OK - you have a repeating crossbow, and I'll have a Beretta M9.
We'll each fire them at a crowd and see who "wins".
Actually, repeating crossbows are far more deadly than a Beretta M9.
Many people survive when shot with a 9mm. If you get hit with an arrow with a razor broadhead or a poisoned arrow. You're going to die.
You really shouldn't have a conversation about weapons. You don't know much about them at all.
The police should handle each and every situation according to the law.In situations like this, it can take only seconds before a heavily armed person begins shooting. Marley did not shoot anyone, but the outcome was different in a similar situation where the police elected not to act:
In states with permissive gun laws, police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual sows fear or panic in public.www.nytimes.com
How should police handle these situations?
What limits should there be on carrying guns in public places?
Most all states that have concealed carry laws require it.
Beginning September 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry.
1 - what laws pertaining to mental health were not followed?The police should handle each and every situation according to the law.
In the two cases cited in this op the matter has little to do with ownership of firearms, the number an individual may ow, and whether or nots/he may carry them open or concealed. Making it about guns, especially the number a person owns, is a red herring. If the laws pertaining to mental health had been followed the laws pertaining to murder and mass violence would have been avoided. The problem gets complicated because of a supposed right to privacy that doesn't exist in the Constitution. A lot of bad law and bad policy are made because of this misguided belief the right to privacy lacks limits.
Notice this NYT's article headline and opening line don't ask "How many guns is too many?" The article sets up the "news" with two red herrings, or a red herring and a straw man. First, why is the NYT reporting on Atlanta Georgia? New York laws are much more conservative (irony) but they don't stop gun violence. Shouldn't the NYT be reporting on New York's failure to solve the problem with lots of laws? Shouldn't they be reporting on the state's law being overturned by the SCOTUS and the state's efforts to make their laws follow the rule of law and not violate citizen's Second Amendment rights? Remember: the greatest power the media has is the power to ignore. Why does the article falsely report, "In states with permissive gun laws, police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual sows fear or panic in public"? There are plenty of laws in every municipality and state against disturbing the peace. In many states, such as my own state of Virginia the presence of any firearm while breaking many a law is reason for denying or revoking a person a concealed carry permit. It may not adversely affect open carry, as is the case in the NYT article, but in my experience as a mental health professional, the vast majority of gun owners do not want to spend exorbitant amounts of time and money in court proving their innocence. That is the domain of the mentally ill and the Second Amendment zealot. Most gun owners are neither.
Then there is the problem of legislation by the extremes. Very, very, very few gun owners do what the men in the NYT article do. There is a "rule of thirds" applicable to gun ownership. One third of those polled currently own, one-third are amenable to personally owning a gun, and a third report they couldn't see themselves doing so. Consider this: it's fairly easy to find statistics on the number of guns in the US but not the number of gun owners. Despite what I just posted about "thirds," the estimates of gun owners varies between one-third, and one-half of the population but those stats typically measure households, not individuals. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, there are 100 million gun owners in the US. The plain, simple, unadulterated fact is fools like the two men compared in this op make up a very small percentage of all gun owners. They are not representative of either the population as a whole, nor the population of gun owners. Yet laws are made that govern all and don't govern normative and statistical the outliers. Mata-analysis of research on mass shooters shows their political ideology is divided equally between left and right 😲 (I, personally, found that information suspect, but it turns out to be true). If any of you has a perception in one direction or the other, I will respectfully submit that is a product of biased sources.
In point of fact, we've seen gun ownership markedly increase as the outliers are used to legislate and govern all. I am not one prone to conspiracy-thinking, but these dynamics are so irrational it begs the question, "What is the rationale behind the argument of extremes as a basis for setting social and legal policy?" Why do the otherwise intelligent, well-educated, and hard-working people at the NYT think this is rational reporting?
Personally, I have had three sets of experiences owning firearms. First, in my youth I hunted small game, mostly using a .22 rifle. It was very common for young boys to do so back then and our fathers taught us how properly shoot, clean and be responsible for firearms. This was reinforced by the Boy Scouts. In my late adolescent years, I sold drugs and lived a criminal life. I carried a .357 Colt Python and a sawed-off double barrel shotgun on most occasions when I did business. I have been involved in three episodes in which I was shot at, or at least others were firing their firearms in my general direction. I was also once held hostage for four hours at gun point. I knew many people back then who died by bullet. I got rid of those firearms when I left the life of crime and did not own any firearms for the better part of twenty years. Lastly, many years ago, at my wife's behest I purchased another handgun and a shotgun for home defense. I have since obtained through gifts or inheritance several other handguns and rifles/shotguns, some of which I have given to others. Knowing how to both use and misuse firearms, I saw that I, my wife, and both my children took formal training in the handling of firearms from an NRA-trained and State-certified instructor. I, personally, spend regular time at a shooting range to maintain my comfort and skill.
I have never shot or shot at anyone.
Because of my middle-set experience I don't qualify as representative of the average gun owner any more than the two compared in this op. Most gun owners NEVER have any interaction with firearm-related behaviors that are illegal. Most who own firearms are never heard from.
And if we decided to collectively act out then everyone would know it and the discussion would look much different. Those at the NYT know this. So does every legislator in the country. A falsehood is any factual error. A lie is any falsehood known beforehand as false and presented knowing for the purpose of misrepresentation.
The New York Times is lying.
Which brings me to my last point. vibise, I don't follow you around the sec boards, so I don't know how often you do this, but this is the second time in two weeks I've contributed to an op of your posted with a biased source as its foundation. I don't know whether this is your modus operandi, and I do not know whether there is a specific, unstated intent behind the practice. From many years of exchanges with you I do know you know how to find, consult, and apply more balanced and diverse sources. I also know, based on the last thread in which we traded posts, you have the ability to acknowledge biased sources. I know this because the original sources on Republicans supposedly being against contraception were acknowledged as biased. Good. At least you got that going for you . As long as everyone here acknowledges 1) the NYT is not an objective source, and 2) the two men compared in the op are not representative of gun owners (so argumentum ad absurdum should be avoided), this thread might be cogent and informing.
my apologies for the length
They certainly do. Most military have concealed carry rights.
Even so, is this about training or not? You don't care if everyone is trained, you still wouldn't allow it.
Federally designated areas where weapons are banned, even with a permit:...
- Military Bases — All military bases are Federal property. Each base may have slightly different policies, however visitors who arrive at a military base with firearm(s) must leave them with the guards at the gate. If the base does not have storage capabilities at the gate or armory, you could be turned away. The only people who can carry guns around a base—concealed or otherwise—are on-duty military police, who handle routine security. They then have to return their guns to the armory when their shifts are over. There are exceptions for on-duty local or state police officers who come to the base on official business. The base commander can make other exceptions. Check at each military post for specific rules. Exception-Active duty military police, criminal investigators, and Marine Corps law enforcement program police officers may conceal carry personally owned weapons while on base while off-duty as long as they comply with the 2016 Department of Defense Directive, title “Arming and the Use of Force”.
So you would do nothing at all if faced with someone in body armor carrying 2 or so weapons and lots of ammo?Not all of them.
It's rational to make the assumption they're a mass murderer?
Panic is still irrational.
So that does not prove they are correct.1 - what laws pertaining to mental health were not followed?
2 - the NYT reports national news stories of interest
3 - sure "Very, very, very few gun owners do what the men in the NYT article do." I agree, but the point is that what they did should not be legal. Law enforcement should have been able to arrest them but could not.
4 - How is the NYT lying? They did not make any claims that the behavior of these two men is representative of gun owners, only that it was so frightening that it should not be allowed. And the one of those men who was not stopped went on to kill people. The problem is that many gun owners are adamantly against common sense restrictions on gun ownership.
This was a news story and you failed to show it was biased. What details did they get wrong?
The NYT is one of the top news sources in the world.
Texas is one state of 50
Democracy in action'Permitless' carry laws are sweeping the country — and fewer states require gun owners to take live-fire training, according to a Trace review.www.thetrace.org