Oh shit, oh shit: DEVELOPING: As many as 20 people may have been shot Wednesday, and police in San Bernardino were in a standoff with at least one gunman, according to authorities EDIT: BREAKING NEWS: UNCONFIRMED REPORT OF AT LEAST 12 DEAD IN SAN BERNADINO, CALIF., SHOOTING;HOSTAGES FREED, GUNMEN IN STANDOFF WITH SWAT TEAMS
They both demonstrate, in quite different ways, racist sentiments being more prevalent in the south. Like I said, I knew you would dismiss both right out of hand. You can't really scientifically quantify a sentiment anyway. Your suggestion that because a policy was overturned after a long, and particularly spiteful civil rights battle it is no longer relevant pretty much says everything. Or do you just mean not a fact? Rather it's merely both obvious and apparent?
I think something else that should be considered are the types of racism we experience in different parts of the country and how it is manifested. We might not see a 4x4 with the confederate flag in the back window in places like New York or Connecticut. I think racism in the northeast is much more subtle and insidious. I remember my 9th grade history teacher once said, "Northern democrats are just like southern republicans." I didn't quite know what he meant at that age, but as I got older, I sorta figured it out. In the south, you will know exactly where you stand. Just some things I overheard from family and friends when I would visit them in New England and New York, and yes I know its anecdotal, but I can't imagine its very isolated to just people I saw... "But what do you think will happen to our home values if African Americans move to the neighborhood?" "Nonsense, they cannot afford this area." "My mother would kill me if I ever brought a black guy home." Shit like that. Pertaining to neighborhood integration or relationships. You won't see them waving confederate flags and they might even mock the people they see on TV doing that for being racist. But they are just as bad in more subtle ways.
http://abc7.com/news/multiple-victims-feared-in-active-shooter-situation-in-san-bernardino/1106844/ "Authorities said the shooting took place at the Inland Regional Center, a nonprofit that works with individuals with developmental disabilities, at 1365 S. Waterman Avenue." 12 confirmed. Anyone want an over/under on who will be the first tit head to mention gun free zones.
I didn't dismiss either out of hand, I just pointed out that neither made it a fact. I won't say your opinion is wrong, but it's not a fact.
Out of curiosity, say we get rid of gun free zones and encourage as many people as possible to arm themselves. Would anyone here feel safer? Anyone here like the idea that in America one MUST arm themselves to feel safe going to school, the doctor, or church?
Dude is anyone capable of nuance or complexity with you or does everyone immediately have an extremist or fringe viewpoint? Thats not what people opposing gun free zones are advocating, at least not most people. The point is why clearly designate where no one armed rather than just leaving it ambiguous with concealed carry laws. If people want to carry, fine. If they dont, fine.
The people advocating against ARE incapable of nuance and complexity. I actually agree with the sentiment of an ambiguous area.
It's all kind of a moot point in this situation as the reports say the suspects were wearing body armor. No matter how many C&C's were there, it probably wouldn't have mattered. EDIT: ABC7 Eyewitness News @ABC7 45m45 minutes ago #BREAKINGNEWS 12 confirmed fatalities in active shooter situation at Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino http://abc7.la/1TvYXCp
Alexa Ashwell @AlexaWSOC9 15m15 minutes ago ABC reporting shooting at Inland Regional Center occurred inside its conference center. The facility had been rented out by a third party. They obviously had a grievance with whomever the 3rd party is.
Honest question: What are people who are advocating against gun-free zones seeking? Are they seeking the elimination of gun-free zones in publicly owned venues (schools, government offices, etc.) or all venues, even privately owned ones? I ask because I saw the argument pop up after both the Sandy Hook and Aurora theater shootings.
It's a case of it being a great idea in theory, but fucking impossible to make happen in real life. Let's look at probably the biggest "gun free" zone around... air travel. Billions and billions of dollars were invested in hardware and infrastructure to make that happen, and it's been a joke. Professionals trained to find guns using multi-million dollar equipment fuck up all the time. If you can't pull it off in an airport, what hope do you have to be able to do it in a public space like a University campus or some place similar? Never mind the cost of doing so? In the end, you're basically looking at depending on people to follow the rules, because you can't effectively enforce the rules. In that case, the gun-free zones only harm the rule followers, and do nothing to deter the bad people. Forget gun-free zones... the US and Canada are already "murder-free zones", by law. How's that working out?
I would say public places only. We even advertise with street signs and signs on buildings that nobody is armed in those locations. It makes these places prime targets because they are full of people and there will be little resistance. Generally, most concealed weapon carriers are law abiding citizens and wouldn't knowingly carry into a location that was illegal. If you removed the signage and ordinance related to public facilities that would at least raise doubt in the minds of would-be terrorists as to whether a location is a good target or not. It won't stop it completely because motivated people will find a way to accomplish their goals but it at least, in theory, should deter them more than telling people it is against the law to bring a gun to a facility, as those planning to harm people are criminals by definition and won't follow the law. In terms of private establishments? I don't think the Government or proponents of concealed carry (or any other cause for that matter) have authority to tell private businesses how to run their enterprise so long as it is conducted in accordance with the law.
I dont know, there are literally millions and millions of gun owners, so I cant speak for all of them. But I dont think anyone is really advocating or campaigning against them, but pointing out how the idea is kind of pointless and could be counterproductive.
I think it's the fight against "security theatre", where people try to implement security measures that don't accomplish any real goal other than making them feel like they've done something.