Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriendFollow

Since I don't see a thread on the Ft. Hood shooting and this is a somewhat gun thread, I'll just post this here. After this latest shooting, gun proponents are touting how a gun stopped a person with a gun and if everyone had guns, then he wouldn't have done what he had done. So my question is, how do gang members kill each other? Don't they assume that each other have guns? Under that same logic, gang members wouldn't ever confront each other, only non gang members without guns.

The idea behind that theory is that your average Adam Lanza, who was just a disturbed man, would be intimidated by a figure who commands a weapon with authority. There's no easy answer, unfortunately.

The base commander has been having to say over and over again that there's no friggin way to search every single person going on base for illegal weapons. (Soldiers are not allowed to bring their personal guns on base.)

Alma and lolgaxe+1 can back me up on this when I say he's right. When I had to get on base as a kid, as long as your car had the appropriate sticker and you had your military ID and did not have a bunch of suspicious looking packages in your backseat, and you could name the building you were going to, they'd wave you through in about 15 seconds. Doing a pat down search of every occupant of every vehicle would be incredibly time consuming.

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 9:16am by Catwho

How about rubber weapons?

I think everyone should just be outfitted with an explosive collar.

And wear a tracking chip for that matter. No more wandering off at night, we just catch you and send you back to your kennel.

Sure. But since it's been loudly proclaimed in numerous threads about guns that no one is arguing for a repeal/removal of the 2nd amendment, that's not an option.

So the question is how you manage ownership and carrying of firearms in a manner which minimizes shootings and fatalities from shootings while preserving said rights. And allowing more people to carry tends to do just that. The folks who are planning on committing murder aren't going to stop because of a gun carry violation, right?



Again though, that's not an option, right?



It is amazing how often that "weak" thing happens though. Shooter keeps shooting right until the moment he's faced with armed opposition, then he runs away and/or shoots himself. How many times does that happen before we maybe conclude that it's the "we can't assume he wasn't going to just stop right then anyway" argument should be viewed as weak?

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 3:02pm by gbaji

I think that's the take away. What's the likelihood of a suicide shooter being afraid of being shot?

A better question would be how much enthusiasm I have. I'm gonna vote for guns for everyone and call it a night. Congratulations on your win.

Yay!

Wait! What kind of guns though? I'm sure there's something we can disagree on!

I think we can do both. The problem really is that there's very little data to support the idea that limits on carry (especially concealed carry) short of a full elimination of our 2nd amendment will reduce the total number of shootings, while there's lots of data that supports the idea that such limits do result in greater statistical fatalities/injuries when shootings do occur. Yet, limiting carry (and ownership) rights is the first (and often only) solution proposed by some people in response to shootings like this.

You're creating an either/or situation where none has to exist. There are tons of other social factors we can look at that cause these sorts of shooting events to occur, and which we could look into in an attempt to reduce their occurrence rate. I just think that some people put their anti-gun agenda ahead of the real problem here. Every solution is "fewer guns" in their minds. That's a problem.



I'm not sure what the "other way around" you're talking about is. Was there anything specifically about the conditions of the firearm purchase that you think we could change? I haven't been following this shooting that closely, so I'm honestly not aware of the details in this regard. Did this guy have a history of mental illness? Anything that the store owner could have clued in on? Anything we could remotely tie legislation to?

Cause barring that, we're left with the broad "just make it harder for everyone to own/use/carry a firearm". Which isn't really a solution IMO. Presumably, the guy who's fixated on killing a bunch of people in some kind of blaze of glory thing, is going to be far more willing to go through whatever hoops to obtain a gun (including going around any legal obstacles if needed), while the guy who thinks "maybe I'll buy a gun for home protection, just in case" is far more likely to be prevented from doing so by additional obstacles. So are we really helping the problem? Or just using it to pursue an agenda?

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 5:13pm by gbaji

Maybe that George Thorogood guy.