Dirt McGirt
Bad Mother****er
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,773
- Reaction score
- 504
- Points
- 48
Maineman brought up an interesting question. Let's put it to a poll.
I don't think arming students is the answer. IMO, it would have a much better chance of making the situation worse.
There isn't an answer. As someone else stated, it's going to happen. I don't see arming students as the answer for most of the reasons listed above.I voted yes just to be contrarian.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. The truth is, while tragic, these sorts of shootings are an anomoly.
After the Lubby's shooting in Texas a few years back, the CCW laws were changed to be less restrictive. There were several customers who had guns in their cars but were unable to carry them into the eatery because of the law. More than one law enforcement official stated that had they been allowed to carry their gun on their person, the Lubby's shooting would have result in far fewer deaths.
While I don't think allowing everyone to pack heat is necessarily a good idea, I think some would be less inclined to start shooting up a place if they think someone in the crowd is likely to shoot back.
There is simply no way of knowing whether there would have been fewer deaths had a gun at the time of that shooting. Also, it isn't a matter of a fewer deaths for those who have died and who have lost a loved one as a result of a shooting. What you also fail to mention is that the gunmen would also have been able to have a gun on him just like the other customers. All it would take is someone walking out of the bathroom seeing a responder shooting the gunmen for them to shoot the wrong person. That person would have to live with the knowledge that they shot and killed a person who was trying to save lives because they too were trying to save lives but got the wrong guy. Those who claimed there would have been fewer deaths if customers had guns cannot be sure of this. On the contrary there could have been more deaths or worst there could be more of these types of shootings. A guy eating lunch with his girlfriend learns that she cheated on him and he pulls out the gun and shoots her. Someone then reacts by reaching for a gun and he shoots them and from their he shoots several others before shooting himself or being shot. Had he been forced to return to his vehicle to get the gun he may have seriously re-considered his choice or the girlfriend could have recognized what he was planning to do and warned everyone.I voted yes just to be contrarian.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. The truth is, while tragic, these sorts of shootings are an anomoly.
After the Lubby's shooting in Texas a few years back, the CCW laws were changed to be less restrictive. There were several customers who had guns in their cars but were unable to carry them into the eatery because of the law. More than one law enforcement official stated that had they been allowed to carry their gun on their person, the Lubby's shooting would have result in far fewer deaths.
You seem to be arguing that these people are sane while arguing that they are insane. You cannot have it both ways. These people will not be less inclined if they knew someeone else had a gun. On the contrary they are probably more likely to do this kind of thing because they know that someone will do for them what they are afraid to do to themselves which is take their lives. This isn't a bank robber, or a would-be rapist who flees from a scene when a gun is pulled instead they have already lost perspective and the best thing for us to do in these type of situations is to prevent them from having the gun in the most violatile places such as courtrooms, schools, colleges, jails, and other government buildings where there is a higher risk of a shooting taking place. The restaurant incident may have been prevented had the owner had a gun and used it but the reality is that had everyone been allowed to bring a gun into that restaurant it is more likely that a shooting would have taken place before it did.While I don't think allowing everyone to pack heat is necessarily a good idea, I think some would be less inclined to start shooting up a place if they think someone in the crowd is likely to shoot back.
ITA. An armed and well-trained security force with good visible surveillance and communications could have made short work of this nut. No, they would not have been able to anticipate and stop his initial onslaught, but they could have at least identified and analyzed and reacted to the situation in a far more timely manner than actually happened.Edward,
You are indeed right that some situations may be excacerbated by the presence of firearms. If others had guns, if someone exited the restroom, if the manager had a gun, if the shooter had a CCW, if college students had the option to carry, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
There is no way to foresee all the possibilities. There is no way to stop these types of crimes through legislation. There is no way of knowing who will snap, who is crazy to begin with, who will suffer a jealous rage. There are too many variables. But I do know that if someone were armed and reasonably skilled with a handgun, a person intent on inflicting a maximum amount of pain and carnage would have a harder time of it when confronted by armed resistance.
No. Like some kid in the cafeteria who has a concealed weapon and shoots a guy using a knife in a threatening manner but hits 3 bystanders in the process. I guarantee you the parents of the 3 bystanders would sue the school over any policy that allows concealed weapons in that situation.like a party gone wrong on friday night....![]()