Virginia Tech Report Cites Privacy Law Problems 381
RickRussellTX writes "A panel of Bush administration officials, including several bureau chiefs, concludes that confusing privacy laws contributed to the Virgina Tech shootings. The report claims that confusion over student privacy and medical privacy laws "has limited the ability of these officials to prevent the kind of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech.""
Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'm being very pessimistic, but it's necessary with this goverment, they removed my rights to be anything else.
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
What this is instad is the government spotting an opportunity to shove through some more legislation that at any other time would be unpalatable but can be got through on a tide of 'we must do something!' sentiment from Joe Public.
I suggest everyone watches the 3 parter BBC program 'The Power of Nightmares' which while primarily about the West's handling of the rise of Islamic Fundementalism, it does show clearly how the governments around the world manipulate public opinion in an alarming way to get to an endpoint they desire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But what I can't understand is why they want to get this endpoint in the first place. Why does the state need so much control when it can so easily be voted out within 4 years? It just doesn't make any sense.
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. There's a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"In the United States, there's a law on the books for everything but premature ejaculation...and I hear it's coming soon."
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Interesting)
As you slide the Overton window [wikipedia.org], people become acclimated to whatever arguably wrongheaded idea you want to implement.
Just to drop an example, it is practically impossible to float a serious policy question along the lines of "should the federal government tax the income of individual citizens?".
Regardless of your opinion of whether a more states-rights approach would make sense the IRS is here to stay. "The savage civil servant's beady eyes"[1] glow with pleasure at the thought of shaping public behavior through tax policy. The change of administration, like a shift of wind at sea, has no effect on the current below the whitecaps.
However, Al Gore's little internet invention may become a feedback loop to restore some liberty, if http://porkbusters.org/ [porkbusters.org] has any impact.
[1]http://www.google.com/musics?lid=8yCLpO47IjD&a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it doesn't matter who's in power. The "Republicrats" are going to keep winning. They might have internal disagreements on some issues but on the overall, the "democratic process" as it exists right now (drop a piece of paper in a ballot box once in four years) is pretty much a sham.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Bill Hicks [wikiquote.org] might have been onto something:
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!""
It doesn't matter that the politicians are voted out every 4 years if someone else, representing the same interests, is voted in.
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have x million disafffected people in circulation, it's going to happen.
Guns have little to do with motive. Motive is what should be dealt with; if the goal is to keep this from happening again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Japan has about 40 gun crimes per year. That includes misdemeanors like possession. They have less than ten gun deaths per year. You really think nobody there has "motive" to commit random mass murder? (And what possible "motive" could there be for such an action?)
Funny how taking away guns takes away the potential for gun crime, isn't it?
Let me put it another way - which would you r
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Removal of gun crime != removal of overall crime. It just shifts it to other categories.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And as far as swords go, how much cooler would it be if we had sword toting bad guys instead of gun toting ones? If our nightly cop dramas (or mob dramas) had lots of guys pulling katanas or rapiers at each other?
But on a more practical lev
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The worst part is that the killer is still at large.
*badum-ching!*
Motive != Ability (Score:2)
Guns have little to do with motive
No matter how much motivation I might have to shhot someone, I am unlikely to do it because The last time I handled a firearm, I was wering army uniform. I am less likely to be shot becausel ess people around me have guns than I understand is the case in the USA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However with the past few years having been as bad as they were, I wouldn't be surprised if something similar to what you are suggesting comes true.
And the most bothersome part of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Perspective (Score:2)
Nope, not just you: Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you have it pretty close. It is House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and other working on a bill in the house to collect medical/mental health records of ALL people, not just gun owners.
see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn [tinyurl.com]
Yup, a nice large federal database of anyone who has ever had a mental health issue.
So now anyone with a mental health issue who needs help will be forever in a federal database. This will only DISCOURAGE people who need help from seeking treatment.
How will this make us safer??????
PLEASE please please call your congress critter and let them know you appose this...
This is about your rights, stand up for them.
Thank you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. This database will hold information from "mental health adjudications". When you choose to go see a pshrink, or check yourself into a clinic, that is not an adjudication. When the cops talk you down from a ledge and Baker Act you for 72 hours, and you are ordered by a judge into a treatment program, that is a mental health adjudication. This bill cannot discourage the seeking of voluntary mental health care.
Re:Nope, not just you: Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the guy on the ledge was up there because he didn't understand this distinction, and would rather be dead than in another database.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Only the people who have had to go to COURT over their mental health issues. That's not the same. But look on the bright side, you could probably work as a reporter - especially for Fox.
It could be worse... (Score:2)
Sooo, at least Bush hasn't done that, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the federal report basically claims the laws are too confusing and educators and other officials need to be educated as to what they are allowed to do. In fact it pretty much concludes that the existing laws are sufficient, we just have to do a better job at clarifying them. It also has additional recommendations, such as making it easier for students to seek help and reducing the stigma of mental health problems.
The state report (initialized by Democrat governor Tim Kaine) appears to be recommendin
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm being very pessimistic, but it's necessary with this goverment, they removed my rights to be anything else.
I just figured that they were going to start treating all 19-25 year olds that attend college like elementary students/prisoners. Oh they aren't removing
prevent? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't prevent this sort of thing. It really is impossible. Unless, that is, you want to start treating people who haven't committed a crime but seem a bit "different" as criminally insane. But you'd have to lock them up forever, because if you steal someones life and then let them go... well, he'd be more pissed off than ever before - if he even could do something like these shootings you should bet your arse this would trigger it off.
I suspect that the response will be what we can usually expect from pretty much any government though, "this generates bad headlines, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" generates good headlines regardless of the consequences, therefore we should do the whole think of the children thing to an even greater degree". And if they do remove a large section of privacy from people - especially if they go as far as to interfere with doctor/patient privacy - then you can expect more shootings as people who could have been stopped with help and support are forced back upon themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you can't stop all incidents like this from ever happening, but you may be able to stop some of of them, which would certainly be worthwhile. We should do what we can, right?
For example, the article points out that he was supposed to be denied a gun due to his psychiatric diagnosis but the info was never forwarded from Virginia to the federal database. Yeah, who knows, he may have gotten one some other way if he was truly determine
Re:prevent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy law problems?? (Score:5, Interesting)
(if anything, the problem with privacy laws is that they're facing extinction)
Snippets from a news report written shortly after the tragedy:
"A medical examination found that (...) [Cho's] insight and judgment are normal"
"Although Cho's writings were disturbing, mental health professionals say the student's behavior didn't reach the threshold that would have demanded more aggressive intervention."
"You can't do anything unless there's imminent risk that's somewhat foreseeable to take away someone's civil rights"
(source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/student.counseli
Seems clear to me that no sharing of medical information with law enforcement would have helped here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:prevent? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not condoning Cho's actions, but you know something that both Cho and the Columbine shooters had in common? They all were picked on by popular kids so the kids could feel better about themselves, and the schools either explicitly or implicitly condoned this behavior. I used to be picked on all the time in elementary and middle school(fortunately in my own high school those immature people who did that were crowded out by more mature people, but I realize this is the exception rather than the rule) and you know what, it really, really sucked. Not to mention I was going through a lot of other problems, much like Cho was. Most people find creative outlets for their pent up anger, but some cannot. The best thing is to make them realize that the world isn't full of arrogant assholes, but alas this is America, where the arrogant assholes reign supreme(look at the White House and most board rooms)....
Of course you can prevent it... (Score:2)
You can prevent it if you know its cause [slashdot.org]. Unfortunately it is hard to make people understand something when their jobs depend on not understanding it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the third world maybe. In the US, Canada and the UK (which are the countries I have medical experience with) only a judge can do that. And usually the patient has to agree.
well (Score:3, Insightful)
Well should everyone who acts a little bit out of the ordinary end up on some list? Should their picture be in every squad car? Sure its easy to say, hey this kid was weird and unstable and someone should have seen it, but people say that about a lot of people. Freedom is dangerous and living in a police / nanny state isnt any safer / more desirable.
diagnosis (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue of prohibiting access to firearms is moot - if he hadn't had access to a gun he probably would have used a sword, or a knife, or burned a few buildings down, etc.. The point is, he was dangerous and the only reasonable form of prevention would have been to remove him from society - but the risk of false positives probably means all the hand wringing in the world will not stop another Cho.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:diagnosis (Score:5, Interesting)
It is frightening to me that these people just slip through the cracks, with some of them caught by somebody not even in the field. It angers me because I think society has an obligation to take better care of these people, if only for the safety of society at large.
Re:diagnosis (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fire-arms moot? (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it amusing that you think the point of having access to fire-arms is moot. How many people do you think he could have killed with a sword? Let me tell you: One, and he could have injured a couple more. Consider the time and effort it takes to actually kill someone with a sword. It is damned hard.
We had a madman going into a RFSL-clinic (an organisation for the equal treatment of gays and lesbians) and attacking a woman with an axe (she got hit in the head). The woman survived. Do you honestly think
Re: (Score:2)
From the psychiatrist reports I've heard (which, admittedly, have only been from talking head doctors on the news), he was certainly delusional but he was not schizophrenic. The shooting was too well planned to be something that was done by a schizo. Which basically means he would have been even more difficult to diagnose prior to last April.
But that certainly does not mean there is nothing that could have been done. In our society, we usually have physical exams by a doctor once a year, and dental ex
Privacy and Violence Linked (Score:4, Funny)
Chris Rock makes more sense than this (Score:5, Funny)
That Old Familiar Feeling (Score:5, Insightful)
Cho's treatment wasn't tracked or enforced due to Budget constraints. Privacy laws had nothing to do with it. In fact, privacy rights are only an issue now because the state panel panel investigating the tragedy wants access to Cho's records.
In other words, privacy laws only became a sticking point after the fact. Relaxing privacy laws would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy.
Once again Bush hides behind dead bodies to conceal his effort to destroy civil liberties. I swear, this man hasn't a single shred of human decency. Not a shred!!!
addendum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The state of Mental Health in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Also if a person is eventually diagnosed trying to get the right medication and therapy without health care insurance can be a daunting task. While many of these people need immediate care, applying for public services is a very difficult and long process. Sadly I think this report will not result in a better Mental Health system but rather a system that profiles and stigmatizes those who suffer from mental illness.
Wildly misleading summary (Score:2, Interesting)
Also from the article, the state of Virginia never passed on the information that Cho had been "
Slashdot Asplode (Score:2, Offtopic)
Nice troll (Score:2)
I certainly don't percieve a large amount of interest in the "freedom" of personal information on slashdot. Here are some ideas I see expressed regularly:
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't see the difference between personal privacy and, say, a video driver, there is something wrong with you.
Medical records are private for a reason. A case in point is the poor bastard with TB, and the HELL the press
Re:Slashdot Asplode (Score:5, Insightful)
Confused, or looking for a power grab? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing if the laws are unclear or ambiguous. Clarify them so the original intent is clear.
On the other hand if you are trying to "close loopholes" remember those "loopholes" are there for a reason.
If a few dozen deaths every few years is the price for medical privacy for the millions who have mental illnesses, it's worth it.
To put things in perspective, many more people are killed each year by drunk drivers, yet there's no move to ban recovering alcoholics from driving. As any AA member will tell you, tomorrow could be the day they fall off the wagon.
Ok, the article, IMO, was crap (Score:3, Insightful)
I really feel for VaTech. I was at Penn State's main campus when some nut went nuts and shot at a bunch of people. Luckily it was done in the biggest open area at PSU (HUB lawn) and it was around 6 AM or so. We (Penn Staters) got lucky. VaTech didn't.
There are privacy laws, but I believe almost all of them if there are indications of suicidal or homicidal behavior in the subject. The article mentioned that this guy had already tried to commit suicide. To me, it seems that overburdened "officials"/"therapists"/whatever just pushed him through the system just to reduce backlog. Of course, there is not a lot of background yet, so.... I dunno.
But why does the Prez and Congress need to get into this? Why, PUBLICITY and PROTECT THE CHILDREN! (asswipes, politicians, not the children) Big national event, now it is time for the useless slugs in DC to mug for the camera. Apparently a whole bunch of different people knew about this wacko, but no one did anything about it. So if they (medical folks) had a big pow-wow, they would have a big "Oh geez, he may need help" ("but is it in the budget")? As if any single one of them couldn't figure out he probably needed a bit more help. You have to have a single point of saying toss him into an institution. Ever watch a trial? 2 shrinks, 1 on each side, opposite opinions. How is communication between groups going to help? They'll spend even MORE time arguing with each other. And probably more for ego than actual disagreements.
Anyway, to summarize, this really has nothing to do with privacy, all about how the health field is overburdened, how the field is pushing poeple through, and all about politicians wanting to puff their chests.
But, hey, just my 1/4 of a hogshead.
I wish. (Score:2)
It is impossible (or at least complete stupidity) to blame any one thing or person over another. It was a large combination of mistakes made by a very large number of people. It's not like "Oh, if only this [insert one thing here] had been done differently those kids would be alive!"
No, you fucking cunt-scabs. It was a lot of people making a lot of mistakes. You can't bla
One major problem IS the guns... (Score:3)
Guns make it possible for people without commando-training to kill a lot of others in a short time and with little effort. Because of this amplification property, guns are direcly responsible for, say, 80%-90% of the deaths in mass shootings. Maybe more. This fact is conveniently glossed over by the gun nuts. Sure, "Not guns kill people, people do". Exactly right. But guns make it far, far to easy to do it in the large.
Of course guns are not the only problem. If you marginalize a large part of your population, many will kill themselves, and some will just decide not to go alone. There is a price to pay for dropping those that have bad luck or are not too capable like trash, as US society does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy shcmivacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre [wikipedia.org]
Blaiming guns for crazy people is just as wrong as blaming privacy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Because guns are the only danger (Score:3, Insightful)
How about if Mr. Nutcase decides he's going to find some instructions online, then grab a bunch of fertilizer and make a little home-made explosives, then plant them near a gas pipe or something else in a building full of those he dislikes (or a random target, insane people don't make rational decisions after all). Woul
Re: (Score:2)
As was mentioned earlier ... incrementalism. You end up with a DC style laws that says private firearms ownership requires a license and then the government refuses to issue licenses. So who has firearms ... the Police(who are not obligated to protect you) and criminals who don't care about laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy shcmivacy (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not saying US gun laws make sense 100% but in this case I think they can not be blamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... US gun laws are not to blame for these murder sprees, they have them in other countries. US gun laws are to blame for the thousands of other yearly deaths.
But this specific handful at VT? No, you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
The way America seems to work is that if there are enough guns around, someone should be able to take down the crazies before they kill too many. Maybe each teacher should have a m4 behind their desk, loaded, round chambered, safety off.... just in case.
Please, think of the children.
Arm the teachers!
Places where you have to try hard to get guns? (Score:2)
Places where you have to try really hard to get guns if you want them? Sadly there are mentally unwell/ emotionally distressed people all over the world but they really shouldn't be able to just walk into a shop and buy lethal weapons. That would reduce a certain percentage of crimes of passion ending up in multiple deaths. It's harder to go on a rampage like that when the most lethal thing your local Wal-Mart sells are chef's knives.
I know you guys are keen to keep hold of
Re:Privacy shcmivacy (Score:5, Informative)
If you care do do a bit of research you'd find that Australian gun laws changed after the Port Arthur Massacre, and semi-automatic weapons were banned. The results? No mass shootings since 1995.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/14/australi
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short
http://www.physorg.com/news85298565.html [physorg.com]
Now while it is true there's been an increase in armed robberies in Australia in the last 11 years, it must be remembered that it has always been illegal to carry handguns here, so there has never been the deterrent of an armed citizenry; the change in laws had absolutely no effect in that regard.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
New York City: 6.9 murders per 100,000 people (2004)
London: 1.7 murders per 100,000 people (2005)
The cities are comparable in size, population and prosperity.
Re:Privacy shcmivacy (Score:4, Insightful)
If most people on the campus had had a gun ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes ! The lone hero would have shot the crazy gunman, just like in the movies !
On the other hand, if there had been dozens, or hundreds, of terrified and confused people with guns on the campus, the shooter wouldn't have had to shoot anyone himself. Just create a scare and watch everyone shooting anyone else who has drawn their gun (or whom they suspect to have drawn a gun, or might draw a gun).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, people will always try to kill each other.
However your chances of surviving a hit with a blunt object, or a stab with a knife, are FAR greater than surviving a gunshot.
In countries with tight gun control, overall violence is pretty much the same. Mortality, however, is FAR lower.
Yes criminals will have the guns. Even if you take the guns away, they'll have knives, or SOME sort of weapon. After
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does. And if you rewrite the laws and create a police state, people will STILL get killed. So please, don't use this as an excuse to "change the world".
Re:Privacy shcmivacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you please explain to me why, then, London England is having a problem with a rise in shootings? Guns are *far* more controlled there than in the US, so they should have no problem, right?
A proper and complete reply to your post can actually be stated in just two words...
Horse shit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're right. Over here, where we have sane gun laws, kids just cook up home made bombs instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a country with fairly strict gun control laws. It doesn't seem to stop criminals who want them from having them.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like a law prohibiting a person that has been involuntarily committed to a mental health program from legally purchasing a firearm?
Exploiting this tragedy as an example of why we need more gun control is just ridiculous when we already have laws on the books which, if properly enforced, would have prevented it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed the defect introduced in the patch.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the reason I'm replying is that you seem to have an omniscient view of how to fix gun violence. You posit unlikely scenarios in place of reasoned argument. I shiver to think what would happen if government tries to "protect" everything and everybody from every imagined danger. Have you heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?
I'm still marveling over the idea of an "unreloadable-by-the-owner handgun".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow, the whole 'unreloadable gun' thing... Wow. What a nightmare. It's hard to think of more dangerous things than a gun that can only be unloaded by firing it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That and, if it's only reloadable by a factory/technician/expensive-and-heavy machine... how do you unload it to render it safe, perhaps for storage? If you're going in to town because you used it
Re: (Score:2)
Try going back and maybe getting some education on guns before you do this again, it would do you and everyone else a favor. Guns cause such an emotional reaction from both sides of the aisle that it becomes VERY hard to have intelligent discussions on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2000 EUR. How many people do you think I can kill within 15 mins. with a light
machine gun like the Uzi?
Over in the US none of the legal weapons available in stores are automatic nor are easily converted back to automatic operation. How many people can I kill in half and hour with a legal weapon?
Downplaying the angle that with gun bans only criminals have guns regularily leads
your argumentation down that blind alley. Try something n
Re: (Score:2)
Not many. Automatic fire - unless you are well-trained and in control, is HIGHLY inaccurate. It's very hard to control a weapon while firing on full auto. Crazy people - unless they spent a lot of time practicing will use their ammo up quickly.
Over in the US none of the legal weapons available in stores are automatic n
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. A motive is the reason people are driven towards crime. The gun itself isn't a motive unless the criminals only motive was "let's see what it's like to kill someone with this particular weapon". I have never heard of a case where a person buys a Glock 19 just to see what it's like to kill another human with a Glock 19. I have heard of people who kill just to see another human die but most of these seem to involve slower methods of d
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be obvious? Not all mass murderers masturbate in public and sit around going "budumbudumbudum" all day long. Most of them are pretty normal people, until the day they put a bullet in your skull.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you know he planned this attack for a long time and didn't just "snap" at all? He didn't just buy a pistol
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the only one of your points that I agree with.
"you may argue that . . . criminals will always get guns anyway . . . That is all completely bullshit"
Drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana have been illegal for decades but that hasn't prevented millions of kilograms of these substances from being smuggled into the United States. If criminals can get illegal drugs, they can certainly get illegal firearms.
"I feel much safer walking down the street knowing that nobo
Re: (Score:2)
Give teachers weapons, and expect classrooms of students to be killed once in a while. Should we give weapons to the students too, to counter this?
Don't you SEE? IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID.
And I say that as a gun owner.
Imagine this (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Random student A sees this happens.
3. Random student B is around the corner and only hears it happen.
4. In the name of pubic service random student A whips out his large caliber hand gun and squeezes off a shot at the Gunman, wounding him/her
5. Random student B now comes around the corner with guns drawn and sees both Gunman and Random Student A with smoking handguns in their hands, and the Gunman suffering from a wound.
Questions:
1. Who does Random student B shoot at?
2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?
3. Students A and B are teenagers. How excitable are teenagers?
4. How does the response scale up from 1 Gunman and 2 Random Students, to 1 Gunman and 50 Random students running around with guns? Note that the majority of the students will be acting independently, but multiple students acting together has been a tactic used in a previous school shooting.
5. What does law enforcement do when confronted with this situation? (Hint: See question 2)
6. Given studies have shown that even trained soldiers can have trouble firing at living humans, why should non-military trained civilians suddenly be able to throw aside all qualms about doing so? Or should first person shooter games be required study when getting a gun license?
7. Assuming that all people now carry guns to protect against rare forms of crime (ie school shootings), how will turning all civilians into people wth no qualms about killing change society? In your reply compare/contrast shootings with other more common forms of anti social behaviour such as "road rage'.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Q1. Who does Random student B shoot at?
A1. No one. It's my opinion that when confronted with this situation RS B will either save his own skin or (at most) call 911 from his cell. You don't normally see people running to join in a bar fight and those folks have all had a couple of drinks and aren't using deadly force against each other ;-)
Q2. Whats sort of lawsuit would Random Student B face for killing Random Student A?
A2. That depends on whether a reasonable person exercising due care would have killed RS A. If RS A had his gun pointed in RS B's direction it would be reas