So, my bigger problem with the Florida shooting is that EVERYONE saw this guy as a flashing red "Gonna kill someone" guy, to the point where his classmates would joke that he would be the one to do the shooting if a shooting did happen.
He wasn't allowed on school grounds with a backpack. He had disciplinary action for anger/violence.
But nothing happened, and no one tried to stop this enough beforehand.
Even the FBI dropped the ball after a post on a youtube comment section that the guy wanted to be a mass murderer, when they didn't investigate far enough to find him and narrow it down to the guy with disciplinary problems and lots of guns.
That's the problem.
The societal irresponsibility, whatever lack of protections/common sense to take this killer into a police room and confront him with what he might be planning due to his attitudes/comments, the fecklessness of FBI investigators...
And above all else, the full responsibility for every death rests on this guys shoulders.
We just need to REALLY look at WHY these people keep killing others, and find ways to identify and stop them.
Because hearing "Oh, we knew he was a problem, but did nothing." needs to stop.
Admiral X wrote:They aren't the first to actually do that, though. There was another place back east that passed a similar law back in the '80s because a neighboring town banned handgun ownership. I can't remember where exactly, though, but I remember it being talked about with the same kind of doom and gloom anti-gun types who swore blood would run in the streets and that there'd be old west style duels, and naturally it didn't actually happen. Of course, as I recall, they didn't really enforce the law, and I doubt that this place will either. Just as with the "individual mandate" of the ACA, mandating someone purchase something is not something that's going to go over well in this country.
There are exceptions allowed in that law too, for a number of reasonable reasons. Still, it's a city where you KNOW everyone is going to be armed, at least in their own homes. I'd feel quite safe there, because I'm not worried about legal gun owners who are law abiding citizens.
Also, the crime in the few towns/cities that have mandatory gun ownership is VERY low.
excalibur wrote:In a perfect world sense, I believe if everyone is allowed to own guns, no real restrictions and the word out on the street to all criminals that anybody, man, woman or old people can be armed and are willing to defend themselves, there might be less petty crime because criminals are afraid of getting shot as much as anyone else. Criminals want to take the least amount of risk possible, that's why there's so much petty crime in the world. The thugs out there think they can just rob or attack people without any danger to themselves. Let them known everyone that they see as a potential target is armed, they might think twice. Of course, I encourage anyone who owns a gun to get proper training and practice good safety.
Actually, the nature of crime and what crimes happen in gun controlled vs guns legal areas isn't often talked about in mainstream debates.
Not many people mention that, in many places in Europe, "hot" break ins are more common than "cold" break ins.
Because a Hot Break In is when the criminals rob a house while the residents are home, in the hopes of getting more valuables in worn jewelry/pocket cash/credit cards/etc.
Cold Break Ins are done when the residents are away from the house, to avoid contact with residents.
The latter is more common in the US, and other Guns Legal countries, due to criminals not wanting to risk a confrontation with an armed homeowner.