First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Student 'fascinated by firearms' wounds four in French high school shooting
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
Nobody is arguing that "gun control" will stop 100% of gun crime. That is just a ridiculous strawman.
21712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

sundin13 wrote:

Nobody is arguing that "gun control" will stop 100% of gun crime. That is just a ridiculous strawman.


not directly though

but everytimesome "mass" shooting happens that is what we hear, what really is the wanted outcome from "gun control"?
from the politicians POV. I don't get it
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

redokami wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Nobody is arguing that "gun control" will stop 100% of gun crime. That is just a ridiculous strawman.


not directly though

but everytimesome "mass" shooting happens that is what we hear, what really is the wanted outcome from "gun control"?
from the politicians POV. I don't get it


The wanted outcome is less corpses. Whats not to get?
21712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

sundin13 wrote:


redokami wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Nobody is arguing that "gun control" will stop 100% of gun crime. That is just a ridiculous strawman.


not directly though

but everytimesome "mass" shooting happens that is what we hear, what really is the wanted outcome from "gun control"?
from the politicians POV. I don't get it


The wanted outcome is less corpses. Whats not to get?


if they really wanted that , with as much outrage we hear from the occasional -mass- shooting , we DONT hear it about Detroit, Chicago, etc,
what about those dead bodies? over 700 a year

the whole issue is contradictory
39738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

sundin13 wrote:


The wanted outcome is less corpses. Whats not to get?


Smoking, drinking alcohol and obesity respectively kills more people every year than gun violence ever will. And that's with suicides, negligent discharges and defensive shootings buffing the gun violence statistics.
And if people were really concerned about getting guns and corpses off the streets they would also be for strong borders and screenings. Like Japan and Australia, countries that don't have a border with a country with massive, violent cartels. But that's another thread I suppose.
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

redokami wrote:

if they really wanted that , with as much outrage we hear from the occasional -mass- shooting , we DONT hear it about Detroit, Chicago, etc,
what about those dead bodies? over 700 a year

the whole issue is contradictory


"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"

This is just how humans work. We are more drawn to events than to numbers. We are more drawn to people than to numbers. Its unfortunate that to many, Chicago has been reduced to a statistic, but that doesn't weaken the appeal to gun control when it is expressed. However, that is not to say that no attention is being payed to the violence that goes on there. It actually gets quite a bit of discussion and coverage and outrage.

This isn't contradictory and this argument does not expose faults in the principle of gun control. All you are doing is nitpicking human nature and I don't see what that adds to the gun control debate.
22258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



Teachers are often highly liberal, for reasons we probably disagree, and I think compounding firearm training with the usual requirement of master degrees is pretty inefficient, rather than just hiring more source officer. Arming civilians is pretty dangerous, with a lack of competence, experience, and willingness. know.


No one is saying there should be some state program to 'arm teachers', why would you think that. Just that there should be no 'no gun zones'. And those that wish to carry should be able to.
Its funny you think a 'source officer' isn't just a civilian in a uniform. 'Civilian' gunowners get in much more range time on average than security guards and police.



Shipwright wrote:

Meh, shit happens. Doesn't look like anyone died, at least.




Seems like the guns were fake, grenades probably were too
But I don't see a retraction of this 'school shooting in france!' story anytime soon. Too convenient what with the vote for the EU 'salt weapons' ban happening.


I am often confused when someone mentions letting teachers be armed, as if it is a panacea to violent shootings, when it seems to be more along the lines of unnecessary regulation and excessive punishment for any accidental infraction, such as coming from a hunting trip and leaving your rifle in ones truck to school. It seems you are advocating arming resource officers who work at the school, perhaps more so than they are, and having more of them.

That is an idea I agree upon for the most part.
39738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


I am often confused when someone mentions letting teachers be armed, as if it is a panacea to violent shootings, when it seems to be more along the lines of unnecessary regulation and excessive punishment for any accidental infraction, such as coming from a hunting trip and leaving your rifle in ones truck to school. .


Can't it be both? Gun free zones are soft targets. Mass shooters go for soft targets time and time again. Look at the Aurora theater shooting. There were two other theaters closer to the shooter's apartment, and neither of them had explicit no firearms policies. The one he shot up did. Look at the Charleston church shooting. At the time, even if one of the victims had a firearm, it would've been illegal under state law because it's illegal to carry in a church. My state recently repealed a law like this, idk if SC still has it.
If a nutjob has to worry about immediately getting shot in the face when he goes to shoot up a school or whatever he'll be less likely to do it.
22258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 3/16/17 , edited 3/16/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


I am often confused when someone mentions letting teachers be armed, as if it is a panacea to violent shootings, when it seems to be more along the lines of unnecessary regulation and excessive punishment for any accidental infraction, such as coming from a hunting trip and leaving your rifle in ones truck to school. .


Can't it be both? Gun free zones are soft targets. Mass shooters go for soft targets time and time again. Look at the Aurora theater shooting. There were two other theaters closer to the shooter's apartment, and neither of them had explicit no firearms policies. The one he shot up did. Look at the Charleston church shooting. At the time, even if one of the victims had a firearm, it would've been illegal under state law because it's illegal to carry in a church. My state recently repealed a law like this, idk if SC still has it.
If a nutjob has to worry about immediately getting shot in the face when he goes to shoot up a school or whatever he'll be less likely to do it.


You may poise a point on whether or not business should have the right or privilege of allowing firearms on their property, but most school shootings are done by students for a reason. This is where students go and spend a lot of their social time, and this is where they are most likely to sustain grievances. It is not so much opportunity as being given a reason for vengeance. Sandy Hooke was a complete anomaly on that scale. For every Lanza there are a hundred, thousands of Dylan Klebolds and So Cheung Wis.


People still murder despite the law, but in a sense, the other point of the law is to enact justice after the fact, or enable police and such stop the act altogether given the correct criteria. Things like gun free zones, when applied to students, allow officers and official to confront the student before rather than retroactively, saving lives.

Or at least that is the reasoning. It is not so much expecting people to follow the rules but to enable punishing and most importantly intervention, of those who break it before they may even do more heinous crimes.


Source Officers here in Virginia I believe sometimes carry guns, similar to what police have. They also have tasers for the more brutal fistfights. They do not have the more heavy armaments that police have access to in some cases.

This might depend on the school though.
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

Mass shooters go for soft targets time and time again.


Do you have any non-anecdotal proof that this is true? I have personally seen no evidence that there is any trend of mass shooters specifically choosing targets that are gun free.

Here is a study out of Johns Hopkins partially examining that question. Overall, they found that most mass shootings actually occur in gun allowing zones, that allowing guns into college campuses is unlikely to lead to fewer casualties and that overall, even in gun allowing zones, it is extremely rare for an armed civilian to stop a mass shooter.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/GunsOnCampus.pdf

39738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

sundin13 wrote:



Do you have any non-anecdotal proof that this is true? I have personally seen no evidence that there is any trend of mass shooters specifically choosing targets that are gun free.





And just how many of those 'mass shootings' were gang/drug related activity? The statistics for these things are always flawed by the definition of 'mass shooting'.
You can't compare a drive by for gang intimidation to a random massacre by a madman. Well I guess you can, but it would be stupid to do so.
Also it doesn't matter if its 'rare' for armed people stop a shooting, self defense is a human right.




PeripheralVisionary wrote:
For every Lanza there are a hundred, thousands of Dylan Klebolds and So Cheung Wis.



That number is a bit high. A bit as in a lot. Unless you go by certain anti gunner statistics that classify a drug related shooting two blocks from a school as a 'school shooting'.
jl6
469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Florida
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
I could use some more firearms never know when u need them
8687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 3/16/17
"Gun control" lmao. Do you think criminals care about laws? They can buy guns from gangs and the black market. Gun control would hurt those who lawfully own guns.
21712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

MonoDreams wrote:

"Gun control" lmao. Do you think criminals care about laws? They can buy guns from gangs and the black market. Gun control would hurt those who lawfully own guns.


that's my point lol
1443 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 3/16/17

redokami wrote:


MonoDreams wrote:

"Gun control" lmao. Do you think criminals care about laws? They can buy guns from gangs and the black market. Gun control would hurt those who lawfully own guns.


that's my point lol


I love how people like to mention the black market like it's some bazaar you just visit with a quick trip downtown. You do realize that making guns only available on the black market would drive up the prices so high that people in lower income households, which produce most criminals (because, let's face it, if you're rich you don't need to be sticking up a 7/11), from acquiring guns in the first place? If an assault rifle costs $20,000 to buy and it's ammunition costs $200 a round, you really think we're going to see ANY kids buying one and shooting up their schools any time soon?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.