Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[Brainster]

The good guy here was only but so good. Like one toe left on the good side. He carried a gun where he was not allowed, thinking himself above the law or some kind of vigilante. That thinking can go sour real fast, statistically.

Yes, what a shame he violated the rules of the mall, maybe we can prosecute him or at least ban him for life.

 

[a_unique_person]

And how much of a good guy would he have been if the shot had missed and struck an innocent bystander? This seems more like blind luck than heroism. And then imagine multiple 'good guys' all going for their guns. I would say it would be like the Wild West but they had better gun controls back then.

A good guy with a gun who can shoot accurately.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, what a shame he violated the rules of the mall, maybe we can prosecute him or at least ban him for life.

Do you think responsible gun owners should ignore gun restrictions? Just kind of do whatever they want? Compliant carrying is for chumps, amirite? Duck what people want on their private property, can I get an amen?

 

[Brainster]

Do you think responsible gun owners should ignore gun restrictions? Just kind of do whatever they want? Compliant carrying is for chumps, amirite? Duck what people want on their private property, can I get an amen?

If only he had left his gun out in the car like the mall owners wanted.... what exactly is the better outcome? Seriously?

 

[Brainster]

Yes….and it does exactly zero to make my statement any less accurate. If there had been zero guys with guns, no one would have been shot.

Duh. And if there was only one nut with a gun lots more would have been shot.

Your turn. You do realize that the ‘good guy with a gun’ is a statistical unicorn, yes?

Well, if you deny this one, yeah, I can see how it might never happen in your world.

 

[Brainster]

And how much of a good guy would he have been if the shot had missed and struck an innocent bystander? This seems more like blind luck than heroism. And then imagine multiple 'good guys' all going for their guns. I would say it would be like the Wild West but they had better gun controls back then.

I know, if only he had hit and killed a pregnant person, it would have been much better. Well, for some people.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Duh. And if there was only one nut with a gun lots more would have been shot.

Almost as if the availability of guns is the problem.

Well, if you deny this one, yeah, I can see how it might never happen in your world.

It probably won't in my world.
I don't think I have ever worried about getting shot when I go shopping.

 

[sarge]

Duh. And if there was only one nut with a gun lots more would have been shot.

Or, if neither of them had a gun, no one would have been shot (unless the cops showed up of course).

Well, if you deny this one, yeah, I can see how it might never happen in your world.

Over there in wetdreamfantasyshootsomeonelandistan, I’m sure that good guys with guns are always there to save the day. But here in adultlandistan, it simply doesn’t happen often enough to use it as justification for accepting virtually unfettered access to hand guns and assault rifles.

Nor does it excuse the violation of property rights committed by this ‘responsible’ gun owner. I thought Trumpublicans lived and died by property rights?

 

[Thermal]

If only he had left his gun out in the car like the mall owners wanted.... what exactly is the better outcome? Seriously?

It worked out this time. The Law-ignorer got to kill someone. But that's not the issue. The issue is the Batman dilemma. You okay with visitors to schools packing, if they feel like it? How about kids, since laws and carry rules are for chumps? That means anyone, by the way, not just good ol' boys.

 

[Venom]

This rampage killing phenomenon aside, I would feel a lot safer if a good chunk of the country wasn't perpetually living in 1776.

 

[lobosrul5]

This rampage killing phenomenon aside, I would feel a lot safer if a good chunk of the country wasn't perpetually living in 1776.

A large chunk is living in circa 1860.

 

[Thermal]

A large chunk is living in circa 1860.

There it is. They are not rebelling against government tyranny, they are reselling against that whole 'equal' thingy.

 

[Brainster]

Or, if neither of them had a gun, no one would have been shot (unless the cops showed up of course).

Over there in wetdreamfantasyshootsomeonelandistan, I’m sure that good guys with guns are always there to save the day. But here in adultlandistan, it simply doesn’t happen often enough to use it as justification for accepting virtually unfettered access to hand guns and assault rifles.

So in adultlandistan you have found a way around the 2nd Amendment? Who's living in a fantasy world?

 

[sarge]

So in adultlandistan you have found a way around the 2nd Amendment? Who's living in a fantasy world?

You, clearly. You appear to believe that the ‘good guy with a gun’ fantasy is real.

No, I don’t have a way around the SCOTUS’ bass-awkward interpretation of the 2A. I wish I did. I lament that so many Americans believe that America is inferior to all the modern countries that have managed not to make guns ubiquitous in their society, and consequently do not suffer mass shootings. Seriously, why do so many of you believe that other countries can manage it but that here ‘if we ban guns, only criminals will have guns?’

 

[Lplus]

You, clearly. You appear to believe that the ‘good guy with a gun’ fantasy is real.

No, I don’t have a way around the SCOTUS’ bass-awkward interpretation of the 2A. I wish I did. I lament that so many Americans believe that America is inferior to all the modern countries that have managed not to make guns ubiquitous in their society, and consequently do not suffer mass shootings. Seriously, why do so many of you believe that other countries can manage it but that here ‘if we ban guns, only criminals will have guns?’

Probably the fact that the other countries can't manage it. The rate of shootings may be less in the UK etc but the criminals still have the guns hence the shootings that do occur.

 

[catsmate]

Probably the fact that the other countries can't manage it. The rate of shootings may be less in the UK etc but the criminals still have the guns hence the shootings that do occur.

The firearm related homicide rate in the UK is less than one half of one percent of that of the USA.
The suicide rate is approximately one fortieth and the fatal accident rate one fifteenth.

 

[sarge]

Probably the fact that the other countries can't manage it. The rate of shootings may be less in the UK etc but the criminals still have the guns hence the shootings that do occur.

But they do manage it, obviously. Excluding deaths from self-harm (which, frankly, should be included), England has 1/73 the gun death rate of the US. Japan has 1/110. Guess how many ‘first world’ countries have tighter gun laws but similar gun death rates.

 

[Babbylonian]

The firearm related homicide rate in the UK is less than one half of one percent of that of the USA.
The suicide rate is approximately one fortieth and the fatal accident rate one fifteenth.

Sure, but if a single criminal uses a gun, that justifies letting all people have them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sure, but if a single criminal uses a gun, that justifies letting all people have them.

I assume you are sarcastic, but that is one argument used: "Taking the guns from honest people means only criminals will have guns."

However, that is wrong. If only criminals have guns, anybody carrying a gun is automatically a criminal, so even criminals will avoid carrying guns, as that alone will incriminate them.

Hans

 

[Andy_Ross]

I assume you are sarcastic, but that is one argument used: "Taking the guns from honest people means only criminals will have guns."

However, that is wrong. If only criminals have guns, anybody carrying a gun is automatically a criminal, so even criminals will avoid carrying guns, as that alone will incriminate them.

Hans

Guns are so hard to get for criminals in the UK they hire them from the few that have them.