nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Active Shooter on campus. Run Hide Fight.

Agent Coulson

Another campus shooting in America.

https://twitter.com/OSU_EMFP/status/803251348858753024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Ohio State University

I think the scary/sad thing is these shootings aren't shocking news anymore.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stigura

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Yes unfortunately by the sounds of it

Can't even start to comprehend that statement, right now.

Look; 'Sorry'. I've just received a dreadful reply, from a mate of mine. His kiddie's in hospital. Now my head's all f**ked up.

You people carry right on sniping at eachother, about whose views ye don't f**king share. Life style thing.

Real Life **** just invaded me. Unfollowing .............

Dr Jakub

Liberal media devastated that this was a Somalian and not a racist white male. No need for soul searching for gun control or race relations this time.

Oodoov

Looking very likely it was a terror attack alright but what i find strange is how stupid do you have to be to use a car in an attack when you can buy a gun on a street corner or in the local Quick E Mart along with a six pack of beer in most American states. Well done the police man who stopped this clown in his tracks.

BoatMad

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Yes unfortunately by the sounds of it

mine view is based on desperation on the failure to contain the spread of firearms, not necessarily because I beleive in their use in personal protection

NoFreeGaffs

Dr Jakub wrote: »

Liberal media devastated that this was a Somalian and not a racist white male. No need for soul searching for gun control or race relations this time.

Refugees welcome.

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

I have considerable familiarity with small arms, there is no evidence that arming a population make anywhere safer . The stats in the US show that uniquely , outside war zones, that gun related homicides are way way above any comparable society. Guns engender an entirely false sense of security as is clearly shown in the US.

Sortof. The stats also show that those who defend themselves with a firearm are less likely to suffer injury than those who use another other form of defense. So, in other words, you are more likely to be in a position that you need a gun in the first place in the US, but if you have one, you're better off for it when you need it.

It comes back to the individual's responsibility to himself vs the State's responsibility to society at large. The State cannot be responsible for the safety of the individual, and it comes down to a moral choice by society as to which is more important. We've decided to go more with the concept of self-sufficiency, though obviously it's not universal: At this time, carrying a firearm is illegal on OSU, for example.

[Deleted User]

kittensmittens wrote: »

And I'd rather that my teenage child who attends there to live into ripe old age and ignore ridiculous instructions.
Why the f*ck would armed, body suited, trained police officers tell scared, unarmed kids to fight???

It's a standard instruction issued and is a result of lots of experience in siege situations.

Run: If you can get as far away from the active shooters location

Hide: If you can't get away, find somewhere to hide quietly

Fight: If you have no options and are cornered, see what can be used as a weapon and do your best to defend yourself, fight for your life.

It's perfectly sensible advice.

BoatMad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sortof. The stats also show that those who defend themselves with a firearm are less likely to suffer injury than those who use another other form of defense. So, in other words, you are more likely to be in a position that you need a gun in the first place in the US, but if you have one, you're better off for it when you need it.

It comes back to the individual's responsibility to himself vs the State's responsibility to society at large. The State cannot be responsible for the safety of the individual, and it comes down to a moral choice by society as to which is more important. We've decided to go more with the concept of self-sufficiency, though obviously it's not universal: At this time, carrying a firearm is illegal on OSU, for example.

certainly in modern European democracies, the evolved concept is that the state has an obligation to provide security, yes not at the instant level of a individual response, as thats impossible, but through its responsibilities to create a society where that need is reduced or eliminated.

Hence the argument that a cop cannot appear by your side as a justification for arms, is infact bogus, the state is supposed to create the environment where the need for armed defense is not habitually necessary . In most advanced societies, this has largely been achieved and citizens go about their daily lives without the slightest need to resort to lethal personal defence and most importantly there is no call that such defensive measures be introduced.

IN fact in most European societies the public attitude is utterly against legal gun proliferation. This is a fact that US commentators overlook as they see the lack of guns as somehow a governmental control issue. In fact its the opposite, the Gov is responding to demands of its citizenry to live without any need of firearms.

Hence,in my view, the trend in the US to self sufficiency in terms of the creation of a " civil" society lets the state off the hook on a major issue that should be its responsibility. Crime is a societal problem not an individual problem and a violent response to violence is not a solution. The recent decades of gun proliferation and near universal open and concealed carry rules , have in fact returned the US to frontier justice , a model the US states themselves extracted themselves from in the latter part of the 19th century and are now infact returning to that model

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sortof. The stats also show that those who defend themselves with a firearm are less likely to suffer injury than those who use another other form of defense. So, in other words, you are more likely to be in a position that you need a gun in the first place in the US, but if you have one, you're better off for it when you need it.

It comes back to the individual's responsibility to himself vs the State's responsibility to society at large. The State cannot be responsible for the safety of the individual, and it comes down to a moral choice by society as to which is more important. We've decided to go more with the concept of self-sufficiency, though obviously it's not universal: At this time, carrying a firearm is illegal on OSU, for example.

Where though? In your own home for example maybe, but what if you are out socializing, working etc away from what you consider a secure environment? The individuals right to protect themselves can only go so far.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What policies? It wasn't a shooting

Does it have to be a shooting?

Stigura wrote: »

Yep. Far too many motor owners in America! And, as for their completely out of control Knife ownership?! Hillary would have sorted that out!

For pities sake .....

Why couldn't the exact same thing happen here? Then what policies should we change?

I wasn't up to date with the details and I was going by previous reports. Anyway, be it a knife, gun, or whatever instrument, violence is quite the norm in the states. Current policies are not really working, are they?

ceadaoin.

Oodoov wrote: »

Looking very likely it was a terror attack alright but what i find strange is how stupid do you have to be to use a car in an attack when you can buy a gun on a street corner or in the local Quick E Mart along with a six pack of beer in most American states. Well done the police man who stopped this clown in his tracks.

You really can't buy a gun on every street corner or convenience store. Do people really think this? I've been here 3 years and I've never seen one for sale anywhere. I'm sure you have to go to an actual gun/sporting goods store.

BoatMad

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You really can't buy a gun on every street corner or convenience store. Do people really think this? I've been here 3 years and I've never seen one for sale anywhere. I'm sure you have to go to an actual gun/sporting goods store.

walmart

ceadaoin.

BoatMad wrote: »

walmart

Maybe. I've never been to Walmart. But that hardly amounts to guns being available to buy in every corner store does it?

FortySeven

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You really can't buy a gun on every street corner or convenience store. Do people really think this? I've been here 3 years and I've never seen one for sale anywhere. I'm sure you have to go to an actual gun/sporting goods store.

If you wanted a gun you could find one pretty quickly. Just head to any rough part of town and ask the boys standing on the corners. Some are as cheap as $50 I believe but you likely wouldn't want to pull the trigger on a $50 gun. Likely to lose a finger or two.

Decent guns can be had for a few hundred. You can also buy at gun shows without checks in plenty states or online of course.

Oodoov

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You really can't buy a gun on every street corner or convenience store. Do people really think this? I've been here 3 years and I've never seen one for sale anywhere. I'm sure you have to go to an actual gun/sporting goods store.

I lived in the states from 1997 to 2006. You could buy a gun as easy as you could buy a pack of pringles. It's different in different states for sure but in general it's very easy indeed

BoatMad

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe. I've never been to Walmart. But that hardly amounts to guns being available to buy in every corner store does it?

no, but almost so. anyway purchasing a firearm isnt a spur of the minute thing for most people in the US , you need to research models and suitability etc. Most people approach it like buying a car

BoatMad

Oodoov wrote: »

I lived in the states from 1997 to 2006. You could buy a gun as easy as you could buy a pack of pringles. It's different in different states for sure but in general it's very easy indeed

indeed, when I lived there , it was too, even though in my time, there was far more state gun control and very few open or concealed carried as many states did not allow it. That has changed dramatically with recent SCOTUS judgements. There is less gun control now that almost at any other time in the US history post the completion of the modern USA

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

certainly in modern European democracies, the evolved concept is that the state has an obligation to provide security, yes not at the instant level of a individual response, as thats impossible, but through its responsibilities to create a society where that need is reduced or eliminated.

Hence the argument that a cop cannot appear by your side as a justification for arms, is infact bogus, the state is supposed to create the environment where the need for armed defense is not habitually necessary .

I think, though, that this has been the difference between acceptance of an ideal and reality. A requirement for armed defence is not habitually necessary here either. Although I have occasionally investigated suspicious noises on my property with a sidearm, I have never yet been mugged, murdered, raped, been present at a robbery, or even gotten into a road rage altercation. (My family, however, has been mugged once and burgled thrice in Europe). I strongly suspect that my experience is not particularly unique in the US. Unless you are willing to state that there is no need for personal defense in modern European democracies, then it comes down to a judgement call as to just how easy you want to make it to do so, vs the risks associated with it. In some countries like the England, it's all but impossible on a practical level, as even carrying a pocket knife around can be an offensive weapon. In the Czech Republic, permits to carry concealed firearms are routine. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which of those two jurisdictions has more crimes against the person.

In most advanced societies, this has largely been achieved and citizens go about their daily lives without the slightest need to resort to lethal personal defence and most importantly there is no call that such defensive measures be introduced.

Well, unless you're in Italy ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm ) or Ireland ( http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/bill-lets-public-use-lethal-force-on-intruders-125602.html ) .... The right to self defense exists in every jurisdiction, to include up to lethal force if necessary. Even the Pope has admitted as much. The only difference is in how easy it is to acquire the tools to do so. As one California-based court observed (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) "Though the law allows the use of a firearm in self defense, where the victim is to obtain one on the spur of the moment is left to providence"

IN fact in most European societies the public attitude is utterly against legal gun proliferation. This is a fact that US commentators overlook as they see the lack of guns as somehow a governmental control issue. In fact its the opposite, the Gov is responding to demands of its citizenry to live without any need of firearms.

Are they? They may not be as in favour of proliferation to the extent of the US, but you'll find that the vast majority of such countries are quite happy to have all sorts of firearms in circulation, with varying degrees of support, varying from the Swiss "We have serious exception to this Schengen firearms requirement, we're keeping our assault rifles" (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-guns-idUSKCN1161KT ) to the Greek "We shall prohibit most firearms.. except in Crete, because we don't trust the Turks and we'll let everyone have belt-fed machineguns if they want them" (Seriously, check out wedding videos from the place).

Hence,in my view, the trend in the US to self sufficiency in terms of the creation of a " civil" society lets the state off the hook on a major issue that should be its responsibility. Crime is a societal problem not an individual problem and a violent response to violence is not a solution. The recent decades of gun proliferation and near universal open and concealed carry rules , have in fact returned the US to frontier justice , a model the US states themselves extracted themselves from in the latter part of the 19th century and are now infact returning to that model

Crime is indeed a societal problem, but I as an individual am rather unable to affect that crime, unless it happens to occur within my eyeshot. (So are bears, wolves, alligators, and other such critters for whom a police response may take a while, as well as those of us who are in the middle of a really, really big countryside who live in isolated areas).

Deleted User wrote: »

Where though? In your own home for example maybe, but what if you are out socializing, working etc away from what you consider a secure environment? The individuals right to protect themselves can only go so far.

The phrase here is that my rights stop at your nose. They don't stop at my doorstep. (In other words, as long as I don't do anything to affect you, you have no grounds to stop me)

If I may quote the judgement of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as it struck down the last comprehensive concealed-carry ban in the country three years ago:

"Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress"

The full opinion is here.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed, when I lived there , it was too, even though in my time, there was far more state gun control and very few open or concealed carried as many states did not allow it. That has changed dramatically with recent SCOTUS judgements. There is less gun control now that almost at any other time in the US history post the completion of the modern USA

Oh, rubbish. There are now so many firearms laws that it's impossible to keep track of them all. Seriously, there are now apps where you plug in a city and route, and it tells you which towns, counties or States will get you in trouble if you go through them with your firearm. The only exception is that regarding concealed weapons, where it is now (theoretically) permitted in every State, but nobody has as yet been able to show that it has been a problem. (The aforementioned 7th Circuit case made such an observation, that Illinois could look at the results of 49 other States, and could not justify the ban on public safety grounds).

Now, I'm off to the gun shop to start the background check process on a Kalashnikov I'm buying, before the next round of California stupidity hits next month. Might get the Tavor as well. The RFB and AR-15 can wait until next year, I think. The law seems likely to have missed those, somehow. (Well, not somehow. It's because it's written by people who know nothing about firearms)

BoatMad

I think, though, that this has been the difference between acceptance of an ideal and reality. A requirement for armed defence is not habitually necessary here either. Although I have occasionally investigated suspicious noises on my property with a sidearm, I have never yet been mugged, murdered, raped, been present at a robbery, or even gotten into a road rage altercation. (My family, however, has been mugged once and burgled thrice in Europe). I strongly suspect that my experience is not particularly unique in the US. Unless you are willing to state that there is no need for personal defense in modern European democracies, then it comes down to a judgement call as to just how easy you want to make it to do so, vs the risks associated with it. In some countries like the England, it's all but impossible on a practical level, as even carrying a pocket knife around can be an offensive weapon. In the Czech Republic, permits to carry concealed firearms are routine. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which of those two jurisdictions has more crimes against the person.

The level of crime is somewhat irrelevant, the fact remains that , in general , European citizenry believe that the state was a responsibility to create a society where the habitual need to posses lethal personal defensive is not required. Thats the main difference. In the US , particularly in recent years the citizenry are in fact withdrawing from that " compact". I dont see that as a good thing

nless you are willing to state that there is no need for personal defense in modern European democracies

in general there is not , by and large , I certainly have never seen or required its use there

Well, unless you're in Italy ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm ) or Ireland ( http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/bill-lets-public-use-lethal-force-on-intruders-125602.html ) .... The right to self defense exists in every jurisdiction, to include up to lethal force if necessary. Even the Pope has admitted as much. The only difference is in how easy it is to acquire the tools to do so. As one California-based court observed (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) "Though the law allows the use of a firearm in self defense, where the victim is to obtain one on the spur of the moment is left to providence"

The relatively recent law allowing lethal defense within you curtilage was more an attempt to clear up some ambiguity that resulted in a flawed legal sentencing of a farmer, rather then any wholesale introduction of self defense.

Again, self defence laws in ones home have a long tradition in many jurisdictions ( though very weak in the UK for example ) self defense in itself is entirely different to the widespread provision of small arms, because virtually anything is potentially a lethal weapon if deployed correctly. The two are not really connected.

Are they? They may not be as in favour of proliferation to the extent of the US, but you'll find that the vast majority of such countries are quite happy to have all sorts of firearms in circulation, with varying degrees of support, varying from the Swiss "We have serious exception to this Schengen firearms requirement, we're keeping our assault rifles"

The swiss situation is rathe unique and recent regulations on ammunition mean the firearm is not in general use, mor that you are storing you military weapon at home ( the ammunition is now habitually kept centrally ), It cannot be classed as gun ownership in the conventional understanding

The primary difference in Most european countries is that firearms are sporting goods, and cannot be licensed for habitual personal defense. There is no public mood that I can detect to change that and in many cases , even stricter controls have been enacted after some events have occurred, particularly in the UK, which unlike Ireland, banned all licensed handguns.

Crime is indeed a societal problem, but I as an individual am rather unable to affect that crime, unless it happens to occur within my eyeshot. (So are bears, wolves, alligators, and other such critters for whom a police response may take a while, as well as those of us who are in the middle of a really, really big countryside who live in isolated areas).

Leaving aside the " varmint issue " which is why virtually every farmer is armed in ireland, The fact remains the state is expected to create the situation where its citizens can go about there business without the need to habitually need or resort to lethal weapons as a matter of course. In that regard Europe and the US largely succeed , however in the US , despite in fact a significant lowering of general crime over the last 20 years, the rise of the fear of crime has increased and with it , the proliferation of guns. This is not the sign off a settled "civil" society.

The phrase here is that my rights stop at your nose. They don't stop at my doorstep. (In other words, as long as I don't do anything to affect you, you have no grounds to stop me)

IN most developed societies , we do not apply those rules, we have civil and criminal law, that determines the extant of your rights and others in public ( as distinct from your home ), in general those laws criminalise violence irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the situation as you typically have no " stand your ground " rights in public places,

This in my view is right and proper, the role of the police force is to ensure that I and others can traverse public spaces without the treat of violence or the need to react with violence, and in general that is the case in everyday life.

The fact that on occasion bad things happen is no reason to change that perspective, no more then occasional car crashes are a reason to ban cars or allow everyone to fit armour plating !

If I may quote the judgement of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as it struck down the last comprehensive concealed-carry ban in the country three years ago:

"Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress"

Spare me US state court judgements. More correctly the judge should have opinioned that the state of Illinois should ensure that a women can walk around without fear of stalking etc, by ensuring that the criminal justice system sends out powerful messages to those that would attempt this, rathe then assuming the solution is the women should retort to lethal violence to protect herself.

BoatMad

Oh, rubbish. There are now so many firearms laws that it's impossible to keep track of them all. Seriously, there are now apps where you plug in a city and route, and it tells you which towns, counties or States will get you in trouble if you go through them with your firearm

This has more to do with carrying across state lines , then anything else. Those prohibitions were always there and very strict in my time in the US. The fact remains that across the state , guns controls , especially around pistols , have been relaxed as have various states controls on assault rifles and the like

Billy86

FortySeven wrote: »

Bloody hell. They must be big, dangerous forearms.

Billy86

So if I'm correct then... No gun (or at least he couldn't get it working). End result, 11 injured, 0 dead, apart from him.

In Oregon the shooter was able to use his gun. End result, 10 dead.

In Charleston, Dylann roof was able to use his gun. End result, 9 dead.

A few months ago in Orlando, Omar Mateen was able to get his gun working. End result, 50 dead.

In Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza was able to get his gun working. End result, 28 dead.

But of course, "guns don't kill people" ...

Capt'n Midnight

brevity wrote: »

Grab the trusty compass from the Oxford Maths Set tin!

Weapons of maths instruction :eek:

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

The level of crime is somewhat irrelevant, the fact remains that , in general , European citizenry believe that the state was a responsibility to create a society where the habitual need to posses lethal personal defensive is not required. Thats the main difference. In the US , particularly in recent years the citizenry are in fact withdrawing from that " compact". I dont see that as a good thing

Right, but in effect, the citizenry is playing the odds. They may be longer odds in Europe, but last year in the UK, 573 people lost that gamble and payed the ultimate fine https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/rate-england-wales-2015-rises-11 The 23,000 rapes victims paid a lesser penalty https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/13/reported-rapes-in-england-and-wales-double-in-five-years . You may see it as a good thing to sacrifice the ability of people to defend themselves by use of lethal force for the overall good of society, but I similarly suspect that the victims of such violence had a somewhat more pointed priority at that moment in time than the theortical good of society. Would they all have been safe had they been armed? Of course not. But they would have had more of a chance when the odds caught up with them. It's the statistician's viewpoint, and as far as that goes, it's fine. We in the US, however, choose to have a back-up plan in addition to playing the odds.

in general there is not , by and large , I certainly have never seen or required its use there

Right, so yourself in the EU and myself in the US are on equal footing there. Sample size of 1 each.

The relatively recent law allowing lethal defense within you curtilage was more an attempt to clear up some ambiguity that resulted in a flawed legal sentencing of a farmer, rather then any wholesale introduction of self defense.

If you're referring to Padraig Nally, I believe that case was judged correctly (and the scandal was more to the fact that he felt he had to resort to such measures because Society's police had apparently repeatedly failed to provide the statistically required level of protection in his case). The Irish law came about a little after DPP v Barnes was judged by the High Court, which surprised some as the Irish court indicated that the use of lethal force could be justified. http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/ADED5C6B04F391478025725D00516C14?Open&Highlight=0,barnes,~language_en~
It thus clarified the legislation to more easily match the High Court's opinion.

Again, self defence laws in ones home have a long tradition in many jurisdictions ( though very weak in the UK for example ) self defense in itself is entirely different to the widespread provision of small arms, because virtually anything is potentially a lethal weapon if deployed correctly. The two are not really connected.

Anything can be a lethal weapon, true. But firearms make the use of lethal force far more feasible for all persons regardless of fitness, disability, gender, strength, etc. The victim in the Barnes case above was 69 years of age. A theoretical right is fairly pointless absent the reliable ability to conduct it.

The swiss situation is rathe unique and recent regulations on ammunition mean the firearm is not in general use, mor that you are storing you military weapon at home ( the ammunition is now habitually kept centrally ), It cannot be classed as gun ownership in the conventional understanding

You might want to look up the Swiss laws in more detail. The government issued ammunition must now be stored centrally, yes. There is no such requirement upon personally purchased ammunition. It's a common misconception.

The primary difference in Most european countries is that firearms are sporting goods, and cannot be licensed for habitual personal defense. There is no public mood that I can detect to change that and in many cases , even stricter controls have been enacted after some events have occurred, particularly in the UK, which unlike Ireland, banned all licensed handguns.

No argument there. Though if you happen to have a sporting firearm handy when you need it, there's no problems with using it because the laws on self defense do not specify that any particular type of weapon may not be used. Which again brings us back to what is in effect a form of hypocrisy. If it can be used, legally, for a purpose, why should it not be made legally available for that purpose, if it is the best thing for the job? You can, of course, continue to make the argument about society's safety as a whole, but that does not deny the individual's right to his own safety, and that a (sub?)conscious balancing is being conducted.

In that regard Europe and the US largely succeed , however in the US , despite in fact a significant lowering of general crime over the last 20 years, the rise of the fear of crime has increased and with it , the proliferation of guns. This is not the sign off a settled "civil" society.

Do you not see the contradiction in this? I am not going to claim that the increase in firearms has resulted in the decrease in crime, as there is no evidence to back it up. However, I am going to claim that there is similarly no evidence to make matters worse for society as a whole, and that similarly on the individual level, it has definitely made improvements to those who had firearms when they needed them.

IN most developed societies , we do not apply those rules, we have civil and criminal law, that determines the extant of your rights and others in public ( as distinct from your home ), in general those laws criminalise violence irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the situation as you typically have no " stand your ground " rights in public places

Which itself can be questioned. Why should I be obliged to leave a place that I have every right to be, just because someone else is (unlawfully) threatening physical violence? In the US as much as in Ireland, if I'm leaving you alone, you leave me alone, and we're all happy as Larry with no rights or obligations to affect the other.

This in my view is right and proper, the role of the police force is to ensure that I and others can traverse public spaces without the treat of violence or the need to react with violence, and in general that is the case in everyday life.

Something similar does happen here. Hence I have never been in a situation that I have needed to use a firearm, Dublin California has a pretty good police force. But they still can't be everywhere.

The fact that on occasion bad things happen is no reason to change that perspective, no more then occasional car crashes are a reason to ban cars or allow everyone to fit armour plating !

And the use of cars as getaway vehicles is similarly no reason to ban them. Why not reverse the argument, though? The occasional murder is no reason to ban guns which have positive uses.

Spare me US state court judgements. More correctly the judge should have opinioned that the state of Illinois should ensure that a women can walk around without fear of stalking etc, by ensuring that the criminal justice system sends out powerful messages to those that would attempt this, rathe then assuming the solution is the women should retort to lethal violence to protect herself.

Well, firstly, it was a federal court of appeals, one below SCOTUS. Secondly, I am reassured by your confidence in the impartiality and judgement of the US's state courts system (Which generally seems to work well enough, even in Illinois). Thirdly, a court's pronouncement of what -should- be the ideal case in Illinois has an effective range of about 0 meters. The reality is that crime occurs, and the Federal court decided, not unreasonably, that people should be able to defend themselves when it does.

FISMA.

Oodoov wrote: »

I lived in the states from 1997 to 2006. You could buy a gun as easy as you could buy a pack of pringles.

What State was that?

RobertKK

The attacker was killed within a minute of starting his attack as there was a police officer present when the attack started.
Police say they are not ruling out it could have been a terrorist attack.

FortySeven

The USA has a much higher rate of murder and rape than the UK per capita.

Those guns to defend yourself from rape are also used to perform rape. Same for murder.

Guns appear to make rape and murder more likely. Fancy that.

The Wolverine

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076

Attacker is named as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, a legal US resident originally from Somalia.

The news is saying from what appears to be his Facebook page he posted

he had reached a "boiling point," made a reference to "lone wolf attacks" and cited radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

"America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah [community]. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that,"

Apparently he hit a few with a car then got out and started slashing with a butcher's knife and was shot by a police officer.

11 injured but none are life threatening thankfully.

BoatMad

If you're referring to Padraig Nally, I believe that case was judged correctly (and the scandal was more to the fact that he felt he had to resort to such measures because Society's police had apparently repeatedly failed to provide the statistically required level of protection in his case). The Irish law came about a little after DPP v Barnes was judged by the High Court, which surprised some as the Irish court indicated that the use of lethal force could be justified. http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356...,~language_en~
It thus clarified the legislation to more easily match the High Court's opinion.

I draw you attention to https://lawpodium.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/irish-law-on-legitimate-defense-in-the-home/

The Nally cased , where he was jailed was appealed and the original judges decision to prevent the jury from applying the laws of self defense was over turned by the court of criminal appeal, The Nally case turned around the issue of justifiable force , Nally was then released . close on its heels the DPP v Barnes, where a burglar attempted to claim selfdefense after killing the householder during a burglary where the householder had challenged him with a knife. This case established two facts, that were not at that point clear, (a) Burgarly is an act of aggression and (b) self generated necessity cannot be used as a justification for self defense.

As a result in order to clarify the exiting mismatch of Common Law, elements of an earlier AG V Dwyer and the issues from the Non fatal Offences against the person act 1997, the leaglature enacted the Dwellings Act 2011.

This did not , as is common mistaken , suddenly provide householders with a new right of self defense, that right always existed and has been used in many cases. What it did do is establish clear distinction between rights in public and rights in ones home. IN public ( i.e. in say a street brawl) , the ability to retreat IS to be taken into account in determining the legally of any subsequent non fatal actions. The Dwelling Act classified that no such requirement exists in ones home, in determining the reasonableness of a subsequent violent defense

The dwelling ACT also clarified that belief that you are under threat is subjective , and not objective, and once its a honestly held view ( subject to reasonableness tests ) then the householder can act force upto and including lethal force. Note that the reasonableness tests refer to the holding of the belief and not the actual situation. That is , if you arrive at a conclusion that your life is in danger , then it is , whether or not it objectively is.

The other area that remains untested is the use of force, including lethal force in pure defense of property, This was yet to be tested, opinion has yet to be tested whether its " reasonable " to use lethal force merely to prevent destruction of property. The Hussy case successfully argued that it is , but as yet this is an untested area.

To make it clear the right to self defense in the home ( the common law castle doctrine always existed in ireland, but in particular the NFOATP act 1997 introduced certain confusion and the Dwelling Act added no new law, merely offering clarification to existing ones

None of these cases and law of course , allow for " premeditated defense", i.e. the purchase of a gun for the purposes, in the future of a justifiable lethal defense. However of course the presence and subsequent use of a licensed firearm is entirely legally defensive provided certain reasonable clauses are upheld.