootings in the GUN FREE schools... I don't think it unreasonable for some parents to want to be able to take their legally licensed and carried preferred method of protection with them.

[EVT1]

Apr 22, 2015 18:20:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Unfortunately, mass shootings seem to be more likely at schools than any other venue thus far, except maybe universities.

Seems that way- but I bet it isn't the case. They used to call it going postal for a reason.

[EVT1]

Apr 22, 2015 19:36:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Considering the shootings in the GUN FREE schools... I don't think it unreasonable for some parents to want to be able to take their legally licensed and carried preferred method of protection with them.

As if it would change a single thing. Nothing but a false sense of security.  Columbine had an armed resource officer- didn't help much.

Of course the NRA wants as many guns as possible sold to as many people as possible and will use any bullshit to make it happen- the fact remains that the USA is going to remain the #1 country for this kind of violence and more guns in more hands are not going to stop it. 

'Gun Free zones' is a bullshit narrative employed by the NRA to sell more guns and change laws to make it easier to do so- nothing more.

[Deleted]

LOL... 'Gun Free zones' is a bullshit narrative employed by the NRA... 

O.M.G.!

I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

[EVT1]

Apr 22, 2015 20:59:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... 'Gun Free zones' is a bullshit narrative employed by the NRA... 

O.M.G.!

I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

So explain how it isn't a bullshit narrative when you get done laughing.

[Deleted]

It's a bullshit idea that it's a "bullshit narrative" because... well... it's bullshit. The facts exist independent of the NRA's use of them.

"Gun Free" zones are only "gun free" in cases of people that care about the law. Someone wanting to commit a crime with a gun doesn't honor the zone. That's a fact whether the NRA states it or not.

[EVT1]

Apr 22, 2015 22:34:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's a bullshit idea that it's a "bullshit narrative" because... well... it's bullshit. The facts exist independent of the NRA's use of them.

"Gun Free" zones are only "gun free" in cases of people that care about the law. Someone wanting to commit a crime with a gun doesn't honor the zone. That's a fact whether the NRA states it or not.

Yep- it is the same bullshit the NRA pushes to sell guns- because since criminals do not obey the laws- gun laws are not needed.

Laws against murder are not needed either- because of course everywhere is a murder free zone

We had this conversation already- I will agree to disagree with you.  But good thing the 2nd amendment has ensured that the USA is not the world capitol of gun violence

[fairlycrazy23]

I thought this was going to be about a new tv show along the lines of Americas Funniest Home videos, but redneck style.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2015 8:39:28 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

We have a serious attempt in our state legislature right now to allow concealed carry by anyone, without a permit. We are already an open carry state. This measure will probably pass. We are F'n nuts on this issue.

You're looking at it as nuts on the 'necessity' side of the issue. (I agree with you that the measure isn't at all necessary.)

What about from the 'risk' side of the issue? Does the measure pose a significant risk to anyone?

I suppose one could argue that people will be more likely to shoot each other in the heat of a physical scuffle, but remember, in our analysis: i) we can't consider those who would carry illegally or who would obtain a license to carry, since the measure has no impact on these people, ii) we need to offset the risk by any legitimate use of the arms in self defense, and iii) what remains after factoring out i and ii still has to be statistically significant.

Since factors i and ii can't be reliably quantified, the matter is unfortunately well beyond the reach of social science. We have to rely on our gut feel on whether Maine...ites (?) newly enabled by this measure will pose a genuine public risk if/when they decide to take advantage of their newfound freedom.

My gut feel is 'no'. Not one that would be statistically significant.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2015 10:39:12 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Virgil you are correct that it is impossible to gauge exactly what the impact of this bill would be. However there was reason at one time to limit the right to carry a concealed weapon to those who demonstrated both an ability to handle that weapon, and some modicum of social responsibility.

I don't believe that has changed.  This bill is detrimental to public safety.  Just how much- we can't say.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I believe gun ownership per capita is still on a steady decline overall in the US. And who knows? Maybe you'll be in that one-in-a-million situation where some nutcase starts spraying a mall with bullets, and the fellow cowering behind the trash can next to you pulls out his 9mm and saves your life.

[happyhoix]

I suppose one could argue that people will be more likely to shoot each other in the heat of a physical scuffle,

I would make the argument that no trained officer of the law would start shooting across a school gym packed with people, trying to hit a gunman.

The cop would attempt to flank the shooter and get close enough to get a clear shot at him.

On the other hand, a school auditorium crammed with kids and parents, assuming maybe 5% of the parents bring their weapons, what are the odds that those 5% start shooting willy nilly in the general direction of the shooter? And probably at each other, confusing each other for additional gunmen.

Untrained yet heavily armed civilians in a big room with a bunch of kids and adults - I think the odds are excellent you would have a whole bunch of unintended casualities. Seems like a good way to help the crazy shooter score a higher death toll.

It would be one thing if this law only allowed off hours peace officers to bring their guns to these kinds of events. But no.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2015 16:00:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I suppose one could argue that people will be more likely to shoot each other in the heat of a physical scuffle,

I would make the argument that no trained officer of the law would start shooting across a school gym packed with people, trying to hit a gunman.

The cop would attempt to flank the shooter and get close enough to get a clear shot at him.

On the other hand, a school auditorium crammed with kids and parents, assuming maybe 5% of the parents bring their weapons, what are the odds that those 5% start shooting willy nilly in the general direction of the shooter? And probably at each other, confusing each other for additional gunmen.

Untrained yet heavily armed civilians in a big room with a bunch of kids and adults - I think the odds are excellent you would have a whole bunch of unintended casualities. Seems like a good way to help the crazy shooter score a higher death toll.

It would be one thing if this law only allowed off hours peace officers to bring their guns to these kinds of events. But no.

I have no clue.

I know that whenever I've played paintball, I can easily tell people apart, and it's really not hard to hit a running target 25 m (30 yards, for you Yankees) away.

I know that on both occasions I've fired sidearms up to .45 caliber at static targets at a firing range, it's really not hard to hit center of mass on a stationary target 25 m away if you have a second or two to aim.

I know that police apparently can't hit air when shooting at real life suspects. See kent's video here for statistics.

The only way I can reconcile these observations is that people's aim goes to pot in stressful situations (which really isn't surprising), and police training isn't sufficient to overcome it. It would seem therefore that taking down a shooter without any collateral damage is almost entirely a function of how collected a would-be armed defender remains in the heat of battle.

Since simulations (like paintball, etc.) can't put people into that 190+ heartbeat-per-minute fight-or-flight state, there's no possible way we can reliably predict risks versus rewards in an "average" mass shooting scenario.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Apr 23, 2015 16:00:35 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I suppose one could argue that people will be more likely to shoot each other in the heat of a physical scuffle,

I would make the argument that no trained officer of the law would start shooting across a school gym packed with people, trying to hit a gunman.

The cop would attempt to flank the shooter and get close enough to get a clear shot at him.

On the other hand, a school auditorium crammed with kids and parents, assuming maybe 5% of the parents bring their weapons, what are the odds that those 5% start shooting willy nilly in the general direction of the shooter? And probably at each other, confusing each other for additional gunmen.

Untrained yet heavily armed civilians in a big room with a bunch of kids and adults - I think the odds are excellent you would have a whole bunch of unintended casualities. Seems like a good way to help the crazy shooter score a higher death toll.

It would be one thing if this law only allowed off hours peace officers to bring their guns to these kinds of events. But no.

This is not quite correct.  Cops WILL fire into a crowd willy nilly.  It is not unheard of for cops to shoot innocent bystanders.  

www.cbsnews.com/news/times-square-shooting-nypd-officers-shoot-two-innocent-bystanders-near-times-square/

OTOH, the way that my shooting instructor taught me, I need to consider that there is a lawyer's kid in the daycare that is behind the shooter and consider whether or not I should shoot.

 Not only that, many cops spend minimal amount on the range honing their skills.  They do enough to just pass their yearly testing, which is sad because my shooting skill goes to pot if I don't go out and practice at least every 4-6 weeks.  

So making the assumption that cops could shoot better than an armed citizen is not always correct.  My shooting instructor gets a lot of cops in for training from SPD, and he says that he has had some really bad habits that he has needed to retrain out of them.  When they leave, they always shoot better, but he says that most of his civilian students shoot better than the cops.  That's very likely because they WANT to hone their skills, not because they HAVE to.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2015 16:49:41 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

OTOH, the way that my shooting instructor taught me, I need to consider that there is a lawyer's kid in the daycare that is behind the shooter and consider whether or not I should shoot.

That would be a tough one.

First you think, "Wait! I might hit that lawyer's kid."

Then you think, "Wait! That lawyer's kid might grow up to be a lawyer himself."

Really, how do you choose?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Decisions, decisions.....

[Robert not Bobby]

Let's all pack and if you smirk at me or if I perceive you to be invading my space, I will blow you away...Isn't that the way it should be.

What a society...