Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If everyone is permitted to carry, most still won't bother, but the number of mass shootings will go way down since the criminal will know that a few people in the crowd he wants to attack are likely to have a gun. And he won't know who they are, and knows he can't stop them from attacking him. And so the number of mass shootings will decrease, as will the number of dead people, all without a shot being fired.
This can easily be refuted, because, citing typical gang shootings for example, the shooter knows his victim has a decent chance of carrying a gun, but goes and shoots them anyway.
You're also giving these shooters too much credit. The majority of them are suicidal and don't actually care if somebody shoots them. Heck, many of them are basically expecting to be shot. If they think somebody might have some guns on them, they might just arm themselves a little more heavily, or alter their strategy some. The Las Vegas shooter, for example, had little risk of being shot back by anyone in the crowd he was shooting in, because he was so far away, and people were panicking so much, that there was basically no chance of somebody even noticing exactly where he was shooting from, let alone being able to shoot back at him from that distance. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if there were people on the streets in the surrounding streets who were armed, but they didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of shooting back at him.
The whole gun advocate stance of "if everybody is armed nobody will shoot anybody" is nothing more than this theoretical ideal that simply is not realistic. If somebody wants to shoot a bunch of people, they will find a way to do it.
Take one of the school shootings, for example. Assume a typical high school shooting where some pissed off dude wants to mow down a bunch of his classmates because they've been bullying him. Let's also assume this is in a state where they allow c&c in schools. So, it's possible some of the teachers and administrators might be armed. Unlikely any of the students would be doing the same depending on the specifics of the law ... but let's say, just for the heck of it, even *they* are allowed to carry, perhaps with certain restrictions.
First of all, our potential shooter, knowing this, is likely to figure out first who might be likely to be carrying a gun. Probably some of the teachers or administrators. So all he has to do is pick a classroom he wants to shoot up, and shoot the teacher first. He probably even has an idea which teachers are more or less likely to be carrying. But in any case the strategy would be to shoot the teacher first, regardless. Next, the goal would be to shoot as many of the students as possible, and possibly, focus on the ones he thinks might be mostly likely to be carrying a gun (likely none of them, but you never know). This can happen all so fast he can shoot a large number of people before anybody has any time to react. If there are any students who happen to be carrying, they will likely be ducking beneath a desk scared out of their wits before they can gather up enough guts to pull out their gun and start shooting back ... if they haven't been shot already. At some point, when the shooter thinks he's gotten everybody he can get, he needs to be ready for the possible cops, administrators or whatever, possibly storming through the door to try to get him. So what he can do here is simply have his gun ready and pointed at the door (or maybe some windows) to blow down anybody who tries to open that door.
Remember that in the Florida shooting, there were cops - ARMED - who were still so afraid to go in and hunt the guy down that they stood outside the school just standing there, waiting. If armed and trained cops are so afraid of a shooter that they're just standing outside waiting for things to calm down, how can we realistically expect your average Joe who happens to have a gun to do any better?
I think the gun nuts here have been watching too many Westerns and think things work out that way. Sorry, people don't react like they do in the movies.
Which is why I called them rare, not nonexistent. Nice try at "refuting" a statement no one made.
You argument for why mass shootings are rare at gun ranges and police stations lacks logic. Spree shootings at police stations and gun ranges are rare not because the people there have guns to shoot back. Its because police stations and gun ranges aren't common areas where people gather in large numbers. Spree shooters regardless of where they choose to target expect at some point for police to show up and kill them. Half the time, they off themselves before they can even be caught. So they aren't afraid of people shooting at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Which is why I didn't suggest that either. You're 0-for-2 in refuting anything, but 2-for-2 in "misunderstanding" what was said.
Still nobody has refuted, or even tried to refute the main point:
If everyone is permitted to carry, most still won't bother, but the number of mass shootings will go way down since the criminal will know that a few people in the crowd he wants to attack are likely to have a gun. And he won't know who they are, and knows he can't stop them from attacking him. And so the number of mass shootings will decrease, as will the number of dead people, all without a shot being fired.
It's a mystery why the gun-rights-haters keep refusing to try this method of violence prevention (also called "obeying the 2nd amendment"), especially since it can be expected to produce much better results than the "gun controlling" methods they keep trying over and over.
Perhaps they don't really want a solution at all, despite their protestations?
Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that spree shooters are afraid of dying. As I mentioned already, they aren't. Also, how would your "solution" have stopped the Vegas shooting from happening? Even if the people in the crowd had guns, there was nothing they could do about it.
Here's a succinct way of putting it: If potential shooters are afraid of other people who are armed, why do shootouts exist at all? Under the Roboteer line of reasoning, the Gunfight at the OK Corral could not have happened because both sides knew the other side had guns, and thus, should have been too afraid of dying themselves to engage in the gunfight. And yet, the gunfight occurred anyway.
People who want to shoot somebody else, are not afraid if that other person is armed.
In my opinion it is not so much the semi-automatic style weapons, though I would love to see them stamped out. It's the high cartridge clips that make these weapons so deadly. This comes to me from a police friend who, needless to say, is an expert on guns and weapons. It's imperative to address the high cartridge clips.
Here in the great Pacific Northwest, we stand poised to enact some pretty strict gun safety, including the regulation of assault weapons. A local judge threw it out, but the state supreme court put it back on the ballot. Based on recent voting patterns in the state, it is probable to pass.
No, when a government is overthrown its usually via a military backed coup or an outside power. Not by armed rebellion via civilians. Violent rebellions have a long history of not working, the only exceptions is when an outside power steps in to help. Which is what happened with us. Had the French not got involved the American colonialist would have easily lost and our forefathers would have all been hung. The problem is there is no guarantee that an outside power would get involved in any future American revolutions. Merely having a few AR-15's in the hands of civilians will not stop a tyrannical government.
Good. So guns is not the only factor determining the outcome. Glad we are on the same page. Remind me again what the American Revolution is? An armed civilian rebellion or military coup?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Kids, pregnant women, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and wounded.
Name one gangster who would terrorize kids, pregnant women, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and wounded who are armed with guns.
The whole point of guns is they are equalizers, particularly for the weak.
You shoot someone with a handgun, 25% of the time they die.
You shoot someone with a automatic rifle 60% of the time they die.
That's what lethality means. A measure of how lethal an object is. A man shot in the chest from 100 yards out with .22 is far less likely to die then if he was hit with a .50 Cal rifle round. Hence a .22 in that situation is less lethal then a .50 Cal.
However anvils dropped from 10' onto someone's cranium are even more lethal than automatic rifles. Dropping a 22LR or even a 50BMG onto someone's head from 10' is far less lethal.
Issue isn't "how lethal is X under ideal conditions" but what is the sum total of deaths caused by X. If a rifle could be 200% lethal every round (yes kills two people always per trigger pull) but no one was ever killed by one, who cares?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
