It would encourage the proper casing of weapons during transport.
This actually get to the heart of the gun control problem we have in Canada. Gun owners here balk at anything that cause the slightest inconvenience to the gun owner. The good news is gun control is winning in Canada in large part because gun owners have taken a “no negotiation” stance. When your answer is always “no, no, no” then people will move on without you and you lose your place at the table (at least in Canada).
The point is either there is justification for deadly force or there isn’t. “Shoot to wound” is another of those phrases used by pro-gunners (and blue-liners) to “prove” pro-controllers don’t know what we’re talking about.
In my ideal law Someone peaceably and lawfully bearing an exposed weapon walking towards the school zone line should get the “Stop! Hands where I can see them!” and if compliant be asked what’s the deal and told to go home and get that thing in a case. If s/he draws or makes ready or tries to rush through, then you engage (and yes, I know, then we move on to “I feared for my life because he twitched” territory…)
This is not how firearms work. Even well trained military or spec op snipers don’t go for trick shots like that. You shoot for the center of mass, and if you’re shooting, you’re shooting to kill (so you better be DAMN sure that this is your goal before your gun is even unholstered).
It may be worth an informal rule that, whenever possible, we should avoid saying things that Donald Trump said:
No. Believing you can shoot to wound leads to disasters because you shoot “just in case”.
Nope, a black Zimmerman gets thrown in jail, Stand your ground only applies to white people. And the right wing hive mind will argue that the tradgedy could have been averted if only the white Trevor Martin had been properly armed. Back in 67, the solution to scary black men with guns might have been to try to take them away. These days the solution is more guns for white people.
Yesterday in Texas…https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Dallas-student-arrested-weapons-school-Texas-17199175.php
A high school student in Richardson was arrested on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 for possessing an AK-47-style pistol and replica AR-15-style Obreeze rifle near a school zone, according to the Richardson Police Department. Richardson is a suburb northeast of Dallas…Police say he was seen walking toward Berkner High School…Within minutes of the call, several police officers from various units of the Richardson Police Department responded to the high school and began to search and investigate the situation. They were able to [identify the juvenile student and locate student] inside the school…Police later found a vehicle with guns inside. The student was arrested and charged with Unlawful Carrying Weapons in a weapon-free school zone, which is a state felony.
What if they had found him walking toward/on school grounds carrying the gun?
Fear is sufficient.
I agree with most of your scenario. But, there is no reason for anyone to be casually walking by a school while carrying a weapon. Shooting on sight would be more effective than any measure employed so far.
Also agree that wounding may not be practical unless you are standing face to face.
And less votes for black people,
He should have been shot and it should have been the media banner headline “Massacre Prevented”.
I hope there is a follow up to the story and that the kid does serious jail time.
And in case hypotheticals come up, Richardson is a fairly affluent suburb of Dallas. And it’s late May. Ain’t no kid coming to school in Richardson from hunting or planning to head out that way after classes.
Well, not hunting deer, anyway.
I don’t disagree. But the problem it solves is the problem of innocent people having the convenience and flexibility of carrying in various situations and environments. It doesn’t solve the mass murder problem, or even address it slightly.
Cops, security guards and soldiers too? Simply seeing a gun is a deadly threat to anyone it is visible to? Or only for certain people? Brandishing is already illegal. How many shootings does that law stop? If we change the law so that brandishing is defined as “a gun you own being visible at all,” how many more additional crimes do you think it will stop? Would it have stopped this school shooting, or any of the others?
Am I missing something here? Who is going to be doing this, if not someone carrying a gun in a gun-free zone? Or do you mean “take them out” like, tackle them and wrestle their guns away? Is that realistic?
Legally authorized personnel are a threat, but a legal one.
A cased weapon requirement would have stopped the Uvalde killing. If Ramos had a cased weapon and was challenged outside of the school he could not have fired on the officers and would have been apprehended. If uncased (and if such were required) he would have been shot. In either case the killings would have been prevented.
A weapon openly carried in public is a threat and should be treated as such.
Why do you think a “challenge” is going to stop someone bent on mass murder? Why do you think they’d follow the “keep it in a case” rule at all? They didn’t follow the “don’t commit mass murder” rule either, which seems like a bigger deal to me. And the first people he shot were cops, so I’m skeptical your proposed rule would have changed anything.
I take it your position is unchanged then? If you see someone entering a school bearing weapons, mind your own business?
Because that is the guards job. The guard is an official placed there to challenge the entry of unauthorized persons. ‘Challenge’ means stop or get shot. I assume it would have been ‘Stop where you are’ or something you get out of a procedure manual. And, if Ramos did not comply he would have been shot. If we are not serious, why do we have guards?
The police seem able to off drivers for minor violations. Why not a shooter entering a school? I don’t see the problem.
So, the standard is perfection? If something won’t work 100% of the time, it’s not worth doing? Not worth putting up extra hurdles?
Well, goodbye speed limits, drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws, licensing requirements, etc
In Texas just saying you were afraid is not the legal standard. There must be reason to fear, in the eyes of a reasonable person. That’s why Amber Guyger was convicted.