Mandatory Guns

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Right, and this newer post is you ENGAGING with the links that this person provided, explaining why you consider them invalid, rather than just pushing your own claim and talking over them. See what I mean?

[Nevix]

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.

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.

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.

[excalibur]

That's exactly my point. An armed society deters criminals, petty ones specifically. Muggers, robbers, burglars, etc. They want the least amount of risk as possible and if they know ahead of time that their intended target is armed and willing to kill them over some money or trinkets, that'll make them rethink their life. Of course you can't deter all criminals but a person that is allow to defend themselves and equipped with the proper tools is safer than being defenseless


The issue I have is people assume a gun is some sort of cursed item in a game where the moment you pick it up, it enables you to commit evil deeds. They want to blame the tools used instead of the person using it or ask the question of why? Why did they do it? What triggered it? What could of been done to engaged the person before hand? It's not as simple as saying if that guy didn't get a gun, he wouldn't do it or worse it becomes a number game and people would heartlessly say he would have killed LESS people.

[TGLS]

or worse it becomes a number game and people would heartlessly say he would have killed LESS people.

And what? Having crazy people kill less people is a bad thing?

[excalibur]

or worse it becomes a number game and people would heartlessly say he would have killed LESS people.

And what? Having crazy people kill less people is a bad thing?

No, it's the "It could of been worse" mentality. It doesn't solve the underlying problem that it happened regardless. It's like saying you caused a car accident but you had good brakes so it could have been worse vs if you had bad brakes. The key point you caused a terrible thing to happen.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That's exactly my point. An armed society deters criminals, petty ones specifically. Muggers, robbers, burglars, etc. They want the least amount of risk as possible and if they know ahead of time that their intended target is armed and willing to kill them over some money or trinkets, that'll make them rethink their life. Of course you can't deter all criminals but a person that is allow to defend themselves and equipped with the proper tools is safer than being defenseless

The problem with your thinking is that this only addresses >>career criminals<<. Burglars, muggers, gangsters, etc., these people are doing risk-benefit analysis because they are driven by a profit motive and the need for survival.
I need you to remember that some people are very, VERY bad at calculating risk. Watch an episode of WTFIWWY sometime. People, especially desperate people, might not plan well. There was a man who went shoplifting...during SHOP WITH A COP DAY. People who rob banks and then post about it on social media. Generally, you become a career criminal because you cannot obtain your goals in a chosen line of work, which often means you were bad at planning to start with. And when the stakes are high for failure, well, you don't always act in the spirit of enlightened self-interest.

Then, there are the other killers.

The mass shootings we keep hearing about are not driven by a profit motive. They are not driven by self-interest and profit motive and rational plans. They are enacted as part of a racial "holy war". They are enacted out of xenophobia and hatred. They are enacted because some angsty white boy feels he has nothing to live for and wants his name in the newspapers as a badass lone-wolf antihero. They are enacted for reasons that we will never understand because the killer eventually turned the gun on himself.

These people will not be deterred by other people having guns. These people are the ones blowing away innocent lives like tin cans on a fence in theaters, in schools, and in churches. These are the people who will only be made more dangerous by the "everyone should have guns" plans.

[excalibur]

I understand but please keep in mind that these incidents, though tragic they may be only account for less than 1% of all violent crimes in America and yet they get 100% of media coverage. Why? Just this passed year alone, the city of Chicago had over 600 + homicides related to gang violence and almost 100% of the firearms used were illegally obtained. This is a much bigger problem and more easily preventable than a lone gunman who is crazy and out for blood. We can't truly stop people from snapping unless we observe them. Notice that all these high profile mass shootings only happen in places where they know for a fact that people will be unarmed. Schools in particular are legally gun free zones, which has been largely ineffective. There had been less mass shootings in schools before this law was passed in the 90s and since there, all these incidents happen in gun free zones.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm gonna ask for a citation from you on the crime ratios, but I suspect the reason why they get coverage is because they are so senseless. Profit motive and survival are drives we understand.

[excalibur]

So why not any coverage to the tons of gang related crime that happens on a daily basis in major cities? More people have been killed by gangs than mass shooters

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

As I said, senselessness is one reason. Gangs work on profit motive, tribalism, territory, things that we understand even if we don't condone the actions. On a more cynical side, I'd say that they might not get as much coverage because gangsters mostly kill other gangsters, and people in economically distressed inner city areas, thus allowing much of the population to go "sucks to be them, not my problem." The mass shootings, on the other hand, could happen anywhere, any time. Everyone goes to school at some point. Most people go to churches, theaters, and concerts, so it makes the problem more immediate and personal.

I'd still like to see a citation of some kind confirming that mass shootings get more media coverage, and that they make up a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by more economic-driven crime.