Good Guy with a Gun

[Antiboyscout]

People with Felonies are not legally allowed to own a firearm. That is already the law.

The problem with the "mentally ill" ban is inherent to the poor quality of mental healthcare in the US and the fluidity of the term.
Narcoleptic's are "mentally ill" are they not allowed to own guns?
More importantly is that no one is ever cured of a mental illness, you only get treatment and go in "remission"
You check into a mental health facility with depression because a loved one died? Well now you can't own a gun ever again.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Also on the subject of the Pulse example, several of the innocent people killed there were shot BY the police.

More lethal firepower is not likely to decrease the number of causalities.

[Admiral X]

Indeed. Which is specifically why I stated we need proactive solutions that address the fundamental factors of gun violence. Pretty much anything else wouldn't actually solve the problem of mass shootings.

Unfortunately short of mind reading or precognition, I do not believe there is any way to solve this problem, other than to discourage them by limiting the number of "gun-free" zones.

As an example, let's imagine the Pulse shooting in this kind of perfect gun utopia. Even if there were no restrictions on it, why would you assume that anyone else in the building would have a gun? Unless your solution is to literally force everyone to be armed at all times, there will always be situations where the Good Guy with a Gun is not present, and so could not intervene.

The whole idea with concealed carry isn't that everyone would be or even should be, it's to keep any would-be bad actors guessing and to perhaps deter them from carrying out any attacks due to that uncertainty. Notice how these shootings all take place in areas that have been designated as "gun-free." So, really all that would be needed would be for more states to adopt a "shall issue" stance on CCW permits and for more businesses and institutions to allow permit holders to actually carry on their premises. If that's the case then it would be more often than not the case that there would be someone there who was armed. And even if not, so what? The idea is to keep them guessing to begin with.

You would be waiting for the police either way. Now let's assume that there is a Good Guy with a Gun at Pulse. What's the guarantee that they're not one of the first people killed when the Bad Guy opens fire?

Because no one would know they were armed until they pulled their weapon. That's the whole point of concealed carry and why I'm leery of people advocating for open carry.

Having a public safety policy contingent on so many factors in order to be successful, and even in the best case scenario still resulting in injuries at the least, is completely inexcusable, and to be blunt, immoral.

I'll never understand the mentality that because there are risks that everyone should just be satisfied with having no chance at all rather than a limited one, and just accept being fish in a barrel.

You know what other people are leery of? Randomly being shot as they go about their day to day lives. Why should your feelings trump theirs?

Oh, my bad, let me just completely forget about Wounded Knee, Sandy Creek, and so many other massacres that were immediately preceded by a demand to disarm, and just accept the warm embrace of that government you can't seem to decide is systemically racist or not. The government is mother, the government is father.

In a very real sense, yes, countries are mostly the same as each other. Despite cultural, religious, legal, and traditional differences, people are essentially the same wherever you go.

No they aren't. Is this hay seed from the middle of no where more well-traveled than you are? Shit, just within different regions in this country there are plenty of differences in culture from many different factors, let alone when you get into other countries. But that right there is what sets us apart from most other countries, which are much more homogenous than the US is.

[Admiral X]

Couldn't we at least TRY some kind of gun control? Like, enact TEMPORARY legislation set to expire after a year unless we renew it, then SEE if the massive deaths stop.

We already have plenty of laws on the books, and we already have a hard time enforcing those.

Wouldn't it be worth it, even if we could just reduce the mass shootings to "Once every two months"? Isn't it worth the attempt if it saves countless innocent lives?

Oh, I don't know, is stuff like the Patriot Act worth it if it catches more terrorists? I mean, isn't it worth it just to give up some liberty to feel like we have a bit more security? I mean, come on you guys...

Also on the subject of the Pulse example, several of the innocent people killed there were shot BY the police.

More lethal firepower is not likely to decrease the number of causalities.

This argument makes no sense.

[Wild_Kraken]

Unfortunately short of mind reading or precognition, I do not believe there is any way to solve this problem, other than to discourage them by limiting the number of "gun-free" zones.

Except the actual way to solve the problem is to have stricter gun control. You know, the people of Australia aren't telepathic, and yet they don't have these sorts of massive and random gun shootings. Same with pretty much every country in Europe and Japan and many others. So obviously there is a solution that doesn't require precognition.

The whole idea with concealed carry isn't that everyone would be or even should be, it's to keep any would-be bad actors guessing and to perhaps deter them from carrying out any attacks due to that uncertainty. Notice how these shootings all take place in areas that have been designated as "gun-free." So, really all that would be needed would be for more states to adopt a "shall issue" stance on CCW permits and for more businesses and institutions to allow permit holders to actually carry on their premises. If that's the case then it would be more often than not the case that there would be someone there who was armed. And even if not, so what? The idea is to keep them guessing to begin with.

The idea that a mass shooter will be deterred by the possibility of there maybe being someone with a gun in the area is extremely unlikely, since it's self evident that mass shooters don't care about their own survival. Very rarely is a mass shooter taken into custody because the last person they kill is often themselves.

Additionally, this sort of analysis of a situation, plotting out the likelihood that someone in the area is concealed carry, isn't something that a mentally disturbed person is going to do anyway. Do you think Adam Lanza was doing serious cost benefit analysis and charting various ways he could maximized the number of children he could murder?

Additionally additionally, if this already weak deterrence fails, then all of the same problems that I pointed out before still exist. There's no guarantee that GoodGunGuy will be there, that GoodGunGuy isn't incapacitated in the initial moments, that GoodGunGuy will know how to solve the problem, etc. etc.

I'll never understand the mentality that because there are risks that everyone should just be satisfied with having no chance at all rather than a limited one, and just accept being fish in a barrel.

You are assuming that these sorts of random mass shootings are just a natural and immutable part of the human experience. They are not. These mass shootings are very much a problem that can be reduced down to essentially zero. It's not that people want to be a fish in a barrel, it's that they *don't* want to be a fish in a barrel, that they don't want to ever be put in that situation. And the fact that every other developed country doesn't suffer from these mass shootings is proof that people don't have to be put in that situation.

Oh, my bad, let me just completely forget about Wounded Knee, Sandy Creek, and so many other massacres that were immediately preceded by a demand to disarm, and just accept the warm embrace of that government you can't seem to decide is systemically racist or not. The government is mother, the government is father.

The idea that the average citizen being armed will somehow save them from aggression from the government is a fallacy, and not supported by historical evidence. The Branch Dividians were heavily armed, that did not stop the government from destroying them. The Weaver family was also heavily armed. That didn't save them either. Owning a weapon does not in any way protect you from the government, so this argument against gun control is a non sequiter.

No they aren't. Is this hay seed from the middle of no where more well-traveled than you are? Shit, just within different regions in this country there are plenty of differences in culture from many different factors, let alone when you get into other countries. But that right there is what sets us apart from most other countries, which are much more homogenous than the US is.

America is an extremely homogeneous country. Perhaps not in terms of climate, but in terms of culture, yes. You can travel from one end of America to the other without ever hearing a language other than English, for example. But in actual heterogeneous countries like India or even China you'll notice an extreme variation in languages and cultures wherever you go. To say nothing of European countries or Asian or African countries.

But that's really not the issue here. As demonstrated with my Vinyl chloride example, there are some policies that don't care about a country's culture in order to work or not. Gun control is one such policy self-evidently, because two radically different nations in terms of culture, Japan and Australia, both have strict gun control and both lack the sort of mass shootings America has.

But to even go one step further, and to perhaps grant that it's possible that, sure, cultures can just be so radically different from one another that certain policies will not work, even accepting that premise, that's not a good enough reason to not try gun control, because America and Australia, culturally speaking, are extremely similar. I know this first hand, I've lived extended periods of time in both of them. So if gun control can work with Australian culture, it's likely to work with American culture.

[Antiboyscout]

Your example is two island nations that both can and do strictly control what comes in and out of their country? You also downplay the similarities Australia has with its mother country especially with regards to an overbearing nanny state. (try releasing or buying an M rated game there for example)

China is only a peaceful country thanks to its police state. Just look at the situation in the Northwest and Tibet. Is that the kind of "safety" you want?

On the other hand, please explain the anomalies of Switzerland and The Czech Republic with their lax gun laws and non-existent shootings.

In the end, how many acid attacks in the UK and truck attacks in France have to happen before you realize that, the problem wasn't solved, Europe just found a way to avoid it for a long time.

[Wild_Kraken]

Your example is two island nations that both can and do strictly control what comes in and out of their country? You also downplay the similarities Australia has with its mother country especially with regards to an overbearing nanny state. (try releasing or buying an M rated game there for example)

Every country that has the ability to restricts and regulates the importation of goods into it, and every country, including Australia and Japan has criminals who smuggle contraband goods into them despite such restrictions. That being said, it's a complete red herring, since the guns used in these shootings aren't smuggled in illegally, but are purchased legally.

China is only a peaceful country thanks to its police state. Just look at the situation in the Northwest and Tibet. Is that the kind of "safety" you want?

This is a non sequitur. No one has mentioned China as an example of a gun control policy to emulate, but just an example of a heterogeneous state.

On the other hand, please explain the anomalies of Switzerland and The Czech Republic with their lax gun laws and non-existent shootings.

The idea that Switzerland doesn't have gun control is a myth. From the library of Congress:

Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.

So while those laws may not be as restrictive as in surrounding countries, the idea that Switzerland is some sort of gun utopia is incorrect.

In the end, how many acid attacks in the UK and truck attacks in France have to happen before you realize that, the problem wasn't solved, Europe just found a way to avoid it for a long time.

Mass shootings in America are different from terrorism in that for the most part, they're not politically motivated. Adam Lanza had no political motive. Stephen Paddock had no political motive. The most recent Church shooter seems to have no political motive, etc. Whereas the truck attacks are classic examples of terrorism. And terrorism is awful, and unfortunate, but the solutions for terrorism and the solutions for mass shootings aren't the same. As evidenced by France having issues with terrorism, but not so much the sort of mentally unhinged mass shooter like we have in America.

Also, didn't we have a truck attack in the United States not too long ago? We essentially live in the worst of both worlds. It would be easy to get rid of mass shootings, but no, we have to have that IN ADDITION TO terrorism.

[Antiboyscout]

China has 1 official language that 90% of the population speaks. Regions may have dialects, but so does the US.

[Antiboyscout]

The only shooting in recent memory with a legal firearm was the Las Vegas shooting. Typically, the guns are illegal black market or stolen. In the case of the Church shooter, he was able to buy a gun because the air force failed to inform the FBI that he was dishonorably discharged and was banned from purchasing them.

[The Romulan Republic]

People with Felonies are not legally allowed to own a firearm. That is already the law.

The problem with the "mentally ill" ban is inherent to the poor quality of mental healthcare in the US and the fluidity of the term.
Narcoleptic's are "mentally ill" are they not allowed to own guns?
More importantly is that no one is ever cured of a mental illness, you only get treatment and go in "remission"
You check into a mental health facility with depression because a loved one died? Well now you can't own a gun ever again.

Pretty sure I specified violently mentally ill. If not, my bad.

Also, slippery slope fallacy.