Another School Tragedy

If one person had had a weapon on them, they could have stopped him.

@M36:

If one person had had a weapon on them, they could have stopped him.

They could have stopped him 12 months ago. Have you seen the stuff this guy wrote?? He should not have been at this school in the first place. The TEACHERS were afraid of him. There was obviously cause to dismiss him from school (and get him som mental help) a long time ago.

Squirecam

OK, so some people want a mandatory carry law…

If everyone has a gun, the theory goes, less violent death will occur because people will be armed and able to defend themselves.

The problems with this:

Armed robbery: when someone robs someone currently at gunpoint, there is a very slim chance the person being robbed is armed, so the robber can usually get away with this without using the gun (if he even had one, and wasn’t just pretending)

if there were a mandatory carry law, the robber would have to assume the target was armed. if he still wanted to rob them, he would have to shoot first and then rob.

but wait, you say! shooting someone adds an additional charge of such magnitude, that most robbers will be deterred from committing the crime.

even if this is true, there are still those robbers who are willing to shoot someone. these can be people who think they are good enough to get away with it, desperately need the money and are willing to do anything, or people who are just plain sadistic/sociopathic, and have zero qualms about shooting/killing someone. these people exist now. theres a good chance though, that at least some of them still dont shoot people now, knowing the consequences, and also knowing that due to the extreme unlikelihood of a target being armed, they dont need to shoot. but if there were mandatory carry laws, these people would need to shoot. i think that a mandatory carry law, in addition to accidental discharges, drunken fights that go to far, heated exchanges that get out of hand, etc. would increase the number of violent deaths/injuries associated with armed robberies.

basically, it may deter some thugs, but the hardened criminals, the psychos, and the desperate would shoot/kill more people, so you are eliminating the mid-range crimes and increasing the extreme crimes.

The everyone can carry idea does have SOME merit.

After all, only the VICTIM can prevent the crime.  The police can investigate the crime, arrest the criminal, compile the evidence to get the criminal convicted and guard the criminal once convicted, but none of that is preventing the original crime.

I just think have too many untrained civilians with deadly firepower at their fingertips just isn’t the solution.  If we had mandatory firearm safety and marksmanship training I might be more readily convinced to change my mind.

@Jennifer:

The everyone can carry idea does have SOME merit.

After all, only the VICTIM can prevent the crime.  The police can investigate the crime, arrest the criminal, compile the evidence to get the criminal convicted and guard the criminal once convicted, but none of that is preventing the original crime.

What makes you think the victim has any control over the situation?  That’s ludicrous.  That’s like blaming everyone in the planes that died for 9/11 because they couldn’t stop the plot.

I just think have too many untrained civilians with deadly firepower at their fingertips just isn’t the solution.  If we had mandatory firearm safety and marksmanship training I might be more readily convinced to change my mind.

So basically, you want everyone to be in the military - hence your use of the word “civilians.”

Wow are YOU reaching for reasons to discount what I am saying.

Only the victim can PREVENT the crime.  I’m not saying victims always have the ability (physically or mentally) to do so.  But I am saying teh police cannot arrest a person becaues the Minority Report says that on 3:17 PM CST they will rape a girl named Jane Doe.  Thus, they cannot PREVENT the crime.

Now, do you REALLY want to go on the record as arguing against this?  (Yes, I’m giving you a chance to retract your current attack plan on me, because I don’t think you’ve through through what I said, you’ve just assumed that because I said it, it must be wrong.)

And again, another chance to retract yourself from a stupid attack on me, did I ever once say that “untrained civilians” means everyone should be trained militia?  No.  I said that the civilian population is not trained in the proper use of firearms and thus, maybe the best solution is not to arm them to the teeth.  Of course, if you REALLY want to go on the record that you want all civilians to be issued side arms, go for it.  But I think you might want to retract the insanity spewing from your fingertips before rational people start to point out your insanity.

@Jennifer:

Only the victim can PREVENT the crime.  I’m not saying victims always have the ability (physically or mentally) to do so.  But I am saying teh police cannot arrest a person becaues the Minority Report says that on 3:17 PM CST they will rape a girl named Jane Doe.  Thus, they cannot PREVENT the crime.

It’s entirely untrue.  Sometimes the victim can’t prevent anything.  Sometimes a stranger or an officer may intervene.  It all depends on circumstances.
However, you could indicate that the police have no obligation to prevent crime.  That would be a better argument.

Now, do you REALLY want to go on the record as arguing against this?  (Yes, I’m giving you a chance to retract your current attack plan on me, because I don’t think you’ve through through what I said, you’ve just assumed that because I said it, it must be wrong.)

And again, another chance to retract yourself from a stupid attack on me, did I ever once say that “untrained civilians” means everyone should be trained militia?  No.  I said that the civilian population is not trained in the proper use of firearms and thus, maybe the best solution is not to arm them to the teeth.  Of course, if you REALLY want to go on the record that you want all civilians to be issued side arms, go for it.  But I think you might want to retract the insanity spewing from your fingertips before rational people start to point out your insanity.

Please, define attack.  I doubt this qualifies.

The only time a victim is unable to prevent the crime is when the choices the victim has made physically, or mentally, prevent him from preventing teh crime.

For instance, if you are robbed in an alleyway you have made a number of bad choices up to that point.

1)  You went into an alleyway.  You never watched Batman???
2)  You did not bring protective equipment.
3)  You did not get rudimentary training in hand to hand combat
4)  You decided the most prudent course of action was to allow the crime to take place because the contents of your wallet do not equal or exceed the value of your life.

However, the policeman walking and see’s the crime does not prevent the crime.  The crime has already been committed.  He can chase down the criminal, arrest him or her and take him or her to jail, but that is just prosecuting the criminal, not preventing the crime.

A criminal is about to rob someone in an alley, when they see a policeman walk by.  The criminal changes his mind and runs off.

A criminal hears on the news that in the past month there were 9 muggings in his city, and the perpetrator was caught on all 9 occasions.  The criminal thinks better of mugging someone.

Are these not examples of police preventing crime?

obviously not all crime is deterred or prevented by police, they are largely a reactionary force, and de facto emergency preparedness force for whatever municipality they serve…but the existence of police deters those who would commit crimes but don’t because they consider the risk-to-benefit ratio the crime offers with the presence of police, and decide not to chance it. i don’t know that there is any way of quantifying this factor, but I’m sure many many many crimes do not occur SIMPLY because there are cops, and the risk of the crime and getting caught is just not worth the pay-off.

I personally would sooner trust in the police than in arming the populace. I personally am also not going to rely solely on police, and when I have a home of my own, will probably have some kind of firearm for when the situation arises that I must protect myself and mine, but I also know that with the proper education, I could responsibly own and operate a firearm. the same can not be said of all people.

@Janus1:

I personally am also not going to rely solely on police, and when I have a home of my own, will probably have some kind of firearm for when the situation arises that I must protect myself and mine

paranoid.  :-P what are the chances your giong to get robbed or assualted?

@cyan:

paranoid.  :-P what are the chances your giong to get robbed or assualted?

Apparently astronomical if you live in Chicago  :evil:

:lol: :lol:

@Jennifer:

The only time a victim is unable to prevent the crime is when the choices the victim has made physically, or mentally, prevent him from preventing teh crime.

For instance, if you are robbed in an alleyway you have made a number of bad choices up to that point.

1)  You went into an alleyway.  You never watched Batman???
2)  You did not bring protective equipment.
3)  You did not get rudimentary training in hand to hand combat
4)  You decided the most prudent course of action was to allow the crime to take place because the contents of your wallet do not equal or exceed the value of your life.

However, the policeman walking and see’s the crime does not prevent the crime.  The crime has already been committed.  He can chase down the criminal, arrest him or her and take him or her to jail, but that is just prosecuting the criminal, not preventing the crime.

Ah, yes.  The “don’t wear a miniskirt if you don’t want to get raped” approach.

Maybe I’m naive in thinking it’s ok not to have a gun.  I don’t really want to go through life being paranoid about bad things happening to me.  I’ll take measures to ensure I lessen the opportunity of crime, but I’m confident that if I’m robbed, I can handle it and get out of it alive - then the police can do their thing.  Sometimes you just can’t avoid what happens.

Jermo, are you sure you don’t live north of the border?

@rjclayton:

Jermo, are you sure you don’t live north of the border?

Which border we be talkin’ 'bout?
Sanity?

Several people disagree with me so I am just going to address this em mass.

I am NOT saying that having a gun will give you a magical bullet shield.  What I am saying is if a would be robber believes that the chances are say 25% that the person he is robbing has a gun will he still follow through?  what about 50% or 75%.  Do you think this guy in VA may have reconsidered if there was a chance that someone in the building had a gun?  Why do you think he chained the doors?  Maybe to keep the odds at 0%?

The arms race comment is rediculous.  Right now at this very moment there is nothing legal to stop me from carriing my AK47 with me and wearing as much body armor as I want.  Why don’t I? because it’s not worth the benefit.  My compact .45 is plenty.

I have said this many many times on this forum.  My children have fired several of my guns, they have seen the damage that can be done with them and know the consequences of touching them.