Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the protect-yourself-'cuz-no-one-else-will dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Concealed handgun license holders in Texas can carry their weapons into public university buildings, classrooms and dorms starting Monday, a day that also marks 50 years after the mass shooting at the University of Texas' landmark clock tower.

The campus-carry law pushed by Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican legislative majority makes Texas one of a handful of states guaranteeing the right to carry concealed handguns on campus. 

Texas has allowed concealed handguns in public for 20 years. Gun rights advocates consider it an important protection, given the constitutional right to bear arms, as well as a key self-defense measure in cases of campus violence, such as the 1966 UT shootings and the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech.

Opponents of the law fear it will chill free speech on campus and lead to more campus suicide. The former dean of the University of Texas School of Architecture left for a position at the University of Pennsylvania because of his opposition to allowing guns on campus.

Officials told the Austin American-Statesman it was a coincidence that the law took effect 50 years to the day after the UT shooting. Marine-trained sniper Charles Whitman climbed to the observation deck of the 27-story clock tower in the heart of UT's flagship Austin campus, armed with rifles, pistols and a sawed-off shotgun on Aug. 1, 1966, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others before officers gunned him down.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/01/campus-carry-goes-into-effect-as-texas-remembers-ut-tower-shootings-50-years-later.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by Entropy on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:21PM

    by Entropy (4228) on Sunday August 07 2016, @10:21PM (#385068)

    Terrorists are not idiots. If there's a choice between shooting people on an armed campus, and an unarmed campus I'd bet they would choose the one without guns..who wouldn't? They are not making a passionate in the moment decision: They are planning, preparing, and executing their intent. What if 20 of the 50 people killed in the Orlando massacre had guns? How many lives would have been saved?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=2, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:11PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Sunday August 07 2016, @11:11PM (#385078) Journal

    The club had an armed guard, who did exchange gunfire with the attacker. However, he gave up because he deemed himself "outgunned."

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-shooting-inside-club-20160613-story.html [orlandosentinel.com]

    Some commentators have suggested that poor lighting and the use of alcohol could limit the ability of shooters to defend themselves in a night club. Of course, those factors don't obtain in a college setting.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @01:55AM (#385127)

    They'll just use bombs on an armed campus you fucking moron. You admit that terrorists aren't stupid but clearly you are.

    • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:56AM

      by Entropy (4228) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:56AM (#385711)

      I'm sure if a group of people, or an individual plant a bomb it's MUCH WORSE if people on campus have guns to defend themselves, right? Also if they have bombs they certainly don't have guns..right? No shooting of people that run away from the explosion, either. If you don't want to have a gun I welcome you not to...someone needs to be a victim, I suppose.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Monday August 08 2016, @02:15AM

    by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 08 2016, @02:15AM (#385134)

    What if 20 of the 50 people killed in the Orlando massacre had guns?

    They all calmly pull out their firearms take measured aim at the terrorist in the middle of the club and drop him. They all hit, and none of them hit any one else despite all the good guys being in a loose circle around the bad guy. And then as soon as the terrorist falls everyone puts their gun away. You know because they are all highly trained and sober professionals, with full situational awareness, and communicating effectively.

    er... wait...

    Have you ever been in a night club? Its loud. Its dark. It's full of intoxicated people. You walk in as a terrorist and start firing, and half the crowd pulls out a gun to return fire... nobody will know what's going on, and people 5 feet from the terrorist won't know who started firing... and they'll be as likely to shoot at each other as they will at the terrorist. They'll see another 'good-guy' with a gun drawn, maybe turning towards them... or maybe they'll see them shooting in-turn at a 3rd person... and assume THAT must be one of the bad guys too. Many will probably miss (hit other innocent people), what with being intoxicated. Neither their best judgement nor their best aim can be relied upon. The terrorist could probably leave after firing a few shots and the crowd might simply shoot among themselves for the next minutes until all the scared and intoxicated idiots run out of ammunition...

    If there's a choice between shooting people on an armed campus, and an unarmed campus I'd bet they would choose the one without guns..who wouldn't?

    Goes both ways. It simplifies my plan to shoot people on an armed campus, if I can just walk in with my gun. Or maybe I'll just switch to explosives and bombs, its not a written rule that, as a terrorist, I have to shoot people, I could drive over them with a big truck, or set off a bomb, or any number of things.

    They are not making a passionate in the moment decision: They are planning, preparing, and executing their intent.

    I really couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you.

    So you agree that arming a bunch of idiots in a club, would at best caused the terrorist to simply plan a different attack, and at worst would have led to a paniced crowd of intoxicated people shooting at each other?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Monday August 08 2016, @04:48AM

      by RedBear (1734) on Monday August 08 2016, @04:48AM (#385171)

      Have you ever been in a night club? Its loud. Its dark. It's full of intoxicated people. You walk in as a terrorist and start firing, and half the crowd pulls out a gun to return fire... nobody will know what's going on, and people 5 feet from the terrorist won't know who started firing... and they'll be as likely to shoot at each other as they will at the terrorist. They'll see another 'good-guy' with a gun drawn, maybe turning towards them... or maybe they'll see them shooting in-turn at a 3rd person... and assume THAT must be one of the bad guys too. Many will probably miss (hit other innocent people), what with being intoxicated. Neither their best judgement nor their best aim can be relied upon. The terrorist could probably leave after firing a few shots and the crowd might simply shoot among themselves for the next minutes until all the scared and intoxicated idiots run out of ammunition...

      This is actually one thing I will never understand about those who stand on the side of strict gun bans. This constant, unwavering, unquestioned (and unsupported by any evidence), assertion that another firearm on the scene will always (I SAID ***ALWAYS***) make the situation worse. Oh, unless the other firearm is in the hands of a person wearing a badge and a uniform. Then it's totally cool.

      This attitude unfortunately blatantly ignores the fact that many of the people around you who bother to carry concealed firearms are not "crazy gun nuts" but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained and unlikely to simply whip out an UZI and start "spraying the room with bullets" (a phrase that is used far too frequently among strict gun control advocates). They might be:

      - Former military
      - Active military on leave
      - Former law enforcement
      - Current, off-duty law enforcement
      - Or, simply private citizens who have taken the responsibility to train themselves just as well or better than any of the people in the above categories.

      Are there crazy gun nuts, who would make any situation worse instead of better, out there carrying concealed firearms? Sure, there are a few real idiots out there. Is *everyone* that carries concealed firearms a crazy gun nut who would make any situation worse instead of better? Uh, no. That is not a supportable assertion. Does even the idea that there are people wandering around any given location who are armed give hesitation to someone wanting to go there and start trouble? Uh, yes. What finally stopped the Orlando shooter's rampage? Police officers, with firearms. Did the armed security guard inside the club have at least a chance to stop the shooter? Yes, he failed, but he at least had a positive statistical chance to stop the shooter before he killed 50 people and injured 50 others. Did the armed security guard end up killing a bunch of innocent bystanders while attempting to stop the shooter? No. Is it logical to worry so much about a bystander or two being injured when you're dealing with someone attempting to kill as many dozens of people as he can get away with? No, that doesn't seem logical to me. By the way, it's actually not that difficult to identify which one is the real bad guy in these situations. He's the only one carrying a RIFLE and wearing an outfit that's quite out of place, typically.

      As I have done in the past, I assert that the problem with nearly all these gun related conversations is that *both* the pro-gun arguments and the anti-gun arguments are full of holes and nobody wants to admit they might be at least partially wrong.

      Goes both ways. It simplifies my plan to shoot people on an armed campus, if I can just walk in with my gun. Or maybe I'll just switch to explosives and bombs, its not a written rule that, as a terrorist, I have to shoot people, I could drive over them with a big truck, or set off a bomb, or any number of things.

      No, I'm sorry, but it really doesn't.

      This assertion might make some sort of logical sense if you believed that everyone who enters a campus is searched thoroughly, both vehicle and person, for firearms. But that isn't what happens on any campus I've ever seen. That's the logical fallacy in this viewpoint that an armed campus is somehow less safe than a campus which bans firearms. On the campus which bans firearms, you can drive a vehicle full of firearms into the center of the campus and just start shooting people. There are many people who have concealed firearms on campuses where they are restricted. They just ignore the rules, and bring them anyway. There's literally nothing to stop you on either an armed or unarmed campus, unless someone searches you or your vehicle, which is illegal without a warrant (or probable cause). The only difference is that on the armed campus when you start a rampage a few people might shoot back, and prematurely end your rampage. The same applies if you brought explosives. There's really nothing stopping you from doing so on either an armed or unarmed campus, but on an armed campus if you are seen attempting to set off a bomb or identified in the aftermath as the bomber, armed citizens will try to stop you. Will this *always* result in something wonderful happening? No, but it also can't *always* result in an epic disaster that will be far worse than just letting bad actors do whatever they want. It's insanely neurotic (and authoritarian) to believe that a person has to have a uniform and a badge and some mind-numbingly inadequate academy training in order to make a positive difference in a dangerous situation. Law enforcement are frequently even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens you are so fearful of.

      At this point you are convinced that I am totally pro-gun and anti-gun-control. But I am not. I am only countering the ludicrous and frequently unchallenged assertion that an armed citizen (who isn't wearing a badge) will always, without question, be so useless and dangerous that they will make any situation worse. It is illogical that this can be true. How can such a ridiculous assertion be true if many of the citizens carrying concealed firearms are fully trained ex-military or law enforcement, or private citizens that have literally chosen to put themselves through the exact same training (or even more thorough training)? There is logic in many aspects of gun control arguments, like requiring background checks and waiting periods, and requiring the passing of written and practical skill tests. But this portion of the gun control argument, that a few more armed citizens will cause nothing but imminent and ongoing disaster, is very weak. And it's very sad how frequently this is the primary or even the *only* argument put forth for strict gun bans.

      The one thing I've learned in life is that reality does not conform well to most of our pre-conceptions.

      tl;dr: Not everyone carrying a concealed firearm is an "idiot" who will empty their firearm in random directions with their eyes closed every time they hear a car backfire.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by vux984 on Monday August 08 2016, @08:13AM

        by vux984 (5045) on Monday August 08 2016, @08:13AM (#385221)

        It's insanely neurotic (and authoritarian) to believe that a person has to have a uniform and a badge and some mind-numbingly inadequate academy training in order to make a positive difference in a dangerous situation. Law enforcement are frequently even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens you are so fearful of.

        Juxtapose that with:

        but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained [...] They might be:
        [...]
        - Former law enforcement
        - Current, off-duty law enforcement

        So... law enforcement is barely trained and even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens; so we should allow the ordinary citizens to carry guns because ... wait for it... hidden amongst those idiots will be quite well trained active/former/off duty law enforcement -- which are even more idiotic and dangerous than the fellow citizens.. GOTO START

        Those two arguments pretty much cancel each other out. ;)

        There is logic in many aspects of gun control arguments, like requiring background checks and waiting periods, and requiring the passing of written and practical skill tests. But this portion of the gun control argument, that a few more armed citizens will cause nothing but imminent and ongoing disaster, is very weak.

        Without the former, the latter WILL cause nothing but ongoing disasters. You want to arm more people in public, I'm in principle fine with that if its the right people. But you need the background checks and waiting periods and to take away the privilege when people abuse it; and you need to require them to demonstrate some training. Otherwise you are just arming the idiots. And it doesn't matter if half the people walking around with guns are responsible citizens, if the other half are idiots they'll do enough damage by themselves.

        I'm not actually anti-gun -- but I don't think "wanting a gun" and "has $50" is sufficient criteria to carry a loaded gun around in public.

        Further, you are changing the venue for your argument to 'campuses'. The scenario I wrote my post about was 'night club'. Those are very different scenarios, don't you think? Do you think your argument applies equally well to night clubs? I don't.

        The other part of your argument I want to look at:

        What finally stopped the Orlando shooter's rampage? Police officers, with firearms.

        Police officers with firearms, acting pretty cohesively, all sober, and in communication with eachother.
        Not 20 randos at various stages of intoxication from all walks of life who just happened to be in the building.

        Did the armed security guard inside the club have at least a chance to stop the shooter? Yes, he failed, but he at least had a positive statistical chance to stop the shooter before he killed 50 people and injured 50 others.

        No disagreement with this part. It would have been better if there had been a couple more guards but there wasn't.
        But again, that bunch of randos isn't really adding anything to the picture either except a lot more guns in the chaos.

        Did the armed security guard end up killing a bunch of innocent bystanders while attempting to stop the shooter? No.

        He had some training, had some procedures, and so forth.

        Is it logical to worry so much about a bystander or two being injured when you're dealing with someone attempting to kill as many dozens of people as he can get away with? No, that doesn't seem logical to me.

        Yes, that's precisely the logic I'd expect a semi-intoxicated rando to take when he sees some other semi intoxicated rando with a gun turn his way...

        By the way, it's actually not that difficult to identify which one is the real bad guy in these situations. He's the only one carrying a RIFLE and wearing an outfit that's quite out of place, typically.

        The attack is adapted to the parameters of the situation. This goes back to the previous poster who argued that the guy has the advantage to plan and adapt; why can't he be dressed to blend in? why does he have to have a rifle and try to mow people down? As soon as you change the parameters, you have to assume the attacker will make suitable adaptations.

        I am only countering the ludicrous and frequently unchallenged assertion that an armed citizen (who isn't wearing a badge) will always, without question, be so useless and dangerous that they will make any situation worse. It is illogical that this can be true.

        Fair enough. But you also have to allow that many of them will be so useless and dangerous that they WILL make any situation worse. And further, that without any sort of control on which people have guns, many of the people choosing to carry them are PRECISELY the people that will be useless and dangerous. And STILL FURTHER, that they will be useless and dangerous even when there aren't any terrorists attacking. So they'll just generally raise the level of useless and dangerous to everything.... from road rage incidents, to being cut in line at starbucks. They'll lose the guns to pickpockets on the subways and leave them on the bar when they go to the can, they'll scratch their back itches with them, and shoot at their exes when they've been jilted. And the idea that Orlando would have been better if a bunch of people had taken their guns out drinking?? WTF??

        And since they can't know a terrorist attack is coming the premise is that we'll be safer if everywhere everyone takes there gun out drinking... that's ridiculous. Even if it actually deterred orlando (and the terrorist simply couldn't think of a better attack??!) their'd be 50 dead in a week in 50 separate inicidents from all the useless dangerious idiots just being useless dangerious idiots to eachother after too many drinks.

      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @09:10AM

        by butthurt (6141) on Monday August 08 2016, @09:10AM (#385229) Journal

        [...] if you are seen attempting to set off a bomb or identified in the aftermath as the bomber, armed citizens will try to stop you.

        Do you know of an occasion when that has happened? It sounds improbable.

        You seem to be describing an operation in which an attacker places a bomb somewhere, performs an activation procedure of some sort, then attempts to walk away before the explosion in the hope of remaining uninjured. I would think that in such an attack, the attacker would take care not to be seen setting up the bomb, and would disguise its nature. You seem to envisage , that could be interrupted by a good citizen. I imagine that a bomb could be detonated electronically with a timer or by radio control. Observers wouldn't see the attacker pressing a button or lighting a fuse. Your premises appear to be that (1) if the attacker can be caught in the act and interrupted, the attack can be foiled; (2) if the bomb explodes, the attacker can be captured brought to justice, and that firearms are helpful in getting the upper hand. It seems to me that such a bomber would take pains to be inconspicuous, so the opportunity for your scenarios to happen is tiny. Also, someone placing a bomb could also have firearms, or could respond unpredictably when looking into the barrel of a gun. For example, the attacker, outgunned and facing the prospect of serious criminal charges, might detonate the bomb immediately.

        I have the impression that most bombs are dropped from aircraft. Car bombs and suicide vests are also common types of bombs. Your scenarios would be even less likely to prevent those attacks, in my estimation.

        One example that was in the news recently was the bombing at a concert in Ansbach, Bavaria. Until the explosion, all people observed was a man wearing a back pack. He may have initiated the explosion by changing his posture.

        http://whnt.com/2016/07/25/suicide-bomb-rocks-ansbach-germany-in-third-violent-attack-in-bavaria-in-days/ [whnt.com]

        Bombings and mass shootings make for exciting news stories, but far more people are killed one at a time in suicides and homicides. I've heard that suicide attempts using a gun are more likely to result in death, as compared to other methods. I would assume, too, that those who survive may often suffer severe injury.

        • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:48AM

          by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:48AM (#385649)

          I agree. It's possible, but highly improbable. The point was only that an armed campus will not be any less safe from a shooter or bomber than an "unarmed" campus (which are never actually completely unarmed). Nor will it necessarily be more safe.

          I just believe it's important to stand up and make a statement to counter people who imply that a disaster is happening when there is no actual disaster happening.

          --
          ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
          ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:39PM

            by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:39PM (#386002) Journal

            I found some support for my statements regarding suicide. The public health people at another college seem convinced that lessened availability of guns could result in fewer suicides:

            In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others.
            [...]
            Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. [...] About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.)

            --https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ [harvard.edu]

            The National Review (https://archive.is/PdjAy [archive.is]) offers the counterpoint that some countries where guns are rare nonetheless have high suicide rates. Without using the word seppuku they note that culture could be a factor.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:35PM (#385354)

        This is actually one thing I will never understand about those who stand on the side of strict gun bans. This constant, unwavering, unquestioned (and unsupported by any evidence), assertion that another firearm on the scene will always (I SAID ***ALWAYS***) make the situation worse. Oh, unless the other firearm is in the hands of a person wearing a badge and a uniform. Then it's totally cool.

        This attitude unfortunately blatantly ignores the fact that many of the people around you who bother to carry concealed firearms are not "crazy gun nuts" but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained and unlikely to simply whip out an UZI and start "spraying the room with bullets" (a phrase that is used far too frequently among strict gun control advocates). They might be:

        - Former military
        - Active military on leave
        - Former law enforcement
        - Current, off-duty law enforcement
        - Or, simply private citizens who have taken the responsibility to train themselves just as well or better than any of the people in the above categories.

        What percentage of those skilled people do you think there are versus random people who got a gun because "they think it's cool?"

        I really don't have a number, but let's say for the sake of argument there are 40% people who are former military/former police/highly trained, 40% of people who are smart and responsible amateurs, and 20% idiots.

        Now an attack happens. Those 20% (say, 4 people in the crowd of 20 armed people) start shooting at random because they've been dreaming of being a hero for years and they finally have their chance. What happens next?

        Even if you assume a relatively low percentage of idiots, you can see the situation escalates poorly. This is mode more clear if you believe, like I do, that there are more idiots and fewer trained people than the numbers I sketched out.

        (Personally I happen to think that the costs of gun ownership outweighs the negatives of a crackdown... but I also do think that there is a cost to gun ownership which should not be ignored.)

        • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:59AM

          by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:59AM (#385634)

          What percentage of those skilled people do you think there are versus random people who got a gun because "they think it's cool?"
          I really don't have a number, but let's say for the sake of argument there are 40% people who are former military/former police/highly trained, 40% of people who are smart and responsible amateurs, and 20% idiots.
          Now an attack happens. Those 20% (say, 4 people in the crowd of 20 armed people) start shooting at random because they've been dreaming of being a hero for years and they finally have their chance. What happens next?
          Even if you assume a relatively low percentage of idiots, you can see the situation escalates poorly. This is mode more clear if you believe, like I do, that there are more idiots and fewer trained people than the numbers I sketched out.

          What you've just done is called "pulling numbers out of your ass to support a personal opinion". Even if I agree with you completely, and I'm not saying I don't, no intelligent discourse can follow from this kind of unsupported BS. I could only agree or disagree with your expressed personal opinion.

          I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon. It is a logical fallacy that this can be true, which was my entire point. How many of them are well-trained former military/LEOs? No idea, but it's not zero percent. It can't be. That was the point I was trying to make.

          I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions. This is another very hyperbolic idea that is far too frequently used by gun control fans. Like the "spraying the room with bullets" phrase I mentioned earlier. Phrases like this hurt the gun control conversation by making gun control advocates just sound like hyperbolic idiots who have little contact with reality. The hyperbole needs to be toned down or no progress can be made on gun control.

          --
          ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
          ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:05PM

            by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:05PM (#385962)

            I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon.

            But I *didn't* assert that. I only asserted that there would be idiots in that group; not that 100% of them are idiots all the time.
            Further, almost nobody ever asserts that 100% of citizens carrying a gun in an 'incident' is a liability. As you say, its illogical. But at the same time, nobody is going to bother disclaiming that some percentage won't be a liability everytime they raise the issue of the 'idiots'.

            I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions.

            I remember the very first time I fired a hand gun, I took careful aim through the iron sight at the target at the firing range, squeezed the trigger as I'd been shown, and missed. another try another miss. The range staff observing me stepped in and advised me that I was shooting the floor; and corrected me. I literally was sighting through the rear sights and because I was pointing slightly down couldn't even see the front sight; and I didn't even realize it was missing. As I lifted the barrel and the front sight came into view and ... I felt like a complete idiot. Lesson learned. And I've come a long way since then. But it stuck with me... just how useless one could be without sufficient training.

            Some random idiot -- Do they know how to hold it properly so it won't move in their hand? Are they actually holding properly? Do they know how to sight properly? Are they sighting properly? How often have they practiced? Have they EVER practiced? After all, bullets aren't free. When was the last time they zeroed their sights? Have they ever used the sights properly? Have they ever been to a range? How good is their aim going to be if they are scared, semi-intoxicated, their heart pounding the adrenaline through their veins... will they wait until the sights are properly lined up...with they apply all their training? Will they even remember their training? Did they even HAVE any training? Have they ever shot at a moving or living target? Or will they just start pulling the trigger as soon as the barrel of the gun is in the right general direction?
            Are they assuming the same stance they used at the range or are they crouched behind a table shooting with one hand poking out?

            Are they going to be shooting "at random in random directions"? No...I'm sure they'll be trying to hit something... but they may as well be firing in random directions if they are poorly trained and running on fear and adrenaline.

            Is that everyone with a gun? Of course not. Nobody thinks that. But lots of those people are out there.

    • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:45PM

      by Entropy (4228) on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:45PM (#386795)

      In regards to nightclubs being crowded: Yes, then some islamic terrorist pulls out a rifle and starts shooting people. I would venture to say the people on the dance floor will be moving away from the terrorist, hiding behind things, and generally running away. I would also venture to say less than 50 people would have died if 20 people were armed. It was a terrible, terrible slaughter against completely unarmed people...do you seriously think it would have been worse?

      In short the sheep will hide, and the wolves will fight the terrorist. Could some innocent sheep be hit? You bet! But the overall death rate would have been far, far lower.

      armed v unarmed campus/nightclub: Pretty sure the guy would choose the one filled with helpless victims. Terrorists are often smart, but not really after a good fight.

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 12 2016, @06:15AM

        by vux984 (5045) on Friday August 12 2016, @06:15AM (#386920)

        Pretty sure the guy would choose the one filled with helpless victims. Terrorists are often smart, but not really after a good fight.

        So the terrorist attacks a club in Orlando with a bomb instead of a rifle; or does something else somewhere else what with him being 'smart' and 'having time to plan' and 'choosing his target'.

        Meanwhile this nightclub and every other nightclub is filled with randos at various levels of intoxication, who have all taken their guns out drinking; so 'drunk idiot with gun' incidents of every kind go up around the country.

        Net result: terrorist attacks aren't really affected - they just adapt to the circumstances; and gun violence overall goes up because a bunch of "wolves" taking their loaded guns out drinking with them was poorly advised.

        • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday August 12 2016, @11:16PM

          by Entropy (4228) on Friday August 12 2016, @11:16PM (#387238)

          Yeah that's easy. He's either found on entry wheeling in a bomb, carrying a big backpack, or other suspicious package or the bomb is small enough that it kills less than 50 people. It would, in short, be a less effective approach.

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday August 13 2016, @03:37AM

            by vux984 (5045) on Saturday August 13 2016, @03:37AM (#387359)

            Or he hits the line up outside the club. And since its not a suicide run, he can do it again... next month...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:24AM (#385222)

    You cannot bring any weapons or even mace inside. This is to prevent the inevitable drunken fights that break out from escalating beyond fists and protect the bouncers who then kick them out.