27 dead in elementary school shooting

[+plus+]

IF YOU BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. and i lean left on most things

[Fist 666]

pardon?

 

what about the current levels of gun control? am i an idiot for supporting those? or is supporting more the line to cross into idiot land? is what we have now just right? or should we drop it all together? should civilians be allowed to own m2s and mk19s or even more fun weapons?

[+plus+]

okay my statement was fueled by beer and rage let me rephrase, Citizens at no point in time should be (unless they are known to be fucking crazy or previous violates of gun laws) barred the right to own and purchase semi automatic firearms for self defense and protection.

In 1997 in Colorado, a superintendent used his personal pistol to stop a shooter from going to another school to kill more students ( kid had already shot nine students at school 1) The man had his pistol in his car and saved many lives that day for example.

And i support the laws as they are now (i live in Texas though so...)

[100%juice]

gun control is clearly not the answer. since this person killed another person, who legally had weapons, and took the weapons they had. (the guns were registered to this psychos mom, who he lived with, and killed before the rampage)

 

the answer is positive reinforcement.

 

how about the next person who randomly kills 5 or 6 people.. and then offs themselves..

 

we take their entire family, previous spouses, loved ones, everyone they ever had continuous contact with for more than 24 months and execute them immediately.

 

that might have some impact. because someone who is planning on dying after a rampage is not going to be threatened by consequences that are not incredibly dire and sweeping.

 

that might impress upon the next person who thinks they wont have any consequences.. while simultaneously keeping this psycho person from having any chance of their family making more psychos through procreation

[tango 24]

I'm done with AOD, I could only laugh at the assumptions made on his behalf about me and his piss poor attempts at arguing via huge extrapolations.

 

I actually started off by saying gun control wouldn't work in your society because of the amount of guns in it right now, but if you started NOW maybe future generations wont have to lived with the fucked up incidences of mass shootings which lax gun control has part in creating.

[tango 24]

 

how about the next person who randomly kills 5 or 6 people.. and then offs themselves..

 

we take their entire family, previous spouses, loved ones, everyone they ever had continuous contact with for more than 24 months and execute them immediately.

 

that might have some impact. because someone who is planning on dying after a rampage is not going to be threatened by consequences that are not incredibly dire and sweeping.

 

that might impress upon the next person who thinks they wont have any consequences.. while simultaneously keeping this psycho person from having any chance of their family making more psychos through procreation

 

you're not serious...right?

[angelofdeath]

Nowhere near as simple as you make out... To say that the Waziri forces are holding the US at bay is as about as inaccurate as it gets, mate.

 

this must be the artist formerly known as christo.

 

got ya.

so what you are saying is the goat herders in a-stan with home made ak's have been completely annihilated by coalition forces.

word up.

all the stuff im hearing is dead wrong. i forgot, mission was accomplished in 2003.

 

the point is that it's hardly having weapons that is the dominant factor of mountain folk being hard to conquer. If they were easily split or the terrain was more accessible to large forces they'd be fucked regardless of their rifles - I'd even say that it's the terrain that is the dominant factor.

 

dominant, maybe, maybe not. rifle culture is a definite factor.

 

And that means that comparing armed mountain folk to well developed urban environments is completely useless. The terrain is different, the culture is not homogenous and the law of the land is the same in Chicago as it is in Houston. There is zero use in comparing the environment of the AfPak mountains to the United States or any other developed country.

 

that is why anyone 'serious' about any of this already lives in the mountains.

the rocky mountains can probably be safely called the american redoubt. the appalachians, whose length generally remain within a days drive of the countries capital, were not really under federal control until the 1960's.

 

I'm sorry mate, but to say that this was the only reason for that outcome (which is horribly overstated anyway) is completely ludicrous. I'm not going to type out an essay why.

 

i have an acquaintance who is one of the nations experts on insurgency / COIN.

he would strongly beg to differ with both your position on the subject of the IRA rebellion as well as your rosy view that all governments are indestructible military forces that can never fail.

 

If you'll notice, I've already agreed to this. The US is already way too far gone given the amount of firearms in your society now. And the US is living this reality in its schools, shopping centers, churches, movie cinemas, etc. etc.

 

if you really believe that, then why in the hell do you spend all your time arguing for gun control in the US if it is to far gone?

 

really, some school shootings amount to living in belfast throughout the 20th century of IRA violence?

 

 

Again, I've already agreed to this. The US is already fucked and I cannot offer any solution to the problem. My main problem with your position is that you think that guns are not part of the problem. As other people have said, it's not just the firearms, its people's reasons to use them. Deep economic division, racial tensions, drug culture, gang culture, etc. etc. all add to the mix, it's not just firearms.

 

i do not deny that guns are part of the EQUATION of a shooting. who could?

what i am denying is their inherent evil. its an inanimate object that can be used for good and it can be used for bad. just like nearly any other object.

 

if its an entire set of things that is 'the problem' why do you seem to concentrate only on the gun part and taking guns away from people who didnt kill anyone in a shooting?

is that odd? after a shooting, everyone wants to punish the people who didnt shoot anyone.

 

 

But the point is, the US has all these social problems, the last thing you want to add to that is guns. But, it's too late now, the horse has already bolted.

 

cool

then why dont you STFU and advocate arming all good people?

 

 

Secondly, I disagree with your unrelenting fundamental belief that gun control is a bad thing for everyone in every country. I can walk down any street in this country without feeling I need a firearm to defend myself. Simple as that mate, my country isn't awash with shooters and I'd much prefer it that way.

 

where i live, its probably highly unlikely that i'll ever need to use a firearm in self defense. its sad though, because where you are most free to have said firearm, you are less likely to need it, and where you REALLY need it, you are not allowed to possess or carry them. its completely ass backwards.

 

i personally could give two shits what other conglomerates and tax jurisdictions do, i care about what the government that claims jurisdiction over me, my family, my friends and my countrymen does. and to deny someone a means to defend themselves is nothing but evil. any way you cut it. but since you say the US is 'to far gone' i'd imagine you hold the same position.

 

who actually 'prefers' to be 'awash with shooters?' i dont want to be 'awash' with drunk drivers, drug addicts, violent drunks, stupid people, and other such people either, but sadly these people exist.

 

 

Sure, I understand that and your security environment is vastly different than mine. People here have very little NEED to defend themselves. But if you allow people to arm themselves you enter a security dilemma. My neighbour may arm himself with the means to defend himself but that firearm also has the potential to be used as an offensive weapon.

 

you can say this about literally everything.

your neighbor has gasoline and a lighter, well by golly, this is has the potential of burning down your house. your neighbor has a truck, well, by golly, he might plow into your house and run you over while you are typing.

 

because everyones situation is different is exactly why freedom works. if you dont like guns, then dont own any. call the cops when danger comes knocking.

i wish you well.

 

How can I trust that the good intentions he has today will be the same intentions he has tomorrow? How can I trust that he will be able to proficciently use that weapon against an attacker and not lose his weapon to another person that can then use it against me? I cannot just trust in hope that my neighbour's weapon will not be used against my family, I have no choice but to am myself. And of course the dilemma expands from there with the people around me.

 

all these what if's are pretty damn funny you know.

 

'what if the nation passes over 20,000 gun laws, and criminals dont abide by them and the government doesnt effectively create a gun free zone that they legislated and some kids get shot in school?'

oh wait.

 

 

99.9% of the people in my country and most that I've been to have no reason to arm themselves. Gun control can be a good thing.

 

thats cool. you mind your business, and i'll mind mine

what i possess is no business of yours.

 

i realize you do not favor self reliance, independence or feel a need to provide for you and your families own self defense. that is a personal choice. that is totally fine. im not suggesting we force you to own a gun. others think differently on the subject of defending themselves. and no one has any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do, unless they are harming another persons life, liberty or property. all im asking for is a mutual respect...i wont aggress against you, you dont aggress against me. but all im hearing from you is about how you support using aggression to take away inanimate objects from people who have done no harm to anyone.

[angelofdeath]

I'm done with AOD, I could only laugh at the assumptions made on his behalf about me and his piss poor attempts at arguing via huge extrapolations.

 

I actually started off by saying gun control wouldn't work in your society because of the amount of guns in it right now, but if you started NOW maybe future generations wont have to lived with the fucked up incidences of mass shootings which lax gun control has part in creating.

 

i often wonder what you folks will say when all your 'sensible' gun control is implemented and every single law is followed and properly enacted. and some idiot still goes out and steals someone's gun and does something heinous with it.

 

i wish yall would just be honest as to what your end game is.

eradication of all firearms in the hands of non state actors. just man up and say it.

 

the 'strict' gun control has already been implemented and tried and yall still think it will create the affects you want. isnt that the definition of insanity? trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

 

its always interesting that these convo's are usually with people who dont live in the US, dont know what US gun laws are, have never been around guns or hate them. and ironically think only governments should have guns, the biggest mass murdering organizations on the planet.

there are actually people who think they can order firearms over the internet and obtain said firearms without a background check. i mean peoples grasp of what the workings of firearms laws are is just laughable. they get their info from a mixture of hollywood movies, cop/crime shows and hysterical bed wetting news outlets, that frankly dont know there asses from holes in the ground.

 

how come when people talk about school shootings, they never mention kent state?

[allfreetime]

this must be the artist formerly known as christo.

 

What does Christo have to do with this?

 

[injury]

things are not often how they seem.

 

the one-a-month law, as i understand it, is to help combat fencing and straw buyers. im not gonna argue hypothetical scenarios because thats a losing game for both of us, but i will say this: limiting the number of guns one can buy in a month will slow down people who buy guns off straw buyers, wipe the numbers, and resell out of their trunk. do people still get guns other ways (legally or illegally)? sure they do and they will until someone bans guns absolutely. that won't happen.

 

one-a-month laws will slow down people who move guns in this one method only. they will have to take the risk of finding more straw buyers (who might turn them in) or they will sell less guns each month. That's ok with me, and if someone is limited by only being able to purchase one weapon a month, i simply don't consider that a problem. sorry, we disagree here.

 

as to extended mags ... yes you can fill and fire a couple 10's as easily as you can for a 40 or 50 round mag. without going too deep into hypotheticals i would argue that having an extended mag is unnecessary, as you argue that people can fire smaller ones just fine and that extended mags are often more trouble than they're worth.

 

do you agree or disagree that once you start shooting you fire until you're out of ammo? i think that's almost a given, and that its probably something psychological. well, with an extended mag .... you see what im saying.

[+plus+]

[+plus+]

nvm but im assuming thats how it went down^

[Realism]

You know guys, if you support gun control either in its current incarnation or to any more strict degree, you are actively advocating that small children should be sodomized for 12 hours a day.

 

AOD APPROVED LINE OF REASONING

[Walid Jumblat]

got ya.

so what you are saying is the goat herders in a-stan with home made ak's have been completely annihilated by coalition forces.

word up.

all the stuff im hearing is dead wrong. i forgot, mission was accomplished in 2003.

 

Yeah, just forget all the stuff I said about them having sanctuary in another country, financial, logistic and intelligence support from another state. Just pretend that all they are are goat hearders with homemade AKs.

 

And with that, the discussion has clearly devolved to the level pointlessness. So I'm out.

 

 

RIP kids and teachers.

[fictionator]

My thing on this whole fucking tragedy is the long term on parents and the whole town, going back to school and getting back to a point in life where things are fine again. How does a collective sort of consciousness regain some emotional traction ? what does a community do in this situation to get back to normal ?

[Fist 666]

i often wonder what you folks will say when all your 'sensible' gun control is implemented and every single law is followed and properly enacted. and some idiot still goes out and steals someone's gun and does something heinous with it.

 

how come when people talk about school shootings, they never mention kent state?

 

 

 

you can throw out hypotheticals, or you can look at reality.

 

# of mass shootings in australia since 1996: 0

 

# of mass shootings in US since 1996: 20+

 

in those more than 3/4 of the weapons were obtained legally.

i'd say their sensible gun laws are working pretty well. it seems like our 'oppressive tyrant state's laws aren't working... furthering that gun control isn't a simple solution in the states.

 

re kent state: is that a real question? that is an example of a poorly trained police/military force, more in line with the hundreds of FUCK COPS threads we have around here. are you just bored and trolling?

[allfreetime]

Look in the states it is a state right issue. The constitution 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms, right not to be forced to house soldiers during peace time etc. It doesn't say how you get your hands on a gun.

 

In my humble state I think 14 day waiting period and obvious background checks are fair.

 

AOD if you're right back from the desert and live in a state where you can get a pistol faster than gravy on grits and you like that, then congrats.

[klobersaurus]

5th & cecil b moore in philly

[CancerDancer]

lighten this place up a bit

[angelofdeath]

the one-a-month law, as i understand it, is to help combat fencing and straw buyers. im not gonna argue hypothetical scenarios because thats a losing game for both of us, but i will say this: limiting the number of guns one can buy in a month will slow down people who buy guns off straw buyers, wipe the numbers, and resell out of their trunk. do people still get guns other ways (legally or illegally)? sure they do and they will until someone bans guns absolutely. that won't happen.

 

various drugs are banned absolutely and kids can still get them at playgrounds.

again, you guys operate on this thesis that if the government writes words on a piece of paper, they do exactly what its intention is.

 

a number of states have 1 gun a month plans in affect.

 

but there is a really easy lab experiment in affect already to look at. this '1 a month' sort of silliness can be found in the second round of patriot act renewals. it pertains to sinus medicine. you are only allowed to purchase 3.6 grams of sinus medicine that contains a scary nasty ingredient that does real wonders on stuffed up noses, but can also be used to manufacture meth. 3.6 grams amounts to somewhere around 1 big box of the stuff a month. to hell with mothers who suffer sinus problems and have 4 teenage kids, they dont get to buy enough sinus medicine that actually works.

but i digress.

 

the point of all this was to limit 'easy access' to 'straw purchasers' of the stuff used to create meth that is then 'sold out of the back of car trunks.' when in reality, meth production and selling is through the fucking roof.

 

this happens with all prohibitions when there is sufficient demand for the product. the market will create a supply.

 

and if someone is limited by only being able to purchase one weapon a month, i simply don't consider that a problem. sorry, we disagree here.

 

that is simply because you feel you have the right to rule others and run their lives. i dont. i 'consider' alot of things 'problems,' but who am i to judge what other people do with their time, money and resources, so long as they do not harm another.

 

without going too deep into hypotheticals i would argue that having an extended mag is unnecessary, as you argue that people can fire smaller ones just fine and that extended mags are often more trouble than they're worth.

 

i might be wrong but these 'extended mags' were banned in the state where the shooting occurred.

hmmmm

 

im not here to talk about effectiveness as a reason for deciding what other people do with their time and money, im merely saying your magazine ban is nothing but a feel good measure that makes the bedwetting types feel like 'they have done something!' to combat evil.

 

do you agree or disagree that once you start shooting you fire until you're out of ammo? i think that's almost a given, and that its probably something psychological. well, with an extended mag .... you see what im saying.

 

I used 30 rd'ers all the time and do not dump magazines until empty.

 

your point is with a 30 rd'er, people can fire quicker. ok. sure. but with an hours worth of fiddling around this 'problem of 30 rd+ mags you solved' (assuming a mag ban would work, which it obviously hasnt in conn.) could successfully be over come by a 10 year old and just as much lead could be down range, with perhaps a few second deviation as with 30rd mags.

 

there was a 'high cap' mag ban in place in the US for 10 years. NATIONALLY. and anyone that wanted a 30rd mag could get one. plain and simple.

 

so in reality, your argument is nothing but a feel good, warm and fuzzy feeling sort of measure that accomplishes nothing and makes criminals out of non violent, non aggressive folks who want to shoot on the weekends.

[angelofdeath]

you can throw out hypotheticals, or you can look at reality.

 

# of mass shootings in australia since 1996: 0

 

# of mass shootings in US since 1996: 20+

 

in those more than 3/4 of the weapons were obtained legally.

i'd say their sensible gun laws are working pretty well. it seems like our 'oppressive tyrant state's laws aren't working... furthering that gun control isn't a simple solution in the states.

 

re kent state: is that a real question? that is an example of a poorly trained police/military force, more in line with the hundreds of FUCK COPS threads we have around here. are you just bored and trolling?

 

so what you are saying is in connecticut where gun laws are among the strictest in the nation and 'less access' is the norm to guns, that this guy didnt steal a gun and do something bad with it?

 

arent you a gun owner and carry permit holder or were talking about getting a carry permit and you actually believe this BS?

 

statistics and all that jazz are interesting.

sort of like how back when you could by machine guns through the mail without any background check, waits or oversight of any type, no school shooting happened.

 

you are sort of using george bush logic. 'well, due to our response to the turrists after 9/11 we have prevented 1000 more attacks from happening' when without a crystal ball you cannot prove these attacks would of happened without his 'response.' you see without the patriot act, killing a few hundred thousand foreigners, drone strikes, MCA06, and other civil liberties violations, we would all be dead. 'attacks on 9/11 - 1. attacks after 9/11-0'

 

i do like how people like to compare different countries with different values, different histories, and different cultures, not to mention the fact that 300 million guns already exist in the US and you cant un-invent them.

 

if you like stats and facts...there are some other interesting ones:

 

there are these silly facts that when CCW became popular in the 90's, you could just watch the crime stats drop. the gun ban cities and states, you can just watch it climb.

 

in 1997 when the aussie gun buy back happened, 40,000 people used their government checks to buy another gun. this buy back largely consisted of exchanging one old gun for new better guns. good job.

after the disarmament, as of 10 years ago, homicides were up 3.2%, assaults up 9%, and armed robberies are up 44%. in victoria homicides were up 300%. yes, 300%. you see, its a food chain thing. the unarmed are defenseless. if you look like food and there is a predator near by, you might be eaten.

 

one ironic note about british gun control...when britain had no gun control, or moderate gun control, there was virtually no reported crime to speak of using them. after their complete disarmament, 'hot' robberies are through the roof. that is robberies on occupied homes.

 

There is also this odd situation in switzerland. if guns in the hands of civilians is such a bad idea, i still cant figure out how those full auto's in peoples closests that military age males are required to have arent responsible for the destruction of the entire swiss people. i know i know, they are only allowed to have limited amounts of ammo in order to allow them to fight their way to their FOB's and such, blah blah blah. fact remains, they possess the worst most evil guns, full auto firearms and there isnt blood in the streets. whether we are talking issued select fire sig 550's, converted semi auto versions which are available for complete civilian ownership or a myriad of other weapons, there are still over 3 million weapons in a country of what, 8 miilion?

 

do you think its just possible it has to do with american wacko's themselves and not the tools used by them?

 

i think if yall spent just HALF of your time fantasizing about gun control and devoted that to changing the breeding ground for idiots, you'd of been successful years ago. perhaps getting these dudes off psychotropic drugs is a good starting point and stopping the government from promoting this foolishness.

 

i recognize reality. no prohibition is going to work in the US. i recognize bad guys will do bad things with bad objects. i also recognize that by definition non-criminals will usually follow all your gun laws, but some how your laws dont apply to the bad guys. so you create a situation where you have disarmed and declawed victims and armed and psychotic bad guys. recognizing this situation, i think the best choice is for the prey to defend themselves with what ever dangerous implements are required to accomplish the task.

 

 

there is one thing to note about all these convo's...

even though our aussie and brit brothers share a love of gun control for the most part, they tend to always make one glaring admission. that if they lived in the US, they'd have a gun to protect themselves and their gun control measures just wont work because the US is 'to far gone.'

 

i dont know about you, but i know one simple common sense thing. if a guy breaks into my house with a semi auto rifle, i can guarandamnfuckingtee you i'd want possess the same thing to fight back.

[tango 24]

so do you have any ideas on how to decrease gun violence and shootings or are you just here to protect your right to bear arms?

[angelofdeath]

In my humble state I think 14 day waiting period and obvious background checks are fair.

.

 

we already have background checks across the entire country. so nothing really revolutionary there.

but the only problem with a waiting period is innocent people die. waiting periods dont apply to the gang bangers, they only apply to above board players.

 

the waiting period was clearly fair to bonnie elmarsri who after her husband repeatedly threatened to kill her got a restraining order. since the state is inefficient at restraining psychopaths, she went to purchase a gun to defend herself. sadly there was a 2 day waiting period and THE NEXT day, bonnie and her two sons, 7 and 13 were murdered.

 

you see some people dont prepare. they dont recognize that a threat could come at any time or any place, and they simply react to immediate threats. so when you implement a 14 day wait for someone in fear of their life, you reject their right to self defense. and by making the purchase of firearms outside of the 14 day wait, you make them not only vulnerable and possibly dead, you also add felony charges to the list for unlawful transfer of firearms to the list.

 

we dont have waiting periods on fire extinguishers or other life saving devices. both save lives and privately held arms save more lives than fire extinguishers.

[angelofdeath]

so do you have any ideas on how to decrease gun violence and shootings or are you just here to protect your right to bear arms?

 

i have plenty, but not being a policy maker or wanting to run anyone elses life, the answer does not come from politics.

 

it comes from changing a culture. you see, the swiss are up to their arm pits in military firearms and they dont have shootings.

 

probably what needs to happen is all the hoplophobes need to stop creating disarmed slaughter zones. people need to be given the absolute right to defend themselves. perhaps armed guards or armed teachers might right reduce school shootings, sort of like the israeli model, that seemed to of worked out pretty damn good. there usually isnt shooting sprees in front of uniformed police officers, perhaps if teachers are trained how to defend their class rooms, you would see an end to violence and see a deterrent factor develop.

 

maybe the government needs to stop doping up psycho's. maybe american culture needs to learn about guns. maybe they should stop being scared about them and think what they see on 'law and order' is the truth. maybe the media should stop doing what it does. maybe the culture shouldnt glorify violence with instant killings, stupid video games and tv shows and learn a respect for human life. maybe people should learn to raise their kids and be parents. maybe they should stop abusing kids. im not a statistician but it is my understanding that nearly all the psycho's are abused or neglected as kids. maybe not all abused people are psycho, but all the psycho shooters seem to be abused.

 

i think if all the efforts for feel good, non working gun control were focused in the proper areas, you would actually see results. gun control has been going on, using the same arguments put forth today for over a century. its always one more law, one more regulation and everything will be good. we have over 20K and no firearms owner can honestly say they havent broken some law, somewhere at some time.

 

everyone needs to drop this mentality that a couple guys in a state capital or nations capital can scribble some words on paper and create utopia. its not reality based.

[Realism]

Yes, get a grip on reality, much like the vise-like one you have.

 

You talk about people who are pro gun control just saying shit that makes them feel good and would be impossible/impractical to implement. That also sounds like a pretty good way to describe your entire last post.

 

No one here realistically thinks that strict gun control will put an absolute end to incidents like this. But it is, again, beyond foolish and entirely delusional to think that it wouldn't reduce them. Exactly how many times has one of these people been stopped by a "good guy" with his own gun?

 

And having an absolute right to defend yourself doesn't inspire people to stand up against what's wrong, it inspires them to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it because they're afraid of them and a gun is a quick problem solver.

[angelofdeath]

Y

No one here realistically thinks that strict gun control will put an absolute end to incidents like this. But it is, again, beyond foolish and entirely delusional to think that it wouldn't reduce them. Exactly how many times has one of these people been stopped by a "good guy" with his own gun?

 

There was an active shooter event at a mall in oregon a week or two ago.

a CCW permit holder drew his weapon, could not get a clear sight picture and there were innocents in his background, he did not fire. he verbally challenged the shooter and the shooter retreated. the next shot fired was the shooter taking his life. which reinforces my point, if people with a pair of balls stood up, armed or not, these shooters generally either kill themselves or stop shooting the moment they are challenged. this is just basic facts on these types of situations. running and hiding hoping you dont get hit isnt necessarily always the solution for solving these problems.

 

i posted the percentages in one of my first posts.

50% of the time, active shooters are stopped by armed 'good guys.' of these 'good guys' 2/3's are civilians. 1/3 are active duty uniformed LE.

the other 50% of the time, they either flee and submit to capture or off themselves.

 

thinking gun control will reduce shootings is like thinking drug laws will stop the drug using population of 12oz from obtaining drugs. it sounds good, but its just not reality. in fact, that is why its easier for kids to get pot than it is to get alcohol.

 

exactly how many gun free school zone laws have prevented active shooters?

since this law took effect, i honestly cant think of one mass shooting event that happened before them.

obviously if you make a law forbidding guns in schools, you'll stop the shootings, correct? oh, wait.

 

seems weird. guns banned in schools, actually within 1000 ft of them, and the number of shootings essentially goes from 0 to 14 in a matter of a decade or two.

 

a few other instances of private citizens ending the 'massacres'

 

1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was on his way to another school building , he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. Having that gun was illegal, but it saved lives.

2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home.

3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license).

4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since).

5. there is extensive youtube footage of a recent event in a C store where it was being robbed at gun point and an elderly CCW drew his sidearm and started shooting at the assailants and ran them off.

 

the other problem with documenting civilian interdiction of mass shooting sprees is if the mere sight or brandishing of a firearm stops the criminal from carrying out their actions.

what is unseen is hard to put in stats. various groups estimate these types of uses of firearms to stop would be shooters from 200,000 per year to over a million times per year.

 

however the first rule of studying economics is to attempt to see what is unseen.

if this 'unseen' active shooter incidents resulted in mass death, you would be pointing to how 'no one stopped it, therefore firearm carriers are useless!'

what if the unseen truth is armed people stop thousands of crimes from happening in the first place?

i know of dozens of anecdotes of acquaintances, whose attackers/criminals stopped what they were doing at the mere sight of their firearms.

 

if anything, you should be arguing that more people are armed to intervene and stop active shooters, not creating breeding grounds for mischief, mass killings and mayhem.

 

why dont we adapt your mindset to suicide bombers.

i mean, all we have to do is ban explosives (already done). end of story. yet how do you combat someone willing to sacrifice themselves for a supposed greater purpose?

point being, bad things sometimes happen to good people. regulating pieces of metal and plastic magazines solve nothing. they just make you feel cozy inside and make the world seem less scary to you, because you are scared of guns, probably grew up in the inner city somewhere and have no grounding in the reality of life outside of that context.

 

And having an absolute right to defend yourself doesn't inspire people to stand up against what's wrong, it inspires them to shoot someone who doesn't deserve it because they're afraid of them and a gun is a quick problem solver.

 

this is a quick demonstration that you are not familiar with guns or the self defensive gun culture in general. when people carry guns for their self defense, their modis operandi is de-escalation and avoidance. why is this? well, its because people who carry to defend themselves are by default non psycho. psycho's dont carry guns to defend themselves, they tend to carry them to shoot innocent people.

 

if your hysterical notions are really true, that guns necessarily cause deaths and violence and MAKE people carry these things out, all the places where guns exist in high numbers, (say montana and its 29 average per household) where guns are able to be carried with the least infringement and where the legal means to obtain them are less restrictive, you see the lowest amount of gun crime. all places where all the measures you support are in place you see the most deaths, the most violence and the most crime.

 

besides, there is a huge check on the 'law abiding' gun owner. that is, every bullet that comes out of that gun has a lawyer attached to it. if you fuck up, its your ass. and if protection of your life is the reason for owning a gun, but default you do not want to lose your rights and end up in a jail cell for the rest of your life for doing something stupid.

 

are you more likely to engage in criminal behavior against person and property if you fear being shot every second for your actions or if you know that you will suffer no repercussions from your actions?

 

an unofficial poll was conducted a few years back. they compiled interrogation testimony from criminals who engaged in crimes against person and property. the number one fear they had was not getting arrested, was not police...it was from armed victims.

 

 

the mindset some of yall have is just ridiculous.

[Realism]

1. Marijuana prohibition and gun prohibition is a clear cut case of apples and oranges, yet it seems to be a favorite argument of many gun fanatics. The demand for marijuana and illicit drugs in general is much higher than the demand for guns ever will be, even in this country. If guns were to be banned outright (which I actually don't agree with, but you only seem to be able to understand things in black and white, so let's say I am) with extremely strict penalties attached, you would only have a small segment of the criminal population looking to get their hands on them.

 

Now here you're going to say: exactly! Only criminals will be looking for guns, and they will get their hands on them and terrorize everyone that can't defend themselves! But the police will still have guns, which I know horrifies you, but suspend your tinfoil hat bullshit for a second. Plus, with the aforementioned stiff penalties attached, there would be a deterrent...look at countries with harsh regulations and penalties attached to being caught with a gun. Does gun crime still exist? Certainly. Is it even remotely on a par with the US? No.

 

2. "Why don't we adapt your mindset to suicide bombers."

 

There's that familiar hyperbole! But look, explosives are banned, and how often do we have suicide bombings in the United States? I don't even understand how "people willing to sacrifice themselves for a supposed greater purpose" has anything to do with the gun control debate, but do you.

 

3. I am not a gun owner, but I am familiar with the tenets of gun ownership and use. The absolute right to defend yourself/stand your ground, however, allows people who own guns without the proper mentality to use them indiscriminately. That is what I have a problem with. You are only talking about responsible gun owners, but what about the irresponsible ones? Of which there are plenty, thanks to how easy it is to obtain guns.

 

This is actually less a criticism of gun ownership than it is of those laws. Less open self-defense laws still allow a gun owner to use their gun to defend themselves and others against a reasonable threat. Absolute self defense laws make paranoid people feel the safest, just in case they need to shoot someone in the head a few times for yelling at them. I understand that you think because I hold these views I am basically advocating for the return of National Socialism or some other ridiculously contrived conclusion, but whatever.

 

4. "The mindset some of ya'll have is just ridiculous."...said the pot the kettle.

 

But I know you're going to think you won no matter what anyone says to you. The DAO of Crossfire...

[injury]

[angelofdeath]

3. I am not a gun owner, but I am familiar with the tenets of gun ownership and use. The absolute right to defend yourself/stand your ground, however, allows people who own guns without the proper mentality to use them indiscriminately. That is what I have a problem with. You are only talking about responsible gun owners, but what about the irresponsible ones? Of which there are plenty, thanks to how easy it is to obtain guns.

 

exactly 'how easy is it?'

you just said you are not a gun owner, which also lends us to believe since you are not a gun owner you are unfamiliar with the procedures required to purchase it.

 

im going to go out on a limb and suggest that nearly everyone on this board who is calling for 'more gun control' lives in a state where said 'gun control' measures are either in place or have already been implemented to no avail.

 

yeah, what about irresponsible ones? what about irresponsible drivers, who after licensing, training, and regulation, still kill more people than guns do per year.

how exactly do you determine this? you let the government determine this? give them carte blanche choice over who can defend themselves and how? what about the 300,000 veterans who went to see a doctor for PTSD after serving a combat tour who have been disqualified from owning a gun to defend themselves, yet they can kill people for uncle sam? or the cop who left his service weapon out and his son killed himself as mentioned in this thread previously? these are the only trained people capable of bearing a gun? what about that DEA agent who went viral for claiming he was the only one qualified to handle a weapon and proceeded to shoot himself with an unloaded glock 22 in the leg in front of a class full of children? these accidents will be prevented with 'restricted access to guns?' what about those cops that killed all those innocent people in a shooter event a few months back? are you suggesting that if only cops have guns that bad things wont happen?

 

you want to give the biggest mass murdering organizations in history the legal right to determine who can and cannot defend themselves. sounds 'sensible' to me.

 

what exactly are your requirements that should be implemented for someone to obtain a gun if you arent in favor of out right bans? and what about the blood that will be on your hands when the next psycho kills people when you have successfully disarmed people not allowing them the liberty to choose tools to effectively defend themselves?

 

Absolute self defense laws make paranoid people feel the safest, just in case they need to shoot someone in the head a few times for yelling at them.

 

 

yeah, because this is the LAW.

you are so out of touch with reality and the law, its ridiculous. even the most hardcore 'castle' law doesnt condone this and anyone who shoots someone for 'yelling' at them, will be doing life in prison.

 

I understand that you think because I hold these views I am basically advocating for the return of National Socialism or some other ridiculously contrived conclusion, but whatever.

 

i've offered this to many people before.

if you feel like taking guns away from people, why dont you do it yourself?

 

 

[tango 24]

you're so amped on switzerland but man, won't you be disappointed when you find out they're socialist in a lot of ways :( also, that whole "every man is armed" thing is because they're famously neutral and those men are their citizen militia.

 

you and your guns are not a stand in for the national guard so stop acting like switzerland and you are like, totally BFFs.

 

also, your facts on Australia are completely off. check out the Australian Institute of Criminology stats before you harp on about how our laws have done nothing.