Active Shooter, Parkland, FL High School

[Dan Druff]

That's one of the challenges, yes. The population is large, the geographic area is spread out, and the number of illegal guns is very numerous.

Another challenge is just that American culture has always been violent, compared to other first world countries. There are many historical and sociological factors to this. Much of this is hard to reverse, at least not quickly.

Bottom line is that disarming the law-abiding citizens would be a disaster at this point.

We would see mass shootings decrease, but crimes against innocent citizens (such as home invasions and small businesses) would increase.

I'll take the mass shooting gamble (affects a tiny, tiny percentage of the population) and feel more secure that the average home invader knows that I could easily be armed (and actually am).

Yeah Im sure its a real deterrant for your average Compton n-word wannabe homeinvader knowing that the middage jew is sleeping with some pussified shooting instrument under his pillow

You know nothing about the US and it's cute seeing you write things like this.

Even thugs know that they don't want to enter an unknown house where they can get blown away by the homeowner, so incidents where they just force their way into an occupied home aren't all that common.

Most of the time, when an intentional home invasion occurs, it's done with the element of surprise, such as knocking on the door, waiting until the homeowner answers, and then pulling a gun on him/her and tying them up (or in some cases, hurting or killing them).

You're watching too many movies where the bad guys just bust into houses at night and are perfectly willing to engage in gun battles.

Of course, most burglaries occur when there appears to be nobody home, but also sometimes when it's assumed everyone is sleeping and the burglar feels he can sneak in, steal, and get out before he's detected. Again, that type of burglar will be emboldened if he knows he's not facing a potential gun on the other end, and this will sharply increase.

Why wouldn't it?

[Dan Druff]

Bottom line is that disarming the law-abiding citizens would be a disaster at this point.

We would see mass shootings decrease, but crimes against innocent citizens (such as home invasions and small businesses) would increase.

I'll take the mass shooting gamble (affects a tiny, tiny percentage of the population) and feel more secure that the average home invader knows that I could easily be armed (and actually am).

this is commonly believed but i don't really buy it. if they made owning a gun a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, the only people that would own them would be the hardest of the hardcore criminals. i'm talking gang members and drug dealers. i can't see there being be a home invasion spree.

you think a 5-year sentence wouldn't be enough of a deterrent? ok, make it a life sentence.

this would be completely draconian, but if you want to talk in terms of net positives and negatives, these laws would go a long way to greatly reducing gun violence, with the added bonus of completely erasing mass shootings

The hardcore criminals are the ones we are worried about here.

I don't care so much about the career scammer or the petty thief possessing a gun.

The ones committing dangerous crimes (robberies, muggings, home invasions) are the ones who will still have weapons, and yet emboldened that nobody else does.

There's also the peace of mind situation, which is pretty big for a lot of people.

Rather than feeling helpless if someone invades your home with a gun and attempts to kill you, at least you know you can potentially fight back. If you cannot have a gun to protect yourself, yet you're aware of the existence of plenty of illegal firearms in the country, you know you are defenseless.

This even extends to situations when dealing with personal threats. If I piss off some dude and he threatens to come over to my house and kill me, I'm happy I have a gun here just in case he does. If I can't have one, yet know that he might be able to obtain one through some sort of illegal means (or perhaps never gave his up when he was supposed to), then again I feel helpless.

You can try to dismiss the above, but this peace of mind is very important, and I can tell you that I would never have any kind of peace of mind regarding defense of myself and my home, unless I knew I had a firearm here. I'm not saying my defense would always be successful if it came to it, but at least I know I have a chance. If someone breaks into your house with a gun and you don't have one yourself, and if they intend to kill you, your chance to survive is close to zero point zero. It doesn't take a genius to realize this.

[Tellafriend]

ok, that's fine, but how will that have any effect on the shootings at issue? It won't. So it is little more than window dressing.

Yeah, doing absolutely fucking nothing is obviously the better play.

That doesn’t change my point. Try responding to that.

[Dan Druff]

Our gun laws are laughable.

I went to a gun show last week and bought an AR15 and 1k rounds of 9mm. Guy didn't even ask me if I was a state resident for the AR which he should have, and wanted to sell me some ammo and drum magazines. Lol at gun shows. Lol at very shitty background checks. Lol at private party gun sales with no documentation needed. Lol at drum magazines and bump stocks. Lol at the NRA.

I'm all for gun rights but at some point you just realize it's all fucked.

I'm fine with cracking down on these type of things.

Some gun fanatics like to completely defend the status quo and are afraid to endorse even the slightest change in gun "rights".

On the flip side, gun-opponent fanatics want nothing less than full gun control, and that is completely unrealistic at this point.

What needs to be done is that both sides must understand that nothing will be solved by extremism, and that any concessions by the gun-rights crowd must be met with a guarantee that the concessions will end there.

Otherwise we will get nowhere.

[blake]

this is commonly believed but i don't really buy it. if they made owning a gun a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, the only people that would own them would be the hardest of the hardcore criminals. i'm talking gang members and drug dealers. i can't see there being be a home invasion spree.

you think a 5-year sentence wouldn't be enough of a deterrent? ok, make it a life sentence.

this would be completely draconian, but if you want to talk in terms of net positives and negatives, these laws would go a long way to greatly reducing gun violence, with the added bonus of completely erasing mass shootings

The hardcore criminals are the ones we are worried about here.

I don't care so much about the career scammer or the petty thief possessing a gun.

The ones committing dangerous crimes (robberies, muggings, home invasions) are the ones who will still have weapons, and yet emboldened that nobody else does.

There's also the peace of mind situation, which is pretty big for a lot of people.

Rather than feeling helpless if someone invades your home with a gun and attempts to kill you, at least you know you can potentially fight back. If you cannot have a gun to protect yourself, yet you're aware of the existence of plenty of illegal firearms in the country, you know you are defenseless.

This even extends to situations when dealing with personal threats. If I piss off some dude and he threatens to come over to my house and kill me, I'm happy I have a gun here just in case he does. If I can't have one, yet know that he might be able to obtain one through some sort of illegal means (or perhaps never gave his up when he was supposed to), then again I feel helpless.

You can try to dismiss the above, but this peace of mind is very important, and I can tell you that I would never have any kind of peace of mind regarding defense of myself and my home, unless I knew I had a firearm here. I'm not saying my defense would always be successful if it came to it, but at least I know I have a chance. If someone breaks into your house with a gun and you don't have one yourself, and if they intend to kill you, your chance to survive is close to zero point zero. It doesn't take a genius to realize this.

i can't completely dismiss the piece of mind argument you're saying as i own guns too and can somewhat relate to what you're saying. of course, the reality is that if someone broke into my home, i would likely freeze like a bitch and get pistol whipped by my own gun.

[Dan Druff]

Yeah Im sure its a real deterrant for your average Compton n-word wannabe homeinvader knowing that the middage jew is sleeping with some pussified shooting instrument under his pillow

I don't know if any study has looked at this, but I don't think that mass gun ownership in a community is a crime deterrent. I also don't really think that people that have guns in the house have less crimes committed against them. I would suspect that having guns in your house results in a lot more accidental deaths, including children finding the guns and shooting themselves, but not any real positive benefit.

Mass gun ownership in a community isn't a crime deterrent unless the criminal realizes there's mass gun ownership.

Then it definitely would be a deterrent.

In most cases, the criminal is not aware of gun ownership statistics in the community, but simply knows that any homeowner or business owner may be armed.

This actually does deter many criminals from engaging in crimes where a gunbattle may occur.

There is a subset of criminals which doesn't give a shit and will take their chances, but unlike the bad guys you see on TV, criminals typically do value their lives, and they assess risk to themselves before committing premeditated crime.

Don't believe me?

Consider Donald Trump.

He's one of the most hated US politicians I've ever seen. And by "hated", I mean that those who dislike him tend to really hate him.

Why hasn't he been assassinated yet? Why hasn't there been a single shot fired at him since he got elected? Shouldn't at least one of his many fanatical haters want to be the one to kill him?

The answer is simple: As fanatical and crazy as some Trump haters are, almost all of them are aware that attempting to kill a President (especially a controversial one) will result in getting yourself killed without successfully harming him. Thus, we're through a year in office, and not a single shot has been fired at Trump. The would-be assassins are afraid for their lives.

Same goes for most criminals. Most do not want an armed confrontation. Most are aware that invading homes or businesses may lead to such a confrontation.

Remove that deterrent, and we are in trouble.

*** NOTE to Secret Service agents reading this post: I don't love Trump, but I don't hate him, and I'm not advocating anyone harming him.

[hongkonger]

People forget the first recent mass shooting was that guy from a perch at the University of Texas in the 60s, he clipped like 15. Then there was the McDonalds shooting in San Deigo I believe in the early 80s of like 25.

This is not a new deal, what is new is the frequency. It's not a proliferation of guns, rather a proliferation of the internet. In the past, a loser was simply a loser and they generally just ended up homeless or in jail or tending a cash register. Now they go onto the internet and try to become a modern day Charles Mason or worse a sniper.

The Texas tower shooter had a brain tumour bigger than Marty's goiter. Freak occurrence.

[blake]

I don't know if any study has looked at this, but I don't think that mass gun ownership in a community is a crime deterrent. I also don't really think that people that have guns in the house have less crimes committed against them. I would suspect that having guns in your house results in a lot more accidental deaths, including children finding the guns and shooting themselves, but not any real positive benefit.

Mass gun ownership in a community isn't a crime deterrent unless the criminal realizes there's mass gun ownership.

Then it definitely would be a deterrent.

In most cases, the criminal is not aware of gun ownership statistics in the community, but simply knows that any homeowner or business owner may be armed.

This actually does deter many criminals from engaging in crimes where a gunbattle may occur.

There is a subset of criminals which doesn't give a shit and will take their chances, but unlike the bad guys you see on TV, criminals typically do value their lives, and they assess risk to themselves before committing premeditated crime.

Don't believe me?

Consider Donald Trump.

He's one of the most hated US politicians I've ever seen. And by "hated", I mean that those who dislike him tend to really hate him.

Why hasn't he been assassinated yet? Why hasn't there been a single shot fired at him since he got elected? Shouldn't at least one of his many fanatical haters want to be the one to kill him?

The answer is simple: As fanatical and crazy as some Trump haters are, almost all of them are aware that attempting to kill a President (especially a controversial one) will result in getting yourself killed without successfully harming him. Thus, we're through a year in office, and not a single shot has been fired at Trump. The would-be assassins are afraid for their lives.

Same goes for most criminals. Most do not want an armed confrontation. Most are aware that invading homes or businesses may lead to such a confrontation.

Remove that deterrent, and we are in trouble.

*** NOTE to Secret Service agents reading this post: I don't love Trump, but I don't hate him, and I'm not advocating anyone harming him.

a quick google search seems to suggest just the opposite; that mass residential gun ownership has zero effect as a crime deterrent and somehow seems to be an indicator of higher crime rates. seems like the people doing these studies are legitimate, but i obv don't know

https://www.livescience.com/51446-gu...ter-crime.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926

The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like...

The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

[Dan Druff]

Mass gun ownership in a community isn't a crime deterrent unless the criminal realizes there's mass gun ownership.

Then it definitely would be a deterrent.

In most cases, the criminal is not aware of gun ownership statistics in the community, but simply knows that any homeowner or business owner may be armed.

This actually does deter many criminals from engaging in crimes where a gunbattle may occur.

There is a subset of criminals which doesn't give a shit and will take their chances, but unlike the bad guys you see on TV, criminals typically do value their lives, and they assess risk to themselves before committing premeditated crime.

Don't believe me?

Consider Donald Trump.

He's one of the most hated US politicians I've ever seen. And by "hated", I mean that those who dislike him tend to really hate him.

Why hasn't he been assassinated yet? Why hasn't there been a single shot fired at him since he got elected? Shouldn't at least one of his many fanatical haters want to be the one to kill him?

The answer is simple: As fanatical and crazy as some Trump haters are, almost all of them are aware that attempting to kill a President (especially a controversial one) will result in getting yourself killed without successfully harming him. Thus, we're through a year in office, and not a single shot has been fired at Trump. The would-be assassins are afraid for their lives.

Same goes for most criminals. Most do not want an armed confrontation. Most are aware that invading homes or businesses may lead to such a confrontation.

Remove that deterrent, and we are in trouble.

*** NOTE to Secret Service agents reading this post: I don't love Trump, but I don't hate him, and I'm not advocating anyone harming him.

a quick google search seems to suggest just the opposite; that mass residential gun ownership has zero effect as a crime deterrent and somehow seems to be an indicator of higher crime rates. seems like the people doing these studies are legitimate, but i obv don't know

https://www.livescience.com/51446-gu...ter-crime.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926

The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like...

The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.

Well, but that could simply mean that mass gun ownership takes place in areas where there is more of a legitimate fear of existing crime.

The only way to test if mass gun ownership would bring down crime would be to heavily arm an area without especially high crime, and where they weren't previously heavily armed. Then make that arming public. Then see what happens to crime rates.

Otherwise there's just way too many variables.

In general, I don't believe a criminal often thinks, "Oh wow, gun ownership in this neighborhood is high, I'll stay away!"

However, if guns were outlawed, then criminals WOULD think, "If I break into this house, nobody will shoot me."

[lol wow]

also can we have a preemptive moment of silence for when not if sonatine shoots up a bait shop we called him a snacktive shooter years before

[sonatine]

zero bait used in spey casting.



zero.

[lol wow]

i refuse to google if thats right bait shop plays

[Hockey Guy]

Yeah, doing absolutely fucking nothing is obviously the better play.

That doesn’t change my point. Try responding to that.

How do you know it won't have an effect on the shootings at issue? You don't, so you have no fucking point.

Don't bother responding to that because you have absolutely zero sources or data to back up your claim it will have no effect.

[FPS_Russia]

22:04 yes he was taking medication, i bet he's tried all of them at some point. So they should prohibit firearms from people under 25 and on any psych meds but the media and the politicians wouldn't dare give their big donor some bad PR. It's no surprise this happened in Debbie "are you meeting your diversity quotas" Schultz's neck of the woods either. He complained about getting bullied and no one doing nothing.

The bottom line is the overwhelming majority are against massive non white immigration so close the fuckin border. Oh yeah, DWS probably stole the election fr Tim Canova too.

[Hockey Guy]

Tellafriend: Sure sport

Maybe Max Power is right. You really are team retard.

[lol wow]

is this where we talk about how adderall is amazing and everyone should be on it

[lol wow]

like it fucks with ur dick a little bit but its sooo good

[lol wow]

we see you nic cruz not getting that addy script

[lol wow]

POKER FraUD ALERT LITERALLY SYMPATHIZES WITH YOU NIKOLAS CRUZ

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

I wouldn't even have the energy to get out of bed in the evening much less shoot up the school without adderall. That part is impressive.