Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[Droppersneck]

i'm highlighting the fact that you used an incident in which a good guy with a gun failed to stop a shooting as an example of how good guys with guns are a deterrent to school shootings...

alasdair

It was just revealed the pulse night club shooter Omar mateen planned to shoot up Disney world but was detered by the potential police(good guys with guns) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna860786

It’s not rocket science folks, a soft target is what all of these people look for. A school is possibly the softest with the most precious target.

 

[JessFR]

That's not a school shooting. We often group it all together for convenience, but the motives and thinking going on with someone like a terrorist committing a hate crime is very very different to a teenage boy shooting up a school.

The armed security deterrence could work with the former. Because those people are terrorists trying to send a political message. But it won't work with teenage boys who are already suicidally depressed to start with.

I think you and others keep massively over simplifying all of this. It's not rocket science but it is human nature and human nature is very complicated.

You have to understand the mind of the person you're trying to stop to be in the best position to stop them. The threat of death only works for people who hope to survive. Most school shooters hope to die. Even when they don't kill themselves outright they pretty much commit suicide by cop. But someone who's doing it as a hate crime or political message, someone doing it for more complicated motives. They're much more likely to want to survive. Those people you can determine with an armed presence at potential targets.

So some places might work, but schools aren't one of them.

 

[Droppersneck]

All of them had guns.

Hmm.



I'm not sure this is "clear" at all. Furthermore, what can you do about this situation? Should we make divorce illegal again?

Humans evolved in the most brutal of environments. Earth is literally a closed system, there is really very little material input from outside anymore. One way to thrive in such a system is to evolve aggression and a propensity to sudden violence so that you can eat other animals without feeling too bad about it. We are exceptionally violent, we came to dominate the globe because we are willing to do whatever it takes to survive. We cannot just 'switch' those tendencies off, they served us very well for most of our early history. I suspect our future is going to be determined by how well we can suppress or channel that tendency.

Young men worldwide seem to want to gain 'infamy/notoriety/fame'. Look at the vast majority of performing artists and DJ's and whatever. Many are male. There is a desire to stand out, to create something, to be credited with doing something. To be the author of ones fate in what appears to be a deterministic universe. In a vast globe of 7 billion, how can one make a mark? I'm of the view that creativity is the vital key to chanelling some of these tendencies away from destruction and into something useful.

I've often wondered if this sort of stuff happened in early human societies. Did young men suddenly storm into tribal camps with spears and start randomly killing people?

For one we can stop rewarding having children out of wedlock with our social safety net imho. I’d love to see a larger lump sum given to those with one child on benefits and little to nothing for each additional child. Also drop the religious nonsense and give everyone in these programs access to birth control. I get what you’re saying about a man wanting to make a mark, but that’s not the issue. These young males need an immediate role model to correct them and guide them in the ways their mother cannot. We have not progressed one iota, to think we have transcended physiology/the natural order/ nuclear families is only for those snooty folks drunk on Starbucks and 15th century feminist dance theory. I’m blunt, and those are my thoughts on this. I’m open to new ideas but I don’t think we progress socially, successfully, within two generations. Child development is clearly a delicate thing, it’s easy to fuck up a kid. Everyone has those buddies that had ‘friend’ parents or no Dad and knows exactly what I’m talking about.

 

[Droppersneck]

That's not a school shooting. We often group it all together for convenience, but the motives and thinking going on with someone like a terrorist committing a hate crime is very very different to a teenage boy shooting up a school.

The armed security deterrence could work with the former. Because those people are terrorists trying to send a political message. But it won't work with teenage boys who are already suicidally depressed to start with.

I think you and others keep massively over simplifying all of this. It's not rocket science but it is human nature and human nature is very complicated.

You have to understand the mind of the person you're trying to stop to be in the best position to stop them. The threat of death only works for people who hope to survive. Most school shooters hope to die. Even when they don't kill themselves outright they pretty much commit suicide by cop. But someone who's doing it as a hate crime or political message, someone doing it for more complicated motives. They're much more likely to want to survive. Those people you can determine with an armed presence at potential targets.

So some places might work, but schools aren't one of them.

So based on this premise and the notion that banning guns will solve the problem. What’s the sandwich protest sign solution when this kid out of his mind boards up the doors and sets the building on fire, when he goes to Home Depot and makes his own ieds, pulls the fire alarm and mows down a crowd with his dads Chevy half ton, puts tannerite around all of the exits and shoots the plots with his dads bolt action 30/06, gets some type of poison and poisons the food/drink in the cafeteria, finds a high point picks people off with his dads hunting rifle, brings a shotgun and blasts people in crowd close range with buck shot, etc etc etc. Evil is a societal thing, blaming inanimate objects that bring/brought stability to the entire western world isn’t the solution. I’d agree there are def some more measures we could take to ensure bad folks don’t get their hands on them, but things are so polarized idk they can happen.

 

[JessFR]

I'm not sure I follow you here. I never suggested banning guns as a solution for anything. All I'm saying is that I think it's obvious having armed cops or security in schools won't be effective at stopping school shootings.

 

[Droppersneck]

I'm not sure I follow you here. I never suggested banning guns as a solution for anything. All I'm saying is that I think it's obvious having armed cops or security in schools won't be effective at stopping school shootings.

Is there anything else you can think of that is valuable or precious to us in America that isn’t guarded by guns? The worst is all of these celebrities going to anti gun marches with two armed guards. They should have to put their money where their mouth is. There is no reason ex cop/military teachers shouldn’t be allowed to conceal carry. If you want evidence looks at the statistics with regard to the implementation of gun free zones and school shootings. That will knock your socks off! It’s seems unreasonable to those in urban settings or fearful of the firearm but ultimately it’s the only solution, evidenced in the case of the Maryland school shooting last week.

 

[JessFR]

Sorry but I'm still not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

 

[swilow]

Evil is a societal thing, blaming inanimate objects that bring/brought stability to the entire western world isn’t the solution.

At the same time, attributing those inanimate objects with having bought 'stability' to the entire western world seems contradictory. I thought guns were just tools with no real intrinsic value? If they are capable to governing entire cultures, I think you'd have to admit that they are incredibly powerful objects. Generally, such objects need to be respected so allowing any individual to own one simply because they want to seems like an awfully flippant attitude to adopt.

What sort of restrictions would you consider acceptable?

 

[Droppersneck]

It’s not necessarily the gun, but the idea that we have the right to protect our selves from the one thing that has proven itself to be the greatest enemy of man kind; government/rulers.

For me it’s seems like we should stream line our federal back ground system. It’s hard with all of the important hippa laws, but it’s the single greatest thing we can do to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. Trigger manipulation devices should be class three just like machine guns. Make sure we have the resources for cops to access the courts when a mentally ill person is acting out, so they can take weapons. There’s more I can’t think of atm

 

[alasdairm]

It was just revealed the pulse night club shooter...

way to dodge as ever...

...police(good guys with guns)

don't you mean the violent puppet of tyrannical government? the specific body against which you need your 2nd amendment gun.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

...evidenced in the case of the Maryland school shooting last week.

you keep pointing to this as if it supports your argument.

there was a good guy with a gun there and still two people were shot before the shooter shot himself. your good guy with a gun didn't prevent anything.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

At the same time, attributing those inanimate objects with having bought 'stability' to the entire western world seems contradictory. I thought guns were just tools with no real intrinsic value? If they are capable to governing entire cultures, I think you'd have to admit that they are incredibly powerful objects.

right? it makes no sense...

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

Again, disagree with them all you want, that's your right and I can respect that. But what do you think gives you the right to be cruel and callous to them, to try at every opportunity to undermine their worth? How can you explain yourself so I can understand how this behavior is acceptable and justified? I haven't seen you (or anyone on your side) address or explain this yet.

I get why people want to follow or defend them. I'm not attacking them personally they might be really nice kids and no doubt they experienced something traumatic. Critics are really going after their handlers, the ones using them to push a political agenda. We're attacking what they stand for which is manipulating the good intentions of people in order to guilt them into supporting something which has not been proven to be a solution for the problem. Unfortunately the kids are the faces of this movement so they cop the brunt of it. I also am not viciously attacking them just pointing out that they are pawns. I see through what they're doing and I feel sorry for them.

both sides have a voice so what's your point?

a common response from right-leaners when discussing free expression is, crudely paraphrased, "yes you're free to say that but i'm free to disagree/tell you you're an idiot for saying it/whatever" but they seem to get very bent out of shape when the shoe is on the other foot...

alasdair

Not from me, criticize away. And when I say they don't both have a voice I'm saying that it's obvious that the liberal media is greatly showcasing one side of the debate and not the other. They'd like to have us believe that all school children are pleading with adults to fix this problem by introducing gun control, having a survivor of the incident that is pro-2A doesn't fit with what they're trying to convey so they don't give them time on the air.

not forgotten at all. in parkland a good guy with a gun was useless. does that make it somehow even?

Woudln't call that guy a good guy with a gun. That was a useless coward with a gun, and the 3 cops that arrived later were told not to enter (according to police radio). The reasons why have not been explained yet. I don't understand why there isn't mass public outrage about this. Cops waiting outside while there's a shooter in a school? You all realize that banning all guns will not remove guns from society? Criminals will still have guns and schoolkids will still be able to get guns if they want to. So let's say we ban guns and a school shooting happens, are the cops still going to wait outside? How do we fix that problem?

i'm highlighting the fact that you used an incident in which a good guy with a gun failed to stop a shooting as an example of how good guys with guns are a deterrent to school shootings...

When you hire a cop or a security officer to guard a school you're doing so under the impression that they are going to attempt to stop a shooter. This is an issue of training and competence, not an issue of 'is a good guy with a gun a deterrent?' (they are)

All I'm saying is that I think it's obvious having armed cops or security in schools won't be effective at stopping school shootings.

Yes it will! How many people go shoot up police stations? Why don't they? Very simple concept.

 

[Tubbs]

This link has one for you, cops get shot all the time.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1USU1DRwBWnnYyEYHnv5Xe

Here's two in Indianapolis alone last year.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BRAB&usg=AOvVaw1PUDG0ec27wiN4iWqxqJ5I&ampcf=1

 

[swilow]

... of 'is a good guy with a gun a deterrent?' (they are)

Prove it.

 

[Tubbs]

Not a very good deterrent, I mean people shoot up police stations and kill armed cops.

 

[JGrimez]

Not a very good deterrent, I mean people shoot up police stations and kill armed cops.

I said how many, not give me an example.
Of course cops get shot all the time, it's their job to engage criminals who are often armed, desperate and psychotic. They have a much higher chance of being killed by a gun and civilians should be somewhat grateful that if someone is threatening your life you can call someone to save it. Most of us agree that we need police in society, so we do trust people with guns. What if that institution that we trusted was taken over or compromised? Which we've seen happen before in our history. That's the reason for the 2A.

Prove it.

If you were desperate and needed to rob somebody, are you going after the person openly carrying a gun, or another one who obviously doesn't have one?

Why do the 7 US states with the most gun freedom have close to the same homicide rate as all of Australia?
Gun laws =/= homicide rate. This is the point people need to get.
Brazil has relatively strict and commonsense gun laws they still have 60,000 murders a year most by illegal firearms.
The areas in the US with the highest gun crime are the areas with the strictest gun laws.
Why? Because criminals know that nobody is carrying a gun.
You're going to think twice about robbing that liquor store in a state where the owner is legally allowed to carry a shotgun.

 

[JGrimez]

Sell more guns, murder more children, and get reelected.
That's David Hogg's view of the other side of the debate.

I don't really care what people who defend the second amendment have to say

 

[Tubbs]

Missouri has very lax gun laws, and guess what st. Louis has the highest murder rate in the country. 205 murders last year, most gun related, in a city of 300k people. That's 60 murders per 100k people, that is the 13th highest rate in the world.

You can walk into a gun store in Missouri with nothing but your drivers license and begin the process of buying a gun.

 

[JGrimez]

Missouri has very lax gun laws, and guess what st. Louis has the highest murder rate in the country. 205 murders last year, most gun related, in a city of 300k people. That's 60 murders per 100k people, that is the 13th highest rate in the world

If you want to extrapolate that to 24 million people, then -

why do the 7 US states with the most gun freedom have close to the same homicide rate as all of Australia?

So your question should be: why does St Louis have a murder problem?