Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: ‘Gun-free zone’ is truly the fatal conceit. Bill Richardson to Ahwatukee Foothills N

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    ‘Gun-free zone’ is truly the fatal conceit. Bill Richardson to Ahwatukee Foothills N

    "Do your own research. Get the report. It’s only 48 pages. And then compare the security at Sandy Hook to the schools attended by your children. Are you satisfied with their level of security?

    A book authored by economist Friedrich Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit,” discusses the fatal flaws with centrally planned economies.[my emphasis] He labels as the “fatal conceit” the idea that “man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes.”

    Just as the Obamacare legislation and rollout highlights the fatal flaws with big government and the “we know better than you do” elitist policies, so too the tragedy at Sandy Hook highlights the fatal flaws with gun control legislation."

    http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/art...a4bcf887a.html

    A fine article, with insight and background.

    The flaw in man's wishes is the central thesis of The Open Society and Its Enemies, by Karl Popper, that I have been flogging. Popper's The Poverty of Historicism is on point, much shorter. Hayek's The Fatal Conceit has been added to my reading list.

    The “fatal conceit,” the idea that “man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes” is the principal principle of progressivism (that can be seen to not except republicans or the right-wing).

    Merry Christmas. Happy Festivus for the restive of US.



    A holyday tip o' the hat to Captain Lammie Nemo for the notice of the article. He is missed.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-12-2013 at 07:59 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Man is able to shape the world around him. He just cannot control it. The ability to shape one's world is the very reason for science and is the foundation of free will. You may not be able to prevent all objects falling from the sky from hitting you on the head, but you sure can reduce the chance of being flattened by a piano by simply not walking under it as it is being hoisted to the third floor.

    The question is not whether we should follow a course to reduce school shootings like Sandy Hook, but rather, which course? The hubris-filled option of making a GFZ where those who would defend the children are disarmed, while those who would kill them are not the least bit hampered by a rule or a law, is (to any clear-thinking person) not the course. Removing the restriction on the law-abiding to carry would be.

    We should stop trying to direct events. Instead, we should nudge them toward more favorable outcomes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    My kid's school has the best security that the budget allows for.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    My kid's school has the best security that the budget allows for.
    My kids' school had highly-motivated armed guards and guard dogs and allowed parents of the students to be openly armed and even taught the students proper gun safety, handling and marksmanship - but since we home-schooled our children, it stands to reason since the armed guards, firearms instructors and parents were one and the same.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    My kids' school had highly-motivated armed guards and guard dogs and allowed parents of the students to be openly armed and even taught the students proper gun safety, handling and marksmanship - but since we home-schooled our children, it stands to reason since the armed guards, firearms instructors and parents were one and the same.

    And he still complained about his teachers?

  6. #6
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And he still complained about his teachers?
    Of course they did. Regularly.
    They wouldn't have been students otherwise (or we wouldn't have been proper teachers).
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    There is a way to inexpensively place armed guards in every school in the country; how many veterans do you think would volunteer for such duty? How many have already had a background check by the FBI? FWIW, most of them would only have to be schooled on civilian laws concerning the use of deadly force. I would also suggest that they be provided with, and required to use while on duty, some sort of frangible ammunition such as Magsafe.

    I'll tell you for a fact that this darn-near-seventy former soldier would volunteer in a heartbeat.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    My kids' school had highly-motivated armed guards and guard dogs and allowed parents of the students to be openly armed and even taught the students proper gun safety, handling and marksmanship - but since we home-schooled our children, it stands to reason since the armed guards, firearms instructors and parents were one and the same.

    Mine too
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And he still complained about his teachers?

    Not for long
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  10. #10
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    There is a way to inexpensively place armed guards in every school in the country; how many veterans do you think would volunteer for such duty? How many have already had a background check by the FBI? FWIW, most of them would only have to be schooled on civilian laws concerning the use of deadly force. I would also suggest that they be provided with, and required to use while on duty, some sort of frangible ammunition such as Magsafe.

    I'll tell you for a fact that this darn-near-seventy former soldier would volunteer in a heartbeat.
    It'll never happen. No school would take on the liability for armed volunteers. Opponents would scream about lack of qualifications and it'd only be a matter of time until some "incident" occurs and the knee-jerk reaction will be to yank the guards out. <sarcasm>Remember, police are magically endowed with impeccable judgment and dead-eye accuracy; non-LEOs--even former Delta Force--are not. Besides, vets all have PTSD and might light up the school themselves. </sarcasm>
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bigpapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    49
    I'm more afraid of ours government than I am of the guy that's come in doing mass shooting.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    First, I am afraid of neither. They concern me. Fear is a paralyzing emotion. Concern is a rational reaction that prompts preparation and training. I have no doubt that should either present an imminent danger to life or limb, I will feel fear. I just hope that I can overcome that fear and act appropriately. I have never been in such a situation, so I can't know.

    Second, I would not compare the levels of the two threats. The mass shooter, in the act, presents an imminent threat to my life. My reaction to that would be to try to stop him, likely by shooting him, probably in a way that would result in his death. Also, that threat is hugely unlikely. During any given year, what percent of the US population will find themselves in the same building while a mass shooting is going on?

    The federal government, rather than being highly unlikely, presents an ongoing threat, but not (as yet) to my life. I am not about to shoot anyone over its actions!

    The two threats are qualitatively and probabilistically apples and sno-cones. No comparison.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigpapa View Post
    I'm more afraid of ours government than I am of the guy that's come in doing mass shooting.
    +1

    Let me see if I can expand a bit on this thought process.

    It is more dangerous to liberty to start having more government involvement including costumed or non costumed government agents patrolling our kids than it is to have the rare occurrence of a mass shooting.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1

    Let me see if I can expand a bit on this thought process.

    It is more dangerous to liberty to start having more government involvement including costumed or non costumed government agents patrolling our kids than it is to have the rare occurrence of a mass shooting.
    Of course the government presents more danger to Liberty than the mass shooter does. The mass shooter (in action in my vicinity) presents more danger to my life.

    As I said, apples and son-cones.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Of course the government presents more danger to Liberty than the mass shooter does. The mass shooter (in action in my vicinity) presents more danger to my life.

    As I said, apples and son-cones.
    I understand your viewpoint, but I wanted to expand on the other viewpoint because I think it's a valid sentiment.

    It goes along with me cringing every time someone says "there ought to be a law". That statement means more violence from government.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I understand your viewpoint, but I wanted to expand on the other viewpoint because I think it's a valid sentiment.

    It goes along with me cringing every time someone says "there ought to be a law". That statement means more violence from government.
    There used to be a comic strip of that name. It would depict a pet peeve and state that there ought to be a law preventing it. I am sure it helped play into the common misconception that all problems, big and small, are best solved by government.

    However, the violence from government thing is being so overplayed as to make it as meaningless as the word "statist" has become.

    Oh, and "conflate" is now being overused. As is "strawman." And "moving on."

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There used to be a comic strip of that name. It would depict a pet peeve and state that there ought to be a law preventing it. I am sure it helped play into the common misconception that all problems, big and small, are best solved by government.

    However, the violence from government thing is being so overplayed as to make it as meaningless as the word "statist" has become.

    Oh, and "conflate" is now being overused. As is "strawman." And "moving on."
    The overuse of the word meaningless is rendering it meaningless......

    What is happening is people are waking up to the fact that the only power government has is of violence and force. Some don't like that because it points out that they in supporting government laws are in essence supporting violence, and they don't want to view themselves or have others view them as violent people.

    The more people are controlled, the poorer they become;
    The poorer they become, the more restless they get; The more restless they get, the more forcefully they are restrained.
    When people are forcefully restrained, their defiance becomes ingenious.
    And the more ingenious their defiance, the stranger are the things that happen.
    Now when strange things begin to happen, laws and regulations become stricter;
    Then stricter laws and regulations mean more criminals and fugitives.
    Soon everyone is either a criminal or a fugitive,
    And no one can untangle the mess.
    The more people are controlled, the less contented they become.
    But when will leaders understand the significance of this?— Lao Tsu
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Good quotation.

    I would just warn against believing that it means that there should be NO control. There is an optimal level of control (very little), and the Framers nearly nailed it. They did not put in enough controls on those who would control.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    In a recent lamestream media news report I saw the presence of a gun in a robbery called "violence."

    Conflate is not synonymous with confuse. A mashup confuses, while two texts read together are conflated.

    Our language is indeed being hijacked and made bland and meaningless, like whaateveer. Read Shakespeare, those are our linguistic roots.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    My kid's school has the best security that the budget allows for.
    Hooray ! (They issue out ballistic vests, I assume)

  21. #21
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Did not every mass murder since 1980 or something happen in a "gun-free zone"? IMO, they are the most unsafe places in the world.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Did not every mass murder since 1980 or something happen in a "gun-free zone"? IMO, they are the most unsafe places in the world.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    Welcome to OCDO and greetings from sunny, dry Arizona, hhofent!

    MOST happened in "gun-free zones". The 8th of January shooting down here in Tucson happened in a public area.
    Unfortunately, the antis latch onto this SINGLE event as proof that even areas with armed citizens (1-2 CCers) can still have a mass shooting.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-20-2014 at 03:28 PM. Reason: Spelling
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Welcome to OCDO and greetings from sunny, dry Arizona, hhofent!

    MOST happened in "gun-free zones". The 8th of January shooting down here in Tucson happened in a public area.
    Unfortunately, the antis latch onto this SINGLE event as proof that even areas with armed citizens (1-2 CCers) can still have a mass shooting.
    Because that is the most truthful they can be. They CAN still have a mass shooting, especially if there's no carriers there at the time or the carrier decides to not intervene for whatever reason. They just like to leave out the fact that such shootings are significantly more rare in such places.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    There is a way to inexpensively place armed guards in every school in the country; how many veterans do you think would volunteer for such duty? How many have already had a background check by the FBI? FWIW, most of them would only have to be schooled on civilian laws concerning the use of deadly force. I would also suggest that they be provided with, and required to use while on duty, some sort of frangible ammunition such as Magsafe.
    Your idea sounds a lot like this idea: A Sensible Plan Towards Armed Teachers

    There's been a lot of troops-to-teachers, too.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    79
    It seems pretty simple to me. Repeal the GFSZA and allow teachers to protect themselves. I don't think teachers should be armed security for the school. I think they should be armed to protect themselves, just as I have the right to do so.

    If somebody breaks into my wife's classroom, she should be able to protect herself. It's a benefit that the children in her classroom are protected by circumstance. I don't want my wife actively hunting down a shooter on school grounds. Don't go looking for trouble, but if trouble finds you, be prepared.
    Last edited by Arin Morris; 04-29-2014 at 12:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •