- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You would agree than that these instances are then not pillars upon which to base an argument for more gun control.
Right?
Sure. Anyone who worries about being a victim of a mass shooting (unless they're involved in something illegal like drugs) is being completely irrational.
I want to add that I think the idea that schools are more likely to have a mass shooting because the people there are unarmed is foolish. I don't think that is a significant factor in some one choosing a target for a mass shooting.
Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.
Really.I want to add that I think the idea that schools are more likely to have a mass shooting because the people there are unarmed is foolish. I don't think that is a significant factor in some one choosing a target for a mass shooting.
Why then do they not happen at places where there are generally a large number of guns and people that know how to use them, and instead tend to happen at places where there are not?Mass shootings are more likely at any large gathering of people. Simple math; mass shootings happen because someone who is already off their rocker decides to take as many down with him as he can and finds a crowd of people.
So, the likelihood that you will be engaged by defensive gun fire is not a significant factor? Okay, let’s try this…
Two schools, identical in every conceivable way EXCEPT one has certain teachers licensed to carry weapons whereas the other does not. Which one are you going to attack?
Why then do they not happen at places where there are generally a large number of guns and people that know how to use them, and instead tend to happen at places where there are not?
The one where the people I want to kill are at.
They're in both schools in equal proportion. Answer the question, sir.
The one closest to home then.
Not the issue.There aren't a large number of mass shootings to start with.
Excepting the NG base and the police station, all of them have equal access -- and, in all reality, many NG bases are pretty accessable as well.Secondly, it isn't about the guns with several of your choices; its about the access to those places.
BUT they dont seem to happen where there are large number of people with guns. IF the function is the craziness of the shooter, then it seems the places that they occour woudl be more diverse, to the point where at least SOME of them woudl happen at the places I listed.Shooting sprees aren't about the second amendment on either side of the argument. They are about mentally ill people going off their rocker and taking as many people down as they can.
Not the issue.
Excepting the NG base and the police station, all of them have equal access -- and, in all reality, many NG bases are pretty accessable as well.
BUT they dont seem to happen where there are large number of people with guns.
IF the function is the craziness of the shooter, then it seems the places that they occour woudl be more diverse, to the point where at least SOME of them woudl happen at the places I listed.
So, the likelihood that you will be engaged by defensive gun fire is not a significant factor? Okay, let’s try this…
Two schools, identical in every conceivable way EXCEPT one has certain teachers licensed to carry weapons whereas the other does not. Which one are you going to attack?
Except that they intend to complete their 'mission' before doing so, and so then may very well be dissuaded bu the real possibility of defensive fire.I doubt that most people who go on shooting rampages have any intention of surviving the assault, so the possibility of defensive gun fire is not going to dissuade them.
These are not related concepts.Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone ever going on a mass rampage at a school that wasn't their own. The shooters are almost invariably students or former students of the school. I'm not aware of a shooter ever targeting a school specifically because there would be less guns there than at some other school.
I doubt that most people who go on shooting rampages have any intention of surviving the assault, so the possibility of defensive gun fire is not going to dissuade them. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone ever going on a mass rampage at a school that wasn't their own. The shooters are almost invariably students or former students of the school. I'm not aware of a shooter ever targeting a school specifically because there would be less guns there than at some other school.
I don't really care if certain faculty are allowed to carry weapons, as long as they're being responsible. But let's not pretend it's going to dissuade a mass shooter, in that highly unlikely situation.
I disagree with your assessment of the research. The CATO institute, and even the researcher himself, admitted that they thought by studying areas that had legalized conceal carry, they would see higher crime rates. However, they were in fact surprised to find that the states with CCW actually saw a reduction in crime. There was never data to fit the hypothesis.
I'll take your evasiveness as a confirmation of my point.
No, it's not. I do not think that guns are something that mass killers spend much time thinking about when planning their crimes. The only case where it might, possibly be considered would be when all other things are equal(they never are), and when the nutcase has access to the information(which is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.
Only if your argument is that 'small sample size' has averaged these places out. This stands only if it is somehow inherenly more likely to happen in one place than another; you argue that the relevant function is the person and not the place, so that cannot be.Frequency of occurence most certainly is an issue when determining chances and likelihoods. Point stands: mass shootings are not a frequent occurrence to start with.
The police station, yes.Totally untrue. There is no unfettered access to police stations, National Guard Stations, etc. You get access to the front desk. That's it.
The it seems your position that it is the shooter and not the place isnt well-supported, as crazies have access to all of these places.They also don't seem to happen in...
The it seems your position that it is the shooter and not the place isnt well-supported, as crazies have access to all of these places.
Guns aren't something they think about? So, they'd be just as likely to commit a killing spree on DARE day (when several police officers are present) as opposed to just another ol' school day?
Support for a mass shooting ?Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?