20k foot view of school shooting

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. There is no "gun free area" in areas with adequate police protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't honestly think this is true? There are millions of areas where it will take the police several minutes to respond while you are pretty much free to go on a rampage as much as you want until they get there (I don't think this is a good thing -- but unless you want to pay 100% taxes there is no way around it other than letting law-abiding citizens carry their own guns for protection).

True, we have decent police protection that prevents hundreds or thousands of people from being killed in a shootout, but for a motivated individual, the situation like we saw in VT would be fairly easy to repeat (and I am not trying to take away from the tragedy here -- I think it is tragic, but there is just not an easy solution to this).



[/ QUOTE ]

Just for some statistics, here in the UK the total number of deaths (recorded obv) from firearms injuries in the 10 years 1994-2003 was 2,270 the fairly draconian gun control rules brought in after Dunblane in 1997 seem to be having the effect of saving 100-150 lives a year, guns have never been as popular here as in the US.

This statistics have been taken from an anti-gun source, but appear to have been read out in the UK parliament at some point so they should be accurate.

I understand there were ~29,500 deaths (EDIT 17,000 suicides) from firearms injuries in the USA in 2001 alone, from a population 5 times bigger than ours.

Basically you are talking about 250-300 thousand people getting killed every 10 years as a price for the right to bear arms, I don't think it's worth it, maybe you do. If I missed anything or oversimplified then my apologies.

Regards Mack

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Dropped in on politics because of recent events, and have a few quick thoughts:

- the main argument of the pro-gun posters seems to be that if more citizens were armed, they could stop more crime from happening. The main problem with this is of course that you are essentially giving your citizens permission to shoot and kill each other, based on personal judgement. I don't know if that's a situation you want to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thinking is so authoritarian that it's frightening. Since I don't actively intervene to prevent you from having gasoline and styrofoam in your house, I am giving you permission to make napalm and use it to burn your neighbor's house down.

Wow.

Of course, the real fallacy here is assuming that some bureaucrat even has a legitimate right to determine if I may have item X in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
- a lot of people are saying something to the effect of: if we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. What they fail to see is that the "law obiding citizens" speak of turn into the evil villains themselves sometimes. Girl cheats on guy, guy shoots girl + lover. College student returns home unexpected, dad shoots him because he thinks it's a burglar. Guy goes from party-animal to drug user to broke junkie and starts holding up drugstores...

[/ QUOTE ]

You *might* wake up tomorrow and do something "bad" or "stupid" - so we should take you into protective custody now. Just in case. Think of the children.

[ QUOTE ]
Arming people to stop gun crime is like starting a war to create peace. It will never work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, nobody here is advocating arming people. DUCY?

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dropped in on politics because of recent events, and have a few quick thoughts:

- the main argument of the pro-gun posters seems to be that if more citizens were armed, they could stop more crime from happening. The main problem with this is of course that you are essentially giving your citizens permission to shoot and kill each other, based on personal judgement. I don't know if that's a situation you want to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thinking is so authoritarian that it's frightening. Since I don't actively intervene to prevent you from having gasoline and styrofoam in your house, I am giving you permission to make napalm and use it to burn your neighbor's house down.

Wow.

Of course, the real fallacy here is assuming that some bureaucrat even has a legitimate right to determine if I may have item X in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
- a lot of people are saying something to the effect of: if we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. What they fail to see is that the "law obiding citizens" speak of turn into the evil villains themselves sometimes. Girl cheats on guy, guy shoots girl + lover. College student returns home unexpected, dad shoots him because he thinks it's a burglar. Guy goes from party-animal to drug user to broke junkie and starts holding up drugstores...

[/ QUOTE ]

You *might* wake up tomorrow and do something "bad" or "stupid" - so we should take you into protective custody now. Just in case. Think of the children.

[ QUOTE ]
Arming people to stop gun crime is like starting a war to create peace. It will never work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, nobody here is advocating arming people. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]



Honest question.

If guns were allowed on college campuses and everyone that is currently eligible under US gun laws purchased a single handgun, which they carried on them, would criminal fatal shootings occur more or less?

I get the argument that if some people had guns here then he wouldn't have killed 32. He might have killed X and then been stopped by someone with a gun of their own.

But say it saved 15 lives, just for the sake of argument. How many more single death shootings would occur? I'd wager that a lot more domestic/alcohol related shootings would occur. So you might limit the deaths in massacres, but there would be a significant increase in single death shootings.




And if someone wants to shoot up a school and knows that people in there will be armed, it doesn't motivate him to not do it, it motivates the shooter to have a better plan and a better arsenal. If he knew some people might have handguns, then he seeks out a bullet proof vest, assualt rifles, automatic weapons, starts using smoke bombs and chaining all exits, killing the power, etc, etc.

Sure he just came in with two handguns, because thats all he needed. He planned this, buying guns over a month in advance. Obviously, it was something he was determined to do, and whats to say he wouldn't just have brought more and even more powerful guns to make up for the people with guns?


And do we really want college students to be having shootouts? Guy who brings a gun to class, hears shooting going on down the hall, runs out to do something, sees another fellow hero, mistakes him for the shooter, and now we got innocent people shooting at each other.

[BearHustler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dropped in on politics because of recent events, and have a few quick thoughts:

- the main argument of the pro-gun posters seems to be that if more citizens were armed, they could stop more crime from happening. The main problem with this is of course that you are essentially giving your citizens permission to shoot and kill each other, based on personal judgement. I don't know if that's a situation you want to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thinking is so authoritarian that it's frightening. Since I don't actively intervene to prevent you from having gasoline and styrofoam in your house, I am giving you permission to make napalm and use it to burn your neighbor's house down.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the statement: "if only some armed citizens were around when this shooter started killing people, they could have stopped him" to be true, you have to give people permission to carry guns and use them when their judgement tells them that it is correct to do so. If carrying and using them would be forbidden, owning them would be of no use to prevent crime (except in your own house). The people who are arguing that citizens should be allowed to arm themselves to stop more crime from happening, are implying that 1. they are allowed to own a gun 2. they are allowed to carry it around and 3. everyone can use it if their judgement tells them they can stop a crime with it. My comment was directed to them, as I thought I made clear.

[ QUOTE ]
You *might* wake up tomorrow and do something "bad" or "stupid"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why I would NEVER bring a gun into the house where I live with my family.


[ QUOTE ]
Luckily, nobody here is advocating arming people. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are advocating arming people. I see a lot of posters quoting statistics of crime going down vs gun owners going up or anecdotes of armed bystanders who killed a crazy shooter or simply saying stupid [censored] like: "If you want my gun, you'll have to kill me first."

A lot of these point to the same philosophy of: let's all get guns and shoot dead every mother [censored] who tries to [censored] with us, our family, our property or them stars and stripes.


Oh and:

[ QUOTE ]
I am giving you permission to make napalm and use it to burn your neighbor's house down.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
assuming that some bureaucrat even has a legitimate right to determine if I may have item X in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
we should take you into protective custody now. Just in case. Think of the children.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of this is unnecessary and just highlights your lack of respect for this discussion and looks pretty arrogant as well. (not to mention stupid, but feel free to delete this part if it's in violation of the Politics constitution)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

Honest question.

If guns were allowed on college campuses and everyone that is currently eligible under US gun laws purchased a single handgun, which they carried on them, would criminal fatal shootings occur more or less?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest answer: I don't know. And I don't care. I'm not very interested in results-oriented thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
I get the argument that if some people had guns here then he wouldn't have killed 32. He might have killed X and then been stopped by someone with a gun of their own.

But say it saved 15 lives, just for the sake of argument. How many more single death shootings would occur? I'd wager that a lot more domestic/alcohol related shootings would occur. So you might limit the deaths in massacres, but there would be a significant increase in single death shootings.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your bare supposition is enough to justify invasive, aggressive action against innocent people?




[ QUOTE ]
And if someone wants to shoot up a school and knows that people in there will be armed, it doesn't motivate him to not do it, it motivates the shooter to have a better plan and a better arsenal. If he knew some people might have handguns, then he seeks out a bullet proof vest, assualt rifles, automatic weapons, starts using smoke bombs and chaining all exits, killing the power, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely why these kind of discussions are pointless. We're just making up total suppositions and you want to make policy out of this?

OH NOES the school cafeteria lunch lady could poison all the children! Ship all lunch ladies off to the gulag!

[ QUOTE ]
Sure he just came in with two handguns, because thats all he needed. He planned this, buying guns over a month in advance. Obviously, it was something he was determined to do, and whats to say he wouldn't just have brought more and even more powerful guns to make up for the people with guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to lower the bar for criminals? Make it easier for them?

[ QUOTE ]
And do we really want college students to be having shootouts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's exactly what everyone wants.

That's sarcasm, btw.

Do we really want college students being kept defenseless, lined up against a wall, and executed? Because that's what gun control gets you.

[BearHustler]

[ QUOTE ]

Do we really want college students being kept defenseless, lined up against a wall, and executed? Because that's what gun control gets you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case. Carry on, politics forum.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
For the statement: "if only some armed citizens were around when this shooter started killing people, they could have stopped him" to be true, you have to give people permission to carry guns and use them when their judgement tells them that it is correct to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who has to give this permission?

How is it this person's responsibility and privelege to decide whether to give this permission?

Do I need permission to eat a banana? Talk to my neighbor? Invite friends over to watch the game?

Where do I apply for the appropriate permits?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You *might* wake up tomorrow and do something "bad" or "stupid"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's why I would NEVER bring a gun into the house where I live with my family.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you have heavy blunt objects? Knives? Glass windows?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily, nobody here is advocating arming people. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are advocating arming people. I see a lot of posters quoting statistics of crime going down vs gun owners going up or anecdotes of armed bystanders who killed a crazy shooter or simply saying stupid [censored] like: "If you want my gun, you'll have to kill me first."

A lot of these point to the same philosophy of: let's all get guns and shoot dead every mother [censored] who tries to [censored] with us, our family, our property or them stars and stripes.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this points to any advocacy of arming people. I can choose to get a gun for myself without requiring you to get one. I have not seen one person advocate a policy where you would be compelled to possess a firearm.


[ QUOTE ]
All of this is unnecessary and just highlights your lack of respect for this discussion and looks pretty arrogant as well. (not to mention stupid, but feel free to delete this part if it's in violation of the Politics constitution)

[/ QUOTE ]

But you telling me that I'm too stupid or evil to make decisions for myself isn't arrogant, unnecessary, or disrespectful?

[XXXNoahXXX]

pvn,

Yes, keeping a gun out of your home doesn't prevent you from picking up a dirty sock and strangling your wife. Excellent Point.

(this is sarcasm, btw.)

[andyfox]

"all the gun nuts are passing them back and forth oohing and ahing."

We who are not gun nuts worry about nuts who ooh and ah over guns.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The police cannot prevent most crimes and will never prevent most crimes, nor be there to stop violence immediately in most cases (be it a mugging, a fistfight, or the rare mass shooting).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep their orientation is reactive rather than proactive and it's easy to see why this is the case. For anyone who thinks otherwise try going to your local police station and warning them of a potential crime and see what they do.