If only people were allowed to carry their guns wherever they felt like it, spree shootings would never happen, gun free zone detractors whine in typical adolescent fashion. It continually amazes me that the core of their argument about this and many other issues revolves around the same basic emotion: I wanna do what I wanna do when I wanna do it and if I don't get my way, bad things will happen. See?!! Told ya!! Fuck you, dad!! (stomp stomp stomp...SLAM!)
Setting aside this perpetual, childish outburst, the assertion that spree shootings are more lethal because they are in gun free zones is patently false. The idea that we can somehow get into the mind of these people and (ahem) reason that they pick these places so they can have the largest body count is one of the finest examples of projection and confirmation bias I have ever witnessed. You would think that they were presenting a conclusion to an argument without having any facts to support it. That couldn't possibly be true!
When Cookie Thornton shot up Kirkwood City Hall, he began his spree by shooting a police officer, taking his gun, and then heading inside to continue his path of destruction. The fact that there were guns in the building had no effect on Thornton's mindset. He went in anyway. Thornton, by the way, was yet another individual with a pathological hatred for government. Jared Loughner walked in to a parking lot that was not a gun free zone and had no compunction about shooting up the joint. People were allowed to carry arms around that area and that certainly didn't stop him. Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL and heavily armed and trained, when he was shot, along with his friend Chad Littlefield, at a gun range (see: not gun free) by Eddie Ray Routh.
And armed security was present at Columbine when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on their rampage, killing 12 people.
So, this notion that getting rid of gun free zones will somehow be a panacea is ludicrous. The above are just a few examples. Whether guns are present or not present has no bearing on whether or not people go on shooting sprees. It's simply another in a nauseating series of proclamations by children who are trying to get their own way.
17 comments:
Which is larger? 14.something? or 2.something?
And remember, they are averages, not cherry picked like you just did. (Remember, critical thinking requires avoiding cherry picking, which is a Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.)
Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting?
Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics
BTW, no one argues that having people armed is a perfect solution. If the shooter takes out the only armed person first, or the good guy is unable to take out the shooter for some reason (like they're not in the same area as the shooter, they have a malfunction, etc.), then they are not successful in stopping the shooting. So no, no one says it's a "panacea". It's just more effective than anything else that's been tried.
Of course, you're just arguing against the Voices In Your Head, again. When, oh when, will you start addressing actual arguments using actual logic (not fallacies) and complete (not cherry picked) data?
When Cookie Thornton shot up Kirkwood City Hall, he began his spree by shooting a police officer, taking his gun, and then heading inside to continue his path of destruction.
You know, I could have sworn that I specifically pointed out that having a single uniformed guard is less effective than multiple concealed carriers, precisely because the shooter could target the uniform while they still have the element of surprise. Do you remember that, Mark?
It's just more effective than anything else that's been tried.
No, it's not. Whether an area is gun free or not has not bearing on spree shootings. Aren't you guys the ones who always want to stop talking about the guns themselves? The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
Whether an area is gun free or not has not bearing on spree shootings.
Only if you ignore actual events, which you have.
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people.
IMHO, the correct approach is a two pronged approach.
The first prong is simply loving your neighbor. Don't be self centered and self focused. Instead, pay attention to other people. Do what you can to meet their needs, even if that winds up meaning getting them professional help. (Yes, that is very, very hard.)
The simple reality of life is that even when done well, the first prong cannot catch, correct, or otherwise stop every single broken person. Some people snap with no prior indications or warnings. We also have to be very cautious about threatening freedom by being too eager to institutionalize someone who is "odd", whether or not they are a threat. Even if everything is done "right" to take care of every person possible, there will still be shooters.
That's why the second prong is necessary: being able to stop an active shooter using whatever level of force is necessary; which usually means shooting—and likely killing—them. For defense to be most effective, it must be on the scene before the shooting starts and unexpected so that the shooter cannot neutralize it effectively.
Either one by itself is better than nothing at all, but both together is most effective of all.
Whether an area is gun free or not has not bearing on spree shootings
First define 'spree shooting'.
The to all of this is the mental health aspect. Spree shooters are obviously very seriously ill. The warning signs with all of these people are there for months and no one does anything. It's my hope that Newtowm will spur people into action more aggressively. People that are this ill should not be allowed to have guns. It's just that simple.
Spree shooters are obviously very seriously ill. and
It's just that simple.
Ok simpleton, if you say so. Identification of that is extremely difficult. Is every misfit going to lose his rights on supposition? Anyone that suffers bullying? Come on M, tell us how easy it is to identify this!
Unless you have something like the Minority Report for pre-crime, you can't determine without making guesses with a net that is much bigger than actual mental illness and still has holes that are exploitable. How about just ban mental illness, that is probably as effective as your moronic solution.
NMN gave you probably the best options yet you still just dance around proposing unrealistic drivel in hopes you don't have to agree. Grow up!
M - that is exactly one murder at a gun range against how many in "gun free zones"?
Spree shooters are obviously very seriously ill.
Really? There has never been one that was just an evil fuck?
Come on M, tell us how easy it is to identify this!
Let's see...male, under the age of 30, history of mental illness, taking prescription meds, divorced parents...I'd say that's a good place to start as far as priorities go. Clearly, we have a profile here so now we can take steps to make sure they don't go on a shooting spree. The first step would be to get them help. If they refuse, they don't get to own a gun.
It doesn't occur to you that you are further stigmatizing mental illness; in fact you are equating it with evil. Are just unable to distinguish between the two?
Here's another thought. We know the characteristics of the average, run-of-the-mill murderer better than we know the profile of the spree shooter.
So M, are you ready to demand that urban, black males under 30 all be denied the right to own guns?
That's true, juris. So what exactly is going on in the black community that leads to so much violence?
And what the heck, if we're going to infringe their 2nd Amdt rights, why stop there?
But why is it always the black community with a series of large impediments? Unemployment..broken homes...drugs...violence...why?
What does that have to do with how you identify (and what you do with) the seriously mental ill?
Post a Comment