I don't think gun control stopped this......

[southgadawg 52]

I have heard all sorts of arguments in the past that you would stop mass killings if people didn't have access to guns (which I will go on the record of saying I don't believe it will eliminate them entirely).

 

 

But when I saw this a few minutes ago I was utterly shocked...28 DEAD at least and 113 total injured. WOW...with a knife.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

 

tragic

[Vin+ 3,121]

Too bad no one had a gun...

 

Maybe it's just me, but I think having someone come at you with a large knife would be infinitely more frightening than if someone pulled a gun.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Vin
redundant words

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Hmmm. Well, I think guns are scarier than knives in general, but... I think being stabbed repeatedly would be scarier than being shot. If that makes sense.

 

Anyway, this is pretty crazy. And honestly, stories like this aren't the only kind to use against anti-gun people. The VT massacre was performed with nothing but a normal, everyday handgun. You could try banning those if you want, but there's no way to ever get rid of them if someone wants to get one and kill people with it. The sad fact is we can't really prevent mass killings. There are some very sick people and plenty of opportunities for them to commit these acts. To take away gun ownership rights of all people just because a few go on mass killing sprees would not only be unfair, but ineffective. And the people who actually would obey the laws would be defenseless during home invasions, robberies, and other events of that nature. As Vin said, someone with a gun here could have saved a lot of innocent lives. I've been told that people carry guns with them everywhere in Alaska, and rarely do you hear of murders there. That could also be because of their small population, but I digress.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Obvious solution is to ban knives.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm assuming if he got that many people with a knife, it must've been a very dense, crowded area.

 

You want to introduce guns to a situation like that?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Why not? You don't have to shoot a gun for it to be an effective use of force. If you have a knife and someone points a gun at you and says, either you drop the knife or I will blow you away. What are you going to do?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I'm assuming if he got that many people with a knife, it must've been a very dense, crowded area.

 

You want to introduce guns to a situation like that?

 

Ah, here I was thinking this was a video game where friendly fire doesn't count.

 

Why not? You don't have to shoot a gun for it to be an effective use of force. If you have a knife and someone points a gun at you and says, either you drop the knife or I will blow you away. What are you going to do?

 

Something tells me a guy in a shoulder-to-shoulder crowd with a knife isn't going to discuss his options with you. And if he did, I imagine he'd call your bluff given the dense nature of the crowd.

[Vin+ 3,121]

It wasn't one guy, it was multiple people.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

On the flip side, how bad could this have been if they had guns?

[southgadawg 52]

Well basically it was the use of firepower that stopped the assailants. Who is to say that at the first hint of gunfire that many people would had hit the dirt or took cover in some way to limit the situation. Speculation on what might have happen (while good for what if's) doesn't really tell us anything because it is only speculation not a lab experiment where we can plug in and change variables to see how it affects the results.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

This is totally irrelevant to all things going on in this thread.

 

But south.

 

You need an avatar man...driving me insane. Enjoy your posts tho

[Thanatos 2,847]

On the flip side, how bad could this have been if they had guns?

 

The issue is not "how bad could this have been if they had guns." The issue is your disconnect with what would actually happen. A law passed against owning guns wont stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

On the flip side, how bad could this have been if they had guns?

 

The issue is not "how bad could this have been if they had guns." The issue is your disconnect with what would actually happen. A law passed against owning guns wont stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

 

 

That's not what I said, nor what I believe. I'm from the South. I like guns. If we're talking hypotheticals here (and we are), this massacre would have been exponentially worse if the attackers had guns.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

It does worry me that the commentary after a tragedy like this isn't something along the lines of... How does it get to this point? How do we stop this from happening in the future? And instead... Well, it would have been a lot worse if they had guns.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I personally don't see how mass murders could ever be prevented. As I said before, I think when people are sick enough to plan and carry out these acts, there are too many opportunities available to them. For example, I don't think there is any way to logically and physically prevent someone from entering a subway station and going on a shooting/stabbing spree. Is that a pessimistic way of thinking about things such as this? maybe, but I think it's pretty realistic. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop mass attacks? I don't know. It seems like a losing effort to me, no matter which way you slice it. If there was an actual way to stop people from doing school shootings and other rampage murders, obviously I would be highly in favor of those ideas... But sadly, I just don't see it.

 

I know that post wasn't directed at me. I was just expanding on my previous post.

[blotsfan 2,112]

It does worry me that the commentary after a tragedy like this isn't something along the lines of... How does it get to this point? How do we stop this from happening in the future? And instead... Well, it would have been a lot worse if they had guns.

 

You see the thread title. This was planned to be a gun control thread.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Oh absolutely. There will never be a point in society where this kind of thing will cease to exist. That's unrealistic to expect. However, there are underlying issues here that require both attention and effort to correct. The treatment and diagnosis of the mentally ill chief among them.

Merely sitting back and saying, "How tragic" just isn't a good enough response, IMO. Overlooking it because you know it will happen again contributes to the problem -- even though yes it will never completely be eradicated.

It just supports the theory that those in power are just looking to suppress more of our rights (not just here, obviously, but globally). These instances are convenient leverage for the anti-gun crowd and it detracts from the real issue(s).

 

EDIT:

Very aware, blots. lol

Edited March 2, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I dunno about shit like this, but school shootings can be slowed down substantially by placing SROs in every school(and if the school is extremely large, multiple SROs). I was shocked when I found out not every school had one, and I don't just mean some 400 pound security guard who walks around with no more than a badge and a flashlight. All the way back to elementary school, we always had an SRO, someone who was either a sherrif's deputy or a city police officer(they went through the police academy/training like every other cop does, just spend the school year in the schools every single day at all times).

 

People are going to be a lot less likely to walk in to a place with an intent to harm others if they know there's someone in there that's armed, and knows how to use their weapon.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

You would think so... but Columbine had at least 1 armed officer on duty, maybe more. And as hard up for funding as public schools are today--many can hardly even afford books and computers, let alone armed security--I just don't see that as a feasible or highly-effective solution.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

You would think so... but Columbine had at least 1 armed officer on duty, maybe more. And as hard up for funding as public schools are today--many can hardly even afford books and computers, let alone armed security--I just don't see that as a feasible or highly-effective solution.

 

The school does not pay the officer, at least they don't here. He's paid by either the city or the county, depending on who he works for(Sherrif, city). The school paying the officer would be an incredibly stupid system. The city or county managing the officer makes sure he stays up to date on his training and etc.

 

And yes, Columbine had an officer. The problem with that is that officer was outside of the school and when the shooters were entering, he was pretty far away. He did fire at them, but was unable to hit(they were 60 yards away). That was just a bad situation and the officer was out of his usual position(inside the school).

 

An SRO obviously doesn't stop every single school shooting that's ever happened, but it's a very good deterrent and can at least try and keep kids safe until more help arrives. If that SRO wasn't outside and 60 yards away, and instead inside, maybe he fends them off/kills them before they can kill any kids. Maybe he gets killed and doesn't even take one with him. Either way, it takes time away from them shooting at the kids and gives more time for help to arrive.

Edited March 2, 2014 by .AirMcNair.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Armed officers / guards may help keep some of the borderline folks in line, but I don't think it will stop the mentally crazed folks.

It's kind of like having cameras / signs in a store telling you not to steal. 98% of the time, those ar ejust there to keep people honest. Stores like Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc... They don't give a shit if you shoplift, lol.

 

I've mentioned this story before, but... I had a friend working at Lowes who actually got reprimanded for stopping a shoplifter walking out the door without paying. Takes them way too much effort to actually go after shoplifters -- it usually isn't worth their time and their policies reflect that.

Granted, very different situations but the point stands. I don't think armed guards will stop it... Although I guess I like the solution more than these no gun zones or whatever the hell they are which absolutely invites violence.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Armed officers / guards may help keep some of the borderline folks in line, but I don't think it will stop the mentally crazed folks.

 

It's kind of like having cameras / signs in a store telling you not to steal. 98% of the time, those ar ejust there to keep people honest. Stores like Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc... They don't give a shit if you shoplift, lol.

 

I've mentioned this story before, but... I had a friend working at Lowes who actually got reprimanded for stopping a shoplifter walking out the door without paying. Takes them way too much effort to actually go after shoplifters -- it usually isn't worth their time and their policies reflect that.

 

Granted, very different situations but the point stands. I don't think armed guards will stop it... Although I guess I like the solution more than these no gun zones or whatever the hell they are which absolutely invites violence.

 

The officer isn't there just to make the people look at say "oh, I don't wanna shoot up that school, they got an officer there". It's also for those people who give 0 fucks and would go in and shoot up the school even if it had a navy seal team waiting inside of it. He/she is there to not only deter, but to act in case of emergency as well.

 

Like you said, it's not going to stop them all, there's always a possibility that the officer does jack shit before having a bullet put in their head and a bunch of kids get killed anyway, but it's a safety precaution that all schools should have, because more often than not, that officer will make a difference. Whether it be scaring off the "borderline" people like you called it, or fending off the crazy ones that do try it.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Oh ya, absolutely. Like I said, I think it helps, but only nominally. It doesn't really deter the serious threats a campus environment may face, though.

 

Especially with a limited group of guards. I mean what stops somebody from shooting the single guard before killing everyone or just going to the other side of campus?

Goes back to what Sarge said though... There probably isn't anything that can be done to eradicate the issue. You just have to wonder if this is the best option to limit it as much as possible or if there is something else.

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

 

On the flip side, how bad could this have been if they had guns?

 

The issue is not "how bad could this have been if they had guns." The issue is your disconnect with what would actually happen. A law passed against owning guns wont stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

 

 

That's not what I said, nor what I believe. I'm from the South. I like guns. If we're talking hypotheticals here (and we are), this massacre would have been exponentially worse if the attackers had guns.

 

I get the feeling knives were used because they were the better choice for going into a closed-quarters crowd of people. A group of 10+ killed 29 and injured 130. I find it hard to believe that guns are going to greatly increase that number. These people aren't going to be going into this loaded out like Neo in the lobby scene.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Vin

[southgadawg 52]

Armed officers / guards may help keep some of the borderline folks in line, but I don't think it will stop the mentally crazed folks.

 

It's kind of like having cameras / signs in a store telling you not to steal. 98% of the time, those ar ejust there to keep people honest. Stores like Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc... They don't give a shit if you shoplift, lol.

 

I've mentioned this story before, but... I had a friend working at Lowes who actually got reprimanded for stopping a shoplifter walking out the door without paying. Takes them way too much effort to actually go after shoplifters -- it usually isn't worth their time and their policies reflect that.

 

Granted, very different situations but the point stands. I don't think armed guards will stop it... Although I guess I like the solution more than these no gun zones or whatever the hell they are which absolutely invites violence.

Not that this pertains much to the main topic but the real reason why Lowes and other large retailers don't want regular employees (those not trained for that specific situation) making stops on shoplifters is because just ONE bad stop can cost way more to that company than 1000 successful stops done right. Not necessarily that it isn't worth their time just that it doesn't make too much business sense for them to take that risk. (sorry for being specific on that).