Yet another mass shooting...

[Slache]

Everyone I know who has a concealed carry permit "accidentally" doesn't see the gun free zone sign.

I don't. Isn't following the law a part of being a law abiding citizen?

[Amira]

If we got rid of all the guns, we'd still have to address the reason why certain people and groups in this country are violent, and what to do about it.  So let's not get distracted from that.

 

 

It's a good thing then that no one is suggesting taking away all the guns.  In fact, the only time that suggestion even comes up is when the gun lobby says it's going to happen.  

 

The all-or-nothing rhetoric by the gun lobby does far more to distract from really stopping gun violence than anything else.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Amira

[Katy]

Why did you make this about race?

If these people were jihadists then it's got nothing to do with race; it's about IDEOLOGY. And anybody can subscribe to that ideology, whether they are white, brown, black, blue, purple or green.

Honestly, until people wake up and realize that these extremists WANT to kill us, we'll all be at their mercy.

 

When the U.S. is called "The Big Satan" and Israel is called "The Little Satan", it's pretty clear what their end-game is. And this isn't limited to one country or another. When these espoused views are internalized by ANYONE of ANY RACE, the result is deep hatred and a twisted belief that they are doing a great and heroic deed when they murder innocent people.

 

And you say this rampage wasn't any different than any other. You're right in the sense that the taking of life is the taking of life, regardless of motive. However, there's a difference in the impetus behind a disturbed lone individual like the guy in S.C. who killed all those people in the church, versus a growing ideology espoused by regimes and "spiritual" leaders. The end result may be similar in terms of the fact that innocent people have been killed, but the power behind the movement is growing and we better open our eyes.

 

Now, of course we haven't yet been told by police what the motive was. They're being decidedly cautious about releasing details. But based on what I've read so far, I would be surprised if it wasn't Islamic terrorism.

While I agree with the sentiment and liked your post, I think the guy in SC at the church was a terrorist...  technically the line between mass murder and terrorism is if they have a political end, and I'd argue he had a political agenda.

 

 

Most shootings happen in gun free zones.

 

This bears repeating.  I think I've heard only three mass shootings in the last hundred years haven't been in gun free zones.  If you're a homeschool family you can largely avoid gun free zones that aren't protected by metal detectors and armed police.  Avoid gang controlled areas. Choose theaters and grocery stores that allow you to carry weapons and your family will likely be safe from this sort of violence.

 

ETA: Note I am not saying you need to own weapons or carry them if you do, and I am definitely not saying to fight instead of run.  Just don't go to places that ban them because when criminals choose targets, they choose gun free zones.

 

If you have well intentioned armed people shooting back, how are the police supposed to tell the difference? How are the other well intentioned armed people supposed to tell the difference?

You are taught about your state's laws regarding such things at gun safety courses.  As the guidelines can vary slightly by state, I don't want to give advice, but taking safety courses taught by current or former law enforcement personnel should be on your list for yourself and your children EVEN IF YOU DON'T OWN GUNS.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Katy

[maize]

While we're waiting for someone to do something about guns or whatever, why is no one training our citizenry in effective methods to deal with active shooters? There is one method (swarming the shooter) that has been shown to be effective in drastically limiting the number of victims. I think we would see a lot less shootings if people started implementing this--it takes immense courage, but also takes the spotlight right off the shooter and turns the potential victims into heroes. 

 

https://www.targetfocustraining.com/selfdefense-active-shootera-call-action/

[Guest]

I don't. Isn't following the law a part of being a law abiding citizen?

The people that I know view carrying as a civic duty. They are the protectors of all us sheep and one day we'll all be glad they were there, armed and ready, don't ya know. They are the people arguing that if we all were armed, there would be no gun violence.

[Word Nerd]

It's a good thing then that no one is suggesting taking away all the guns. 

 

Except the people doing exactly that in this thread.

[Spryte]

I could.

What? You could kill 14 people in a few minutes, with a knife? And, of course, they wouldn't be lining up for the privilege. Are you a master ninja?

 

What a strange assertion.

[Slache]

 

Did you read the article and study I linked to in post #31?

 

Do you believe that even with the level of training the NYC police department receives you'd be able to perform at least as well as they do in an active shooting situation (which to my way of thinking isn't an acceptably good level at all)? How would we manage to train enough people to that level to make a difference? What would the ongoing training look like? How would we afford it? Do we even have enough skilled instructors and training facilities?

 

I'm not asking that to be contentious. I really want to understand why an average citizen would logically continue to hold on to the notion that they would be able to act at all, let alone shoot accurately, in a stressful, life or death situation when the statistics say otherwise.

I didn't read it. There is a difference between when law enforcement shows up 10 minutes after the incident and a large portion of the population being armed and trained because the armed and trained people would already be there. It's better that I'm standing 4 feet from the shooter in the very beginning than a police officer standing 50 feet away 10 minutes later.

[justasque]

So I should give up my best chance at equalizing force in an assault situation because someone else is afraid of my firearm? No thanks.

 

Civilians trying to protect themselves and one another aren't the ones causing these statistics - why are so many posters on here bent on creating straw men and ignoring that the problem isn't a mom with her handgun?

 

Why can't the focus just be on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves? This is bs and I'm sick of it. Every time there is a shooting the finger gets pointed at the NRA or normal people who had jack to do with illegally obtained or discharged firearms. We aren't the enemies, and directing disgust, sadness, or even legal efforts at us doesn't solve the problem.

 

The problem is - how do you sort out ahead of time who is a terrorist or criminal, and who is just trying to protect themselves?  If a guy has a trunk full of legally-obtained weapons and ammo, like someone upthread described a friend as having, how do you know if they are just prepared to encounter random violence (at a preparation level beyond even the average on-duty law enforcement officer), or if they are prepared to kill people they see as a threat, who the rest of us would consider innocents?  How would you propose to sort one group from another?  

 

How many people buy weapons specifically to intentionally kill, and how many who kill (especially in DV situations, or through suicide, or in non-premeditated fits of anger) do so with a weapon they initially bought for self-protection?

 

Arctic Mama, do you have any thoughts as to. logistically/legally speaking, how we should go about arming the Good and restricting arms for the future-Bad?

[Greta]

Here's what I think. I think gun-shaming contributes to violence and leads to more fatalities. These shootings are so deadly because the intended victims cannot defend themselves. They were all sitting ducks and the building was a "soft target" for those looking to do harm because it was widely know that they were defenseless. I am NOT blaming the victims, so don't even go there. I am saying that our culture's growing anti-gun sentiment and BS gun-free zones made the murderers' jobs a whole lot easier. Let's not HELP people kill others by guilting or outright legislating millions of people into being defenseless.

Nope. My decision not to own a gun has nothing to do with feeling ashamed, because I don't feel ashamed either way. There was a time not long ago when there was a serial rapist who was nabbing women off sidewalks in broad daylight right here where my 16 year old daughter and I live (I don't mean my city, I mean my very neighborhood). I gave serious consideration to buying a gun. It wasn't shame that made me decide against it, it was knowledge.

 

I started doing research about gun ownership, and discovered that a gun in the house would make me and my family less safe, not more so. (By the way, there's a reason the NRA is fighting so hard to suppress the collection of information and statistics about gun violence in the US. They know damn well that their "more guns means more safety!" rhetoric is a bald-faced lie.) I started trying to think through the logistics: how/where could I store a gun to make it easily accessible in case of an emergency, and yet safe from accidents and theft? Answer: CAN'T BE DONE.

 

I started thinking about how an actual crime scenario would play out. Would I be able to (a) get to the gun, (b) keep control of the gun, i.e. not let it be taken from me by the criminal, ( c) keep steady enough in a crisis to actually be able to aim, (d) not accidentally shoot my daughter or my husband instead. And I realized that it would take YEARS of special training for me to be able to do any of that!!! You can't just go down to the shooting range a few times, hit a still target while you're completely cool and calm, and then assume that in a crisis you're going to be Jason Statham in your own action movie. It's CRAZY.

 

One of my brothers is an avid gun enthusiast. I was asking his advice during this time, taking advantage of his extensive knowledge of guns, giving this very serious consideration. What I concluded is that owning a gun for hunting or sport makes sense. But this idea of guns being used for self-defense is, for the vast majority of us, wishful thinking. There is probably a small handful of people out there with the skills to make that happen. I am not one of them. And neither are most of the people who think they are, IMO.

[Amira]

Except the people doing exactly that in this thread.

 

Really?  I think there are plenty of people who would love to not have any guns in the US (like me), but that's a far different thing from actually promoting the idea that taking away all the guns is a realistic proposition. I haven't read every single word of this thread, but I haven't seen people saying that the US government should take away all the guns. 

[Slache]

The people that I know view carrying as a civic duty. They are the protectors of all us sheep and one day we'll all be glad they were there, armed and ready, don't ya know. They are the people arguing that if we all were armed, there would be no gun violence.

I agree that it's good to have good people with guns around for protection, and I don't like gun free zones, but our laws exist for a reason. If you don't like the law do something to change it, don't break it. I imagine most gun owners are more reasonable than you think, it's just the disrespectful and crazy that speak the loudest.

[Katy]

The problem is - how do you sort out ahead of time who is a terrorist or criminal, and who is just trying to protect themselves?  If a guy has a trunk full of legally-obtained weapons and ammo, like someone upthread described a friend as having, how do you know if they are just prepared to encounter random violence (at a preparation level beyond even the average on-duty law enforcement officer), or if they are prepared to kill people they see as a threat, who the rest of us would consider innocents?  How would you propose to sort one group from another?  

 

How many people buy weapons specifically to intentionally kill, and how many who kill (especially in DV situations, or through suicide, or in non-premeditated fits of anger) do so with a weapon they initially bought for self-protection?

 

Arctic Mama, do you have any thoughts as to. logistically/legally speaking, how we should go about arming the Good and restricting arms for the future-Bad?

 

Legally speaking, if they are a citizen of the US, you cannot restrict them unless they are mentally ill or guilty of a crime. 

[8circles]

But, if someone with ill-intent starts shooting, you are defenseless.  I mean, really, what are your options?  Hide and pray?  Not a bad idea, but a better option is that there's someone nearby with good aim that shoots BACK.

 

I wish our culture wasn't becoming increasingly violent.  I hate it!  But, that's the reality at this point in time.  Arming the  (law-abiding) masses evens the playing field somewhat. 

 

No, just big fat NO.

 

I live in a city that is, statistically, VERY safe.  Yet people insist that they need firearms to defend themselves.  And then things like this happen.  

 

I will not contribute to this culture of "everyone needs a gun".  It is still statistically VERY unlikely that I would ever be in a situation with someone threatening me with a gun.

 

Arming the masses doesnt even the playing field, it makes the playing field a barbaric warzone. 

[Slache]

What? You could kill 14 people in a few minutes, with a knife? And, of course, they wouldn't be lining up for the privilege. Are you a master ninja?

 

What a strange assertion.

Killings don't have to be loud and crazy. One murder won't scatter a crowd if it's silent and unseen. My point was that if someone really wanted to kill 14 people without a gun they could.

[SKL]

While I am in favor of letting law-abiding people have and carry guns if they want to, and there have been recent cases where a law-abiding citizen used a gun to stop a violent crime, I don't know if that would have made a difference in this case.  If it's true that the perps were wearing body armor or whatever.

 

I understand California has pretty strict gun laws.  So I don't think that is the issue either.

 

I think the issue here is that a couple of people (maybe more) decided and planned in advance to massacre civilians.  I really don't think any gun law could have stopped them.  They supposedly also planted a bomb - and if they had not shot the place up and drawn the cops there, who knows how many people the bomb would have killed?  Gun laws really have nothing to do with this situation IMO.

Edited December 3, 2015 by SKL

[Word Nerd]

Really?  I think there are plenty of people who would love to not have any guns in the US (like me), but that's a far different thing from actually promoting the idea that taking away all the guns is a realistic proposition. I haven't read every single word of this thread, but I haven't seen people saying that the US government should take away all the guns. 

 

Yes, really. If you haven't read the whole thread, then perhaps you shouldn't argue about what has been said.

 

ETA:

DragonFaerie, on 02 Dec 2015 - 6:06 PM, said:

I don't think more gun laws are the answer. I think getting rid of all the damned guns is the answer. Police should have guns. The military should have guns. Nobody else should have guns.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Word Nerd

[Guest]

It feels like there is no good answer. We could make laws limiting ammo or certain types of guns but then crazy people will just buy off the black market. The whole thing is so depressing.

[8circles]

Yes, really. If you haven't read the whole thread, then perhaps you shouldn't argue about what has been said.

 

I don't think all the guns need to be taken away from all the citizens.  I wouldn't support that.  But geez, how on earth does that strike fear into people, but they're OK with moving in this barbaric direction?  We should be progressing FORWARD with our societies, not backwards.  We should be becoming MORE civilized, not less so.  Guns do absolutely *nothing* to improve our societies.  *Nothing*.

 

& Now I'll say something *really* radical.  I feel so strongly about the downward spiral of our culture, that gun culture has brought us down to such a low-level, that I'm willing to die for it.  Yup.  I'm willing to NOT defend myself with a gun in order to do my part to reject this vigilante gun culture.  It's poison.  If only more people would care enough about society that they'd be willing to, as well.  It isn't about giving up rights.  It's about choosing to not contribute to the death of humanity.

[J-rap]

ETA: Note I am not saying you need to own weapons or carry them if you do, and I am definitely not saying to fight instead of run.  Just don't go to places that ban them because when criminals choose targets, they choose gun free zones.

 

 

 

But is this really true?  I've read:

 

"...less than 15 percent of them have happened in a gun-free zone. And there's no indication from another study that any shooter intentionally went to a gun-free zone."

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/04/on-cnn-mark-kelly-debunks-myth-that-gun-free-zo/205955

 

Not trying to pick an argument with you!  :)  Just want to get the facts straight.

 

 

[Pawz4me]

I didn't read it. There is a difference between when law enforcement shows up 10 minutes after the incident and a large portion of the population being armed and trained because the armed and trained people would already be there. It's better that I'm standing 4 feet from the shooter in the very beginning than a police officer standing 50 feet away 10 minutes later.

 

Getting a jump on a shooter really isn't what the article and study are about.  At all.  They're about the (lack of) shooting accuracy even in extremely well trained officers.  And also about the physical issues officers have to deal with in such highly stressful situations, including the development of tunnel vision, loss of hearing and loss of motor control.  I'm really curious how someone who isn't trained nearly to the level of the NYPD officers thinks she'd be able to deal with those things.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Pawz4me

[Amira]

Yes, really. If you haven't read the whole thread, then perhaps you shouldn't argue about what has been said.

 

ETA:

DragonFaerie, on 02 Dec 2015 - 6:06 PM, said:

I don't think more gun laws are the answer. I think getting rid of all the damned guns is the answer. Police should have guns. The military should have guns. Nobody else should have guns.

 

I don't think I've read every word of very many threads, especially the long ones with different opinions, topics and rabbit trails in the many years I've been on these boards.  I salute those with more dedication than I have to do so, but I'll keep voicing my opinions in threads where I don't read every word and I hope that other people do the same here even if they don't read 225ish posts (so far) in this thread.

 

Thanks for finding that reference for me since I didn't see it before.  But I'm still a little skeptical that one poster's advocating for the government taking away all the guns really means that the gun lobby needs to tell people to be worried about it, or even that there is strong support for that idea on these boards as a feasible policy.  It's unfortunate that we can't see the wide gulf between no guns and all the guns and find ways to keep the most dangerous guns away from the most dangerous people.

[Slache]

It feels like there is no good answer. We could make laws limiting ammo or certain types of guns but then crazy people will just buy off the black market. The whole thing is so depressing.

I had the same thought about limiting ammo. I do think training both armed and unarmed civilians is an excellent idea. I think different levels of gun permits has potential. There are things to be done. We just need to come together rather than argue.

[Guest]

I don't think all the guns need to be taken away from all the citizens. I wouldn't support that. But geez, how on earth does that strike fear into people, but they're OK with moving in this barbaric direction? We should be progressing FORWARD with our societies, not backwards. We should be becoming MORE civilized, not less so. Guns do absolutely *nothing* to improve our societies. *Nothing*.

 

& Now I'll say something *really* radical. I feel so strongly about the downward spiral of our culture, that gun culture has brought us down to such a low-level, that I'm willing to die for it. Yup. I'm willing to NOT defend myself with a gun in order to do my part to reject this vigilante gun culture. It's poison. If only more people would care enough about society that they'd be willing to, as well. It isn't about giving up rights. It's about choosing to not contribute to the death of humanity.

Are you willing to watch your children die for it? I have no idea what the solution is but everyone putting down their weapons isn't it, IMO. Edited December 3, 2015 by Moxie

[YaelAldrich]

Killings don't have to be loud and crazy. One murder won't scatter a crowd if it's silent and unseen. My point was that if someone really wanted to kill 14 people without a gun they could.

Maybe you haven't been following Israeli news.  I have - Jews (and non-Jews too, even Palestinians) have been stabbed almost every day at bus stops, on buses, on the street.  Do you know what happens to the terrorists (children all too often)?  They get shot  by citizens and soldiers/police almost every time.  Now, you might say, that's why they have guns.  Actually, Israeli gun laws are much more strict than US gun laws.  It is harder to justify why you need a weapon and more expensive and you have to re-register every fifth year with more background checks and training.  CC is even harder.  Most of the people who have guns have served in the military with weapons training, not just some person who decided they need to be Clint Eastwood.  Most people are carrying alternative protection - rolling pins, selfie sticks, umbrellas!

 

My DH is going to Israel at the end of the month - he'll be safer there.

[Slache]

Getting a jump on a shooter really isn't what the article and study are about. At all. They're about the (lack of) shooting accuracy even in extremely well trained officers. And also about the physical issues officers have to deal with in such highly stressful situations, including the development of tunnel vision, loss of hearing and loss of motor control. I'm really curious how someone who isn't trained nearly to the level of the NYPD officers thinks she'd be able to deal with those things.

I'm not denying those issues. My point is that if 10% of the adult population were armed and trained then it's much more likely someone would be in a good position to handle the situation.

[Vera]

I was just saying that just because someone doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they can't kill people.

Do you think that the deranged man in China didn't really want to kill the kids or was he just not as good with a knife as you?

 

I don't know the answer to this but are there mass stabbings or mass clubbings or pillow smotherings or other mass attacks in countries with good gun control laws!

[Katy]

But is this really true?  I've read:

 

"...less than 15 percent of them have happened in a gun-free zone. And there's no indication from another study that any shooter intentionally went to a gun-free zone."

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/04/on-cnn-mark-kelly-debunks-myth-that-gun-free-zo/205955

 

Not trying to pick an argument with you!  :)  Just want to get the facts straight.

 

MediaMatters is extremely left and ideological.  Just as much as MSNBC is left and FOX is right.

 

Here's an article from National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do(Most people consider NR right).

 

And from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/oregon-college-gun-free-zone-column/73204208/

 

There are many examples of articles like this, these are just the first two that popped up on google.

[8circles]

Are you willing to watch your children die for it?

 

I'm not sure how to answer this because I don't think "willing" has anything to do with it.  I am NOT willing to carry a gun to protect myself or anyone else in the statistically unlikely (which it still is for the vast majority of Americans) even that we'd be threatened with a gun.  

 

If the options are 1) carry a gun & contribute to the downfall of my society & maybe be able to defend myself if threatened at gunpoint or 2) not carry a gun & get shot then I choose #2.

 

But lets not loose our minds about the (un)likelyhood of me being threatened by a gun.

 

If you haven't, please read my post about my own SAFE community and what has happened as a result of gun culture.  

 

ETA: MASSIVE typo fixed

Edited December 3, 2015 by 8circles

[Greta]

So when someone carrying an illegal firearm comes to rape and kill my children and myself am I supposed to explain to the guy that I gave my gun up to law enforcement and could he please have a seat while I phone the police?

On the other hand, I'm sure he'll be happy to just have a seat while you go unlcok your gun case, get the gun, get the ammo, load the gun...

 

Or have we gotten to a point where keeping loaded guns unlocked in homes with children seems like the "reasonable" thing to do?

[justasque]

Why can't the focus just be on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves? This is bs and I'm sick of it. Every time there is a shooting the finger gets pointed at the NRA or normal people who had jack to do with illegally obtained or discharged firearms. We aren't the enemies, and directing disgust, sadness, or even legal efforts at us doesn't solve the problem.

 

 

The problem is - how do you sort out ahead of time who is a terrorist or criminal, and who is just trying to protect themselves?  If a guy has a trunk full of legally-obtained weapons and ammo, like someone upthread described a friend as having, how do you know if they are just prepared to encounter random violence (at a preparation level beyond even the average on-duty law enforcement officer), or if they are prepared to kill people they see as a threat, who the rest of us would consider innocents?  How would you propose to sort one group from another?  

 

How many people buy weapons specifically to intentionally kill, and how many who kill (especially in DV situations, or through suicide, or in non-premeditated fits of anger) do so with a weapon they initially bought for self-protection?

 

Arctic Mama, do you have any thoughts as to. logistically/legally speaking, how we should go about arming the Good and restricting arms for the future-Bad?

 

 

Legally speaking, if they are a citizen of the US, you cannot restrict them unless they are mentally ill or guilty of a crime. 

 

True. Which is why I am interested to hear Arctic Mama's answer as to exactly how we can "focus just .. on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves?" in our attempt to prevent these kinds of incidents.  To focus just on terrorists and criminals requires some method of dividing the population into "us" (law-abiding citizens who may wish to own weapons for self-protection) and "them" (people who want to own weapons who in future are likely to deliberately kill in the context of terror or crime).  What method would Arctic Mama (and others  who agree with her) suggest we use?  Especially since when it comes to domestic violence, suicide, and accidental gun deaths, many of those who pull the trigger would have been in the first category when making their gun purchase.

[Guest]

On the other hand, I'm sure he'll be happy to just have a seat while you go unlcok your gun case, get the gun, get the ammo, load the gun...

 

Or have we gotten to a point where keeping loaded guns unlocked in homes with children seems like the "reasonable" thing to do?

I believe she has a concealed carry permit which means she is armed at all times.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This bears repeating.  I think I've heard only three mass shootings in the last hundred years haven't been in gun free zones.  If you're a homeschool family you can largely avoid gun free zones that aren't protected by metal detectors and armed police.  Avoid gang controlled areas. Choose theaters and grocery stores that allow you to carry weapons and your family will likely be safe from this sort of violence.

 

ETA: Note I am not saying you need to own weapons or carry them if you do, and I am definitely not saying to fight instead of run.  Just don't go to places that ban them because when criminals choose targets, they choose gun free zones.

 

Shenanigans.  The bolded is an outright lie.

Mass shooting: shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

 

And we just happened to have one not in a "gun free" zone...yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/

 

Even if we accept that our headline mass shootings are all occur only because of gun free zones, that still doesn't explain the elevated levels of gun violence in the United States.  In 2013 the United States had over 33,000 gun deaths.

 

Let me repeat that number. Over 33,000.

 

Per capita we have over 10 per every 100,000 population.  For comparison:

Australia - .86

Germany - 1.24

United Kingdom - .26

 

 

Oh, but you say the deaths above include suicides and the like so the comparison is unfair as those people would kill themselves anyway.

 

Fine.

 

Homicides using a gun:

United States - 3.5

Australia - .11

United Kingdom - .05

Germany - .2

 

Yeah, gun free zones are to blame.  Sure.

[Slache]

Do you think that the deranged man in China didn't really want to kill the kids or was he just not as good with a knife as you?

 

I don't know the answer to this but are there mass stabbings or mass clubbings or pillow smotherings or other mass attacks in countries with good gun control laws!

He was a deranged man on a rampage. The shooting last night was methodical. I think if the Chinese man had planned better he would have killed many people. Slashing randomly at people isn't a sign of a criminal mastermind.

[Slache]

On the other hand, I'm sure he'll be happy to just have a seat while you go unlcok your gun case, get the gun, get the ammo, load the gun...

 

Or have we gotten to a point where keeping loaded guns unlocked in homes with children seems like the "reasonable" thing to do?

I have several deterrents including a locked door and a dog. It doesn't take long to get a gun out.

[Slojo]

I never said I disagree with stricter gun laws. I said don't take my guns.

 

 

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and everyone affected by this tragedy. It really saddens me to see how much disrespect is there for human life at any stage. From babies in the mothers' wombs, kindergarteners, elementary, college kids, Holiday parties etc... whatever the situation is, it comes down to the point of someone thinking it's OK to take away somebody else's life. I know many blame guns, but does the weapon used really matter? An abortion tool, a knife, a baseball bat, a gun, a piece of glass, running someone over with a vehicle to kill them... does it really matter what was used? The fact that anyone will deliberately end a human life in purpose just saddens me. I used to be sympathetic of the shooter, since I can't understand the reasoning behind all this, I always want to think there's some sort of mental disability that makes the person act the way they do. But, can we always blame it on mental issues? Terrorism, violence, abortion, whatever the case is...sadly we can't always blame mental problems, some of it is just pure evil. And we can't always blame guns either. It's not the gun that is killing someone, it's the intention and will of the shooter. Oh, and I'm not a gun lover...couldn't care less about owning one...it just bothers me when quickly the tool used is blamed? Not sure getting rid of guns would stop this madness :(

 

I agree with the sentiment that there is much disrespect for life. But you mentioned "mother's wombs" and lumped abortion in with this anti-life stance. I actually have great respect for the "pro-lifers" who are consistent from conception to the end of life (though I find most of them are not), but I don't get what would be the assumed policy corollary disconnect for you. So banning or placing extreme limits on people's access to abortions would make sense (the vast majority of people I know who mention "babies in mother's wombs" are in favor of such laws - correct me if you're not) but you can't see "how we could blame guns either because it's not the gun killing someone..." Not sure if getting rid of guns would stop this madness, but wouldn't you concede that much tighter controls would?  

 

Except the people doing exactly that in this thread.

Except they're not.

 

What? You could kill 14 people in a few minutes, with a knife? And, of course, they wouldn't be lining up for the privilege. Are you a master ninja?

 

What a strange assertion.

 

Me, too! How is that possible at anywhere near the level of a gun?  And even if it's possible for YOU, very few people could kill 14 people in a few minutes. I've never held a gun, but I could walk up to a building tomorrow and do damage. Not so with a knife -- I'd get to one person, and be pretty immediately taken down by the rest. That's the difference between guns and knives -- I don't have to be nearly as precise to do damage -- I'd just have to let the bullets fly, and I wouldn't have to be close to anyone.  Rather a whole building of people up against a knife rather than a gun. 

 

 

Nope. My decision not to own a gun has nothing to do with feeling ashamed, because I don't feel ashamed either way. There was a time not long ago when there was a serial rapist who was nabbing women off sidewalks in broad daylight right here where my 16 year old daughter and I live (I don't mean my city, I mean my very neighborhood). I gave serious consideration to buying a gun. It wasn't shame that made me decide against it, it was knowledge.

 

I started doing research about gun ownership, and discovered that a gun in the house would make me and my family less safe, not more so. (By the way, there's a reason the NRA is fighting so hard to suppress the collection of information and statistics about gun violence in the US. They know damn well that their "more guns means more safety!" rhetoric is a bald-faced lie.) I started trying to think through the logistics: how/where could I store a gun to make it easily accessible in case of an emergency, and yet safe from accidents and theft? Answer: CAN'T BE DONE.

 

I started thinking about how an actual crime scenario would play out. Would I be able to (a) get to the gun, (b) keep control of the gun, i.e. not let it be taken from me by the criminal, ( c) keep steady enough in a crisis to actually be able to aim, (d) not accidentally shoot my daughter or my husband instead. And I realized that it would take YEARS of special training for me to be able to do any of that!!! You can't just go down to the shooting range a few times, hit a still target while you're completely cool and calm, and then assume that in a crisis you're going to be Jason Statham in your own action movie. It's CRAZY.

 

One of my brothers is an avid gun enthusiast. I was asking his advice during this time, taking advantage of his extensive knowledge of guns, giving this very serious consideration. What I concluded is that owning a gun for hunting or sport makes sense. But this idea of guns being used for self-defense is, for the vast majority of us, wishful thinking. There is probably a small handful of people out there with the skills to make that happen. I am not one of them. And neither are most of the people who think they are, IMO.

 

Exactly this. This is similar to people's overestimation of their ability to swim to safety/stay afloat in the case of a ship sinking. Most people don't have the level of skill to save their lives in that situation. Most would just drown. People more often than not overestimate their ability to react to EXTREME situations based on pretty controlled scenarios. It's not happening. Please keep your conceal carry weapon at home. 

 

The last thing I want to say on conceal/carry is that it's not even evenly applied to all groups. There is a lawsuit in Illinois because black men's permits were being held up - including several who were former military. Not that I would recommend to any person of color not in uniform that they actually conceal and carry...

[goldberry]

If you have well intentioned armed people shooting back, how are the police supposed to tell the difference? How are the other well intentioned armed people supposed to tell the difference?

 

This was a specific reason given why a concealed carrying person did not intervene in the Oregon shooting.  The reality is that in the confusion it is most definitely NOT always clear who the bad guy is.

[Murphy101]

I didn't mean to oversimplify, but I think that the actual examples of countries that have tried some form of restrictions bears some thought. But really, we can keep our flipping guns, with no changes, and keep getting the same results over and over again. Can I officially call BS on "all the thoughts and prayers" then?

No because this is entire post is not in agreement with the reality of this very thread.

 

There are people on this thread who are both for keeping guns AND having some gun law changes. I am one of them.

 

There are people on this thread who declare they do want all gun banned, which means they fuel the NRAs assertion of that attitude being a threat to gun rights. Because of course it would be.

 

Thoughts and prayers aren't BS. But there needs to be more than just thoughts and prayers.

 

And over on the other side of the debate? There needs to be more than self rightours stamping of angry feet in outrage bc that isn't changing anything either.

[Slache]

It was argued that all guns should be taken away: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/576672-yet-another-mass-shooting/page-2?do=findComment&comment=6708193

[Word Nerd]

Except they're not.

 

Sigh. I've already quoted proof that this assertion is false. 

[Joker]

So I should give up my best chance at equalizing force in an assault situation because someone else is afraid of my firearm? No thanks.

 

Civilians trying to protect themselves and one another aren't the ones causing these statistics - why are so many posters on here bent on creating straw men and ignoring that the problem isn't a mom with her handgun?

 

Why can't the focus just be on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves? This is bs and I'm sick of it. Every time there is a shooting the finger gets pointed at the NRA or normal people who had jack to do with illegally obtained or discharged firearms. We aren't the enemies, and directing disgust, sadness, or even legal efforts at us doesn't solve the problem.

The articles I've read this morning state the firearms used yesterday were obtained legally. So, I think it's fair to discuss what we might be doing wrong and try to figure out a better system. So, yes, those legal efforts may feel like they're directed at you as well since you also obtain your firearms legally. But I can't imagine not trying something different, and perhaps better, to possibly keep them out of the wrong hands.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No because this is entire post is not in agreement with the reality of this very thread.

 

There are people on this thread who are both for keeping guns AND having some gun law changes. I am one of them.

 

There are people on this thread who declare they do want all gun banned, which means they fuel the NRAs assertion of that attitude being a threat to gun rights. Because of course it would be.

 

Thoughts and prayers aren't BS. But there needs to be more than just thoughts and prayers.

 

And over on the other side of the debate? There needs to be more than self rightours stamping of angry feet in outrage bc that isn't changing anything either.

 

I always love how the "responsible" gun owners in these discussions call out everyone EXCEPT the NRA.

[Word Nerd]

The articles I've read this morning state the firearms used yesterday were obtained legally. So, I think it's fair to discuss what we might be doing wrong and try to figure out a better system. So, yes, those legal efforts may feel like they're directed at you as well since you also obtain your firearms legally. But I can't imagine not trying something different, and perhaps better, to possibly keep them out of the wrong hands.

 

Two of the four guns were obtained legally. What's odd is that the police say they were bought by someone connected to the investigation but have declined to name which person that was. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Word Nerd

[J-rap]

MediaMatters is extremely left and ideological.  Just as much as MSNBC is left and FOX is right.

 

Here's an article from National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do(Most people consider NR right).

 

And from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/oregon-college-gun-free-zone-column/73204208/

 

There are many examples of articles like this, these are just the first two that popped up on google.

 

Thanks, I'll check them out.

[ikuradesuka]

I believe she has a concealed carry permit which means she is armed at all times.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It means she COULD be armed at all times.

[Murphy101]

I'm not looking up the stats, but I could venture to guess that the total populations of all of those nations put together would probably not equal that of the U.S. More people, more confilct. Also, the U.S. has many different kiinds of people vs some of those listed, and that leads to even more conflict.

 

We also have a Bill of Rights. We fought England for our freedom, and many are not willing to lose even one of those hard-won rights.

You would be wrong and basic research on Google would inform you better.

 

However, I will say that Texas is bigger than France. So what works on the micro level in Europe, does not tend to translate well to the entire United States. It would be better to compare passing laws for all of the United States to the EU than to any one country within the EU. At least in my opinion.

 

And yes there are major culture differences in the United States and I'm not even talking just about skin color. I'm talking regions of the country that are very different.

[Katy]

Shenanigans.  The bolded is an outright lie.

Mass shooting: shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

 

And we just happened to have one not in a "gun free" zone...yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/

 

Even if we accept that our headline mass shootings are all occur only because of gun free zones, that still doesn't explain the elevated levels of gun violence in the United States.  In 2013 the United States had over 33,000 gun deaths.

 

Let me repeat that number. Over 33,000.

 

Per capita we have over 10 per every 100,000 population.  For comparison:

Australia - .86

Germany - 1.24

United Kingdom - .26

 

 

Oh, but you say the deaths above include suicides and the like so the comparison is unfair as those people would kill themselves anyway.

 

Fine.

 

Homicides using a gun:

United States - 3.5

Australia - .11

United Kingdom - .05

Germany - .2

 

Yeah, gun free zones are to blame.  Sure.

 

Well sure, if you change the definition from situations where someone is in public shooting large numbers of people they do not know to private homes that are definitively domestic violence situations, the statistics change dramatically.

 

You're arguing a point no one is making. 

 

Go back to what people are actually afraid of: being shot by a crazy stranger in a public place, and I still assert what I said is correct. If you avoid gang-controlled areas and gun-free zones that aren't protected by metal detectors and armed guards, you're not going to get shot in public by a stranger.

 

If you are in a situation where a family member is mentally unstable and is a perpetrator of domestic violence, getting killed by a random stranger is hardly going to be your biggest worry.  Get out.  Get your family members safe.  Press charges to keep them away from you.

[Greta]

I have several deterrents including a locked door and a dog. It doesn't take long to get a gun out.

Well, we are in agreement about the locks and dogs. :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well sure, if you change the definition from situations where someone is in public shooting large numbers of people they do not know to private homes that are definitively domestic violence situations, the statistics change dramatically.

 

You're arguing a point no one is making. 

 

Go back to what people are actually afraid of: being shot by a crazy stranger in a public place, and I still assert what I said is correct. If you avoid gang-controlled areas and gun-free zones that aren't protected by metal detectors and armed guards, you're not going to get shot in public by a stranger.

 

If you are in a situation where a family member is mentally unstable and is a perpetrator of domestic violence, getting killed by a random stranger is hardly going to be your biggest worry.  Get out.  Get your family members safe.  Press charges to keep them away from you.

 

Good to know people not killed in public don't count when considering our homicide rates. Whew!

[Mergath]

I have several deterrents including a locked door and a dog. It doesn't take long to get a gun out.

 

So you think you could kill fourteen people in a crowd with a knife, no problem, and that all the people around you trying to stop you wouldn't be a deterrent, but an intruder into your house is going to be stopped by a door and a dog?