Dallas Church Shooting

[Blake]

97.8% of public mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones

Less than 20% of gun crimes are committed by law-abiding gun owners

From '07-'15 overall murder rates fell by 18% while the percentage of concealed carry permits increased by 190%

Right because most shooters research if the zone is gun free before they fire away

[benefactor]

Glad the situation was neutralized quickly tbh. Props to the old man for staying calm.

[RandomGuy]

When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

[Spurminator]

I'm not sure you'll find many people opposed to the idea of hiring more trained officers to police gun-free zones.

The problematic argument is the idea that there shouldn't be any gun free zones, or that arming more of the citizenry will prevent gun violence. Those arguments are supported on theory alone.

[DMX7]

this is laughably dumb and naiive looool

Just about every other western country says "what?".

[Trill Clinton]

just need more gun laws and we can strive for better

Knew it was a SAWM. Probably a trump fanatic too.

[DMC]

If the point is maximizing collateral damage before your death, of course you pick a soft target. My point is it's not like they expect to go back home afterward and never get caught. The ers probably fantasize about hitting multiple places first.

Given this guy's history it shouldn't be difficult to find holes in the process that lead to his owning or acquiring a gun. Blanket statements like "more gun control won't help" avoid discussion of specific gun control tactics that might. Same goes for blanket "we need fewer guns."

The guy in Sutherland Springs church had riot gear on. He wasn't planning on dying there. The guy in Vegas locked himself into a room. These people wanted to kill a lot of people.

The gun control debate deteriorates because one side is ignorant on existing gun control measures, and the other is unwilling to consider them worthy debate opponents because of it. If you can make sense with your suggestions without ignoring existing efforts, and show you are aware of the facts, I'm sure there are enough people near the middle that would listen. So far all I've seen are "we need things to be better" comments, and basic claims that facts are the same as semantics.

[DMC]

Knew it was a SAWM. Probably a trump fanatic too.

Race baiter right on time.

[DMC]

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.

[Spurminator]

The guy in Sutherland Springs church had riot gear on. He wasn't planning on dying there. The guy in Vegas locked himself into a room. These people wanted to kill a lot of people.

They were both planning on dying somewhere, they just wanted to kill as many people as possible first. You cannot reasonably conclude that either of these guys expected to survive.

The gun control debate deteriorates because one side is ignorant on existing gun control measures, and the other is unwilling to consider them worthy debate opponents because of it.

Both sides are plenty ignorant of existing gun control measures. When one side says "We should discuss them," the other side says "There's no point in discussing it, in fact we're going to ban tax-funded studies of such measures, and BTW look over here at these cherry-picked statistics and whatabout Chicago?"

[DMX7]

People die every day in car crashes ergo seatbelts don't save lives.

Proxy is saying that 45 people dead or 2 people dead are BOTH BAD outcomes. Yes, DUH, one of those outcomes is clearly worse than the other, but the much better outcome would be to reduce the frequency with which these shooting events happen (no shooting = no dead) by making it harder for madmen to get guns like they do in most other civilized western countries.

We can still have armed security guards like at this church knowing that gun control only reduces these incidents and doesn't totally eliminate them.

[RandomGuy]

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.

The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.

Let's skip that part. It's boring.

I am having a hard time seeing the point to the OP. you are trying for. Someone shot someone else.

So what?

[DMC]

They were both planning on dying somewhere, they just wanted to kill as many people as possible first.

So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.

Both sides are plenty ignorant of existing gun control measures. When one side says "We should discuss them," the other side says "There's no point in discussing it, in fact we're going to ban tax-funded studies of such measures, and BTW look over here at these cherry-picked statistics and whatabout Chicago?"

You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.

[Blake]

So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.


You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.

Good Lord you're ignorant.

I like the part where you accuse "the left" of making assumptions and then jump right into your assumptions of the left.

[DMC]

The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.

Let's skip that part. It's boring.

I am having a hard time seeing the point to the OP. you are trying for. Someone shot someone else.

So what?

Your "simple question" is a strawman. You made a caricature of the actual point being made by suggesting "more guns everywhere" was suggested as a solution. I shouldn't need to point that out to you. The fact you haven't provided a quote where it was suggested proves my point.

The mitigating act in this case was that someone who would otherwise have been a likely victim was armed and able to engage the shooter. There didn't need to be "guns everywhere". There only needed to be people willing and able to address the threat. The guy who killed the shooter only used one gun.

One thing for sure, there was one gun being brought into what was being considered a soft target. That wasn't something those inside had any control over. They could only provide resistance, and they did. Their ability to do so effectively made the difference. It's why many of them are still alive today.

[ElNono]

The NRA isn't about gun control. Laws affect law abiding people. The NRA's membership list is full of law abiding people. Of course they are interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of those people.

The issue is about wanting to kill a lot of people. It's futile to think you can change people's mindsets short term. It's not futile to think you can mitigate the damage these people do, and in turn make the would-be types reconsider their soft targets. I doubt many of these shooters would walk into an area and open fire if they knew they'd likely be killed after the 1st or 2nd shot.

The NRA is absolutely about gun control (if we understand gun control to include regulation). They have a track record of opposing regulation of most kind, mostly under the slippery-slope boogeyman.

And I disagree about the deterrent factor, especially these days. Suicidal people are, suicidal. This is why it’s become much more important to preclude these people from having access to their destruction tools of choice.

[DMC]

Good Lord you're ignorant

ironic coming from you.

[Blake]

ironic coming from you.

Countdown until you start arguing out of emotion

[DMC]

The NRA is absolutely about gun control (if we understand gun control to include regulation). They have a track record of opposing regulation of most kind, mostly under the slippery-slope boogeyman.

And I disagree about the deterrent factor, especially these days. Suicidal people are, suicidal. This is why it’s become much more important to preclude these people from having access to their destruction tools of choice.

Gun control exists outside of the NRA. They lobby against it. So the NRA isn't about controlling guns but about the 2nd Amendment (mostly about making money). It's like saying free speech advocates are about restricting free speech, because they lobby against laws that restrict free speech.


Are you saying these shooters don't intentionally pick soft targets? Surely you know better.

[DMC]

So what's your point? Aren't you saying what I initially stated? The difference is they could all have committed suicide but went way out of their ways to kill as many as possible.


You're wrong. It's very common for the left to make assumptions about existing gun laws because A) they don't own guns and B) they don't study it, and the right has to point out the facts to them. This is when "semantics" gets tossed around like facts don't matter. The left argues from emotion mostly.

The sides are not equal.

Countdown until you start arguing out of emotion

Do you have anything to add to the topic or just here to bite ankles?

[Blake]

Do you have anything to add to the topic or just here to bite ankles?

You really want a response to "the left argues from emotion mostly"?

no, that's such a ridiculously stupid statement, you don't get a response. I'm just gonna make fun of your ignorance.

[ElNono]

Gun control exists outside of the NRA. They lobby against it. So the NRA isn't about controlling guns but about the 2nd Amendment (mostly about making money). It's like saying free speech advocates are about restricting free speech, because they lobby against laws that restrict free speech.

Free speech advocates are absolutely about speech control. What isn’t clear about that? They prefer no exceptions despite that there are clear regulations to speech.

The NRA isn’t only interested in gun ownership/possession issues, but the overall gun discussion, like background checks, etc. it’d be ridiculous to try to deny they’re an important obstacle to any gun regulation at all.

Are you saying these shooters don't intentionally pick soft targets? Surely you know better.

If I wanted to say that, I would. I didn’t. Suicidal individuals that want to do massive damage are actually even more justification for sensible regulation.

[Spurtacular]

Glad the situation was neutralized quickly tbh.

Apparently that's not a success to your fellow chumpettes; but you're not gonna call them out, are you snitch factor?

[RandomGuy]

Not really amazing, merely the likely result of having so many guns. Eventually someone will try a mass shooting in a place where there are armed people, and this will be the result, i.e. fewer casualties.

Does this mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

When you decide to stop pretending these shooters aren't intentionally finding soft targets, maybe something you say will make sense. He didn't roll the dice and come up with a church.

Shooters will look for soft targets. Find a different strawman.

Now what?

Does that mean that having more guns everywhere will make us safer?

That last line is the strawman.

Show me who suggested there should be more guns everywhere. You're just one stupid comment after another. This is why you're just one notch above Boutons.

The last line is a simple question, germane to the topic. I didn't represent it as your opinion, so it is not a strawman.

This is normally the point where I ask you to fit my statement into the definition of a strawman, and you get pissy because I call you out on your misapplication of logic, and resort to insults.

Your "simple question" is a strawman. You made a caricature of the actual point being made by suggesting "more guns everywhere" was suggested as a solution. I shouldn't need to point that out to you. The fact you haven't provided a quote where it was suggested proves my point.

I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question trying to determine what your actual position on gun control and safety actually is. The fact you can't fit my question into any reasonable construct of the fallacy proves my point.

Since you seem to be hung up on the boring part, let me be more explicit.

I have seen many gun advocates suggest that more guns everywhere will make people in general safer. Do you agree with that or not? Why or why not?

[DMC]

Proxy is saying that 45 people dead or 2 people dead are BOTH BAD outcomes. Yes, DUH, one of those outcomes is clearly worse than the other, but the much better outcome would be to reduce the frequency with which these shooting events happen (no shooting = no dead) by making it harder for madmen to get guns like they do in most other civilized western countries.

We can still have armed security guards like at this church knowing that gun control only reduces these incidents and doesn't totally eliminate them.

But my point is that neither you nor I can personally create the scenario you're talking about. A realistic measure beats wishful thinking.