I respectfully suggest that the esteemed Mayor of Pittsburgh is very wrong.
It will take little research to determine that the response to state laws imposing registration and/or disposition of "assault-style" rifles and large-capacity magazines have been widely ignored. So, barring an extremely expensive buyback campaign, those guns are going to be there for a very long time. Saying that we can fix this problem by passing more gun-control laws is a pipe dream.
The police are not the answer. The cops were on the scene in minutes, but that was still enough time for the Asswipe to kill nearly a dozen people.
We are, sadly, going to see more of this. Asswipe will be lionized by the neo-Nazis as a hero who had the stones to do more than post nasty things online. The shootings by the Asswipes of Columbine have inspired a significant number of copycats. It takes no great feat of prognostication to suppose that we won't see more.
What we cannot do: Overreact. As much as I despise the neo-Nazis and their fellow-travelers, trying to stamp them out is folly. Maybe watch them to the full extent permitted by the Constitution, but keep in mind that the Asswipe of Squrrel Hill had no criminal history. There was nothing to him, other than his running his digital mouth, untl yesterday.
Posting guards may make people feel protected. But whether they are professionals...
...or not...
...the main function of a prominent armed guard is to function as a canary in a coal mine: You know there's a problem when he gets shot.
I doubt if many houses of worship are going to tolerate being locked on their Sabbaths. Too many people are coming. Having a security screening checkpoint does a few things: First, it bunches up people. When the attacker's goal is carnage, a mass of potential victims is a desirable thing. Second, unless the screening is under surveillance by more than one armed guard, it's little more than security theater. Third, it may be counterproductive, in that it can discourage attendance.
What can be done?
Change the location of services from time to time. This could also be a nice way for other faiths to stand with the synagogues: They could swap out with the local synagogue on a weekend. The announcements would have to be by word-of-mouth or by ail. Post nothing online until after the fact.
If your congregation bans bringing cell phones to worship, rethink that. Yesterday, people who escaped the carnage were running to houses down the street so they could call the cops.
I know it's anathema to a lot of people to bring guns to services, but rethink that. Active shooter training is nice, but being able to do more than passively resist is better. Three or six people popping at the Asswipe with even J-frames might have had a positive outcome. It could not have been worse.
Finally, there was a time, several decades ago, when there was a wave of synagogue bombing throughout the South. RUMINT was that Mossad quietly contacted the FBI and told them "either you fix this problem or we will." That may be an option once more.
14 comments:
“I don’t think that the answer to this problem is solved by having our synagogues, mosques and churches filled with armed guards or our schools filled with armed guards,”
“We should try to stop irrational behavior from happening at the forefront.”
“We shouldn’t be trying to find ways to minimize the dangers that occur from irrational behavior,””
“We should be working to eliminate irrational behavior and the empowerment of people who would seek to cause this type of carnage from continuing.”
“I think the approach that we need to be looking at is how we take the guns ― which is the common denominator of every mass shooting in America ― out of the hands of those that are looking to express hatred through murder.”
IDK Comrade, I don’t see “gun control” or taking away guns from everyone as the Mayor’s primary platform here. I see a man suggesting action to keep those unstable or dangerous from having guns. Now, this is the difficult problem, and is where a lot of argument occurs, but I think very few people would accept that this gentleman should have had access to the weapons he had access to, given his advocated positions and statements. The First Amendment is limited with regard to freedom of speech in terms of not allowing absolute freedom from repercussions. The Second, likewise, has inherent limitations that may be placed upon citizens if they violate certain accepted norms. The courts have upheld this rational, the argument seems to have moved to who decides what, not should this be the case anymore.
>...the guns ― which is the common denominator of every mass shooting in America...
No shit. Like motor vehicles are the common denominator of every motor vehicle accident?
If asswipes didn't have firearms, they could make bombs with which to commit multiple murders (see: certain other parts of the world). It isn't that hard.
I should not use that kind of language; sorry.
But I do feel that if these idiots knew there was a good chance someone in the crowd was able to shoot back, they would stay home and vent online.
CP: While I agree with you (Imagine that!) in principle, there is a VERY slippery slope you are advocating. Easy to use for nefarious purposes as well as good.
I don't know the answer. I do know that one must be very careful restricting firearms or other freedoms from someone just because of their beliefs.
B., exactly, very slippery. I suspect the answer lies in a citizens committee with large membership and robust review. I don’t want to take away someone’s guns, but some people are not the ones you want to have guns.
Could we work out a third party holder for people whose rights are suspended, for the review periods? Maybe a range that allows the owner to still shoot while appealing? Can we get serious about stopping straw buyers without impeding legitimate buyers? Can we admit the legitimate purposes of some weapons that appear fearsome, while preventing more tragedies via the same type weapons? IDK.
There has never been a less slippery slope in all of human history. Every tiny increment of slowing the free-fall of gun-lawlessness is treated as the guncontrolpocalypse.
Nope. No one in America has ever seen evidence of runaway gun control.
And what would be the result of runaway gun control? A percentage of citizens find a less noisy hobby, no one worries about mass shootings, and a pretty significant percentage of citizens have a secret stash so they can feel safe. And everyone is more safe.
Don't worry, though. This will never happen.
My church has a robust group of Deacons who carry. And there is than one guy, sitting in the back pew nursing a hangover with his LCP shoved in his khakis in a flat holster who is comfortable with the use of violence.
People have rights...
1 Freedom from government interfering in speech and religion.
2 Freedom to defend ones self, that is integral in 2A
Nowhere in our laws is there written, we are sheep for the slaughter.
If your stance endangers me I leave, if I cannot leave, then you are the danger.
Think about that.
Eck!
Satan cannot cast out Satan.
We are going to have copycats. The Asswipe of Pittsburgh flew well under the radar. Apparently, nobody outside of his online world of assholes knew of him.
The way to deal with copycats is to kill them when they try. Then then, yimakh shemo.
A better way to deal with wannabe copycats and such is honey pots. However, again there is the risk of the slippery slope and law enforcements tendancy to focus on certain groups.
Can someone explain how the "regulated" portion of the second amendment should not be employed to separate unstable people from their firearms? For instance, if your crazy uncle's hoarding guns, keeps talking about "those Jews", and is stalking local synagogues--but hasn't actually committed a crime yet--what kind of mechanisms could be employed to notify law enforcement, investigate the potential threat, secure his firearms, and red flag him so he won't buy more until he receives treatment?
And yes, there's the argument, "Well, then they'll just build bombs." However, it takes a lot more effort and know-how to build and deploy a sizable explosive device, rather than just walking into your local Walmart or gun store and conveniently buying the semi-auto firearms of your choice. Just look at the MAGAbomber's results: multiple pipe-bombs, and not one went off (thankfully). That's not to say it can't be done (McVeigh, et al) but it takes more initiative and resources.
Obviously, I know this could lead to abuse by such regulation. For instance, an angry neighbor calling the authorities on a gun-owning neighbor they don't like, for funsies or personal revenge (like some idiots do with the whole SWATing thing). There would have to be just cause or visible evidence of a threat. Or it could fall under the laws allowing someone to be committed for their psychological potential to cause harm to themselves or others. I was just reading this site as a starting point: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-concepts.html.
Mark Rossmore, the "Well regulated" part of the 2nd is apparently legally interpreted as, "Shut up! I like my guns! I'll shoot you if you try to take them away! Shut up!"
The clause mentioning militia is a REASON for the Second Amendment, not a condition.
Is my mother, not physically qualified to join a formal militia, to be unable to own her equalizers? Consider that being female and physically weaker are risk factors regarding predators.
Post a Comment