[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by ChaplainTappman

Technically, he did say "more than three". I would argue that the article you linked said "intent to kill" two more and should count, but based purely on exact specifications, he isn't really changing it.

He keeps coming up with reasons why others don't count and insisting there is "one exception" when there are several.

[crackedthesky]

Another one: http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?...0&videofeed=36

Before you go to that gun blog shaming the media for not mentioning this mall is a "gun-free zone" you should know it became one in response to this shooting.

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by ChaplainTappman

So your whole argument rests on the idea that people who are almost indisputably mentally disturbed are thinking and making decisions rationally, and will be deterred by the prospect that at least one person will be present with a gun? What about the people who already decided to commit suicide after? Why would they care?

Not only that, if trained police officers run away (as at columbine) then they don't count - but why would an untrained civilian, in full on panic, remain on the scene? I don't see any thread of logic here.

The logic goes that the more chance there is of a shooter meeting more armed resistance sooner, less chance he will pick that location. Notice I am NOT saying that we should have rambos running around with automatic AK-47s, or that a teacher with a 9mm will always effectively neutralize a shooter in full kevlar dual wielding AR-15's (Aside: playing that out in my head, that actually sounds a bit plausible...). People can have evil convictions but maintain rationality. If we were to equate kind-heartedness to rationality than these public shooters wouldn't be able to tie their own shoe.

Now, the vast majority expect to die, and by the nature of these things I hope we can all assume that at least one of these killers' objectives is to kill as many people as soon as possible (among whatever other caveats that would influence their choice, students, muslims, etc.). Doing so in a place where you know there will only be few or no armed resistors is more enticing than in another area with less certainty.

[crackedthesky]

Most mass shooters are shooting up their own school or place of employment in retaliation for some wrong that has been done to them. Assuming that allowing more guns on such a scene will decrease deaths is bad logic. Not to mention there have been several mass shootings with others armed present and it did nothing, in the Gabby Giffords case several others were armed and one man nearly shot the guy who disarmed the gunman thinking he was the gunman.

Adding more firearms into the mix is more likely to increase confusion and multiply casualties than to stop tragedy before it happens.

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by ChaseTx

Shootings wouldn't decline as a result of doing away with gun-free zones. The motivating factors acting on the individuals who plan these shootings will still be there, and the possibility that someone nearby might be armed is not going to be much of a deterrent in most cases (and especially in cases where the gunman doesn't plan on getting out alive anyway.)

Mass shootings would not disappear, but I believe they will be fewer and less severe if there were more trained carriers allowed on all premises. Honestly, though, I am not as interested in mass shootings and I think it's a horrible precedent to base the law of the land on a handful of events. Later, after classes when I can compile some data from some books, I can show how upward trends in concealed carry follow downward trends in violent crime and vice versa, among other things, and this helps guide my position on these gun free zones.

[ChaseTx]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

The logic goes that the more chance there is of a shooter meeting more armed resistance sooner, less chance he will pick that location. Notice I am NOT saying that we should have rambos running around with automatic AK-47s, or that a teacher with a 9mm will always effectively neutralize a shooter in full kevlar dual wielding AR-15's (Aside: playing that out in my head, that actually sounds a bit plausible...). People can have evil convictions but maintain rationality. If we were to equate kind-heartedness to rationality than these public shooters wouldn't be able to tie their own shoe.

Now, the vast majority expect to die, and by the nature of these things I hope we can all assume that at least one of these killers' objectives is to kill as many people as soon as possible (among whatever other caveats that would influence their choice, students, muslims, etc.). Doing so in a place where you know there will only be few or no armed resistors is more enticing than in another area with less certainty.

Even if shooters do favor locations where guns are not allowed (which includes pretty much all schools, government buildings, retail locations -- almost anywhere that would be chosen as a target in the first place), they are not going to decide against the shooting just because they think there might be citizens with guns on them

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

Another one: http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?...0&videofeed=36

Before you go to that gun blog shaming the media for not mentioning this mall is a "gun-free zone" you should know it became one in response to this shooting.

Would you happen to have a link that it happened afterwards?

And let me ask you a question: do you think making it a gun free zone will do ANYTHING to prevent a shooting?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

Mass shootings would not disappear, but I believe they will be fewer and less severe if there were more trained carriers allowed on all premises. Honestly, though, I am not as interested in mass shootings and I think it's a horrible precedent to base the law of the land on a handful of events. Later, after classes when I can compile some data from some books, I can show how upward trends in concealed carry follow downward trends in violent crime and vice versa, among other things, and this helps guide my position on these gun free zones.

Don't forget to mention Kennesaw, Georgia.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

Adding more firearms into the mix is more likely to increase confusion and multiply casualties than to stop tragedy before it happens.

I have nothing to say, because this is all that needs to be said.

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by ChaseTx

Even if shooters do favor locations where guns are not allowed (which includes pretty much all schools, government buildings, retail locations -- almost anywhere that would be chosen as a target in the first place), they are not going to decide against the shooting just because they think there might be citizens with guns on them

It varies so much place to place, not just in the manner guns are allowed but how many citizens actually carry. I'm not speaking in absolutes, but allowing carry on these premises could make it LESS likely, and that is plenty enough reason.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by EasySkankin

Would you happen to have a link that it happened afterwards?

And let me ask you a question: do you think making it a gun free zone will do ANYTHING to prevent a shooting?

I found a different gun blog complaining about how they made it a gun-free zone afterward.

[loveisdead]

Quick changeup. Found this pretty humorous.

[EasySkankin]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Don't forget to mention Kennesaw, Georgia.

Hahaha a really neat case! But it lays out the argument dramatically

[loveisdead]

[loveisdead]

Here's Obama's plans...

* Require criminal background checks for all gun sales.
* Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous individuals is available to the background check system.
* Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
* Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
* Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
* Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
* End the freeze on gun violence research.
* Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
* Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
* Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.