Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Strawman
How so?
If you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion that's what you get.
And no one in their right mind would think that every man and woman of proper carrying age and background holding a weapon would make the world entirely safe from gun violence. That's a patently absurd narrative to tout.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not really because the logic is flawed. It can be applied to anything. You can kill someone with a textbook. You can kill people with many of the chemicals found in high school science labs. You can drown someone in a sink of water. Kill them with sports equipment. None of them are weapons and all of them have an actual purpose that is non-weapon related.
Eh, you're wasting your time. Gun nuts love that "anything can be used as a weapon" go-to argument.
But stabbing someone and shooting them are two very different experiences:
Stabbing is up close and personal. Shooting someone is very impersonal.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How so?If you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion that's what you get.
And no one in their right mind would think that every man and woman of proper carrying age and background holding a weapon would make the world entirely safe from gun violence. That's a patently absurd narrative to tout.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So the NRA just needs to work harder and make sure every man, woman, and child is armed at all times.Don't know why they keep slackin'.
Quote the people actually making the above argument.
I was meaning to be a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "man, woman, and child"...
but anyway...
Originally posted by Silent Master
You are aware that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, right?
Implicit in this statement is that more people need to be armed for defense.
So I was just carrying the idea to its absurd conclusion.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not really because the logic is flawed. It can be applied to anything. You can kill someone with a textbook. You can kill people with many of the chemicals found in high school science labs. You can drown someone in a sink of water. Kill them with sports equipment. None of them are weapons and all of them have an actual purpose that is non-weapon related.
And none of those things you named would really do much good against an armed psychopath either.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And none of those things you named would really do much good against an armed psychopath either.
Not sure a teacher with a gun would either. Trained police have a measured accuracy rate of 30% that falls to 18% when under fire. In 2012 in New York police injured 9 bystanders taking down a shooter.
Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, strawmanning.
Okay, well I'll refine it a little for you then...
"Every responsible, capable, sane, well-trained, lawful owner armed for defense."
That's a lovely ideal, but it's damn near impossible to achieve at this point and would require extensive background checks and very slow access to weapons (Although, I think that's how Japan does it and it works very well for them, it takes months of applications and training to get a gun). But that ain't gonna fly in a country where owning a piece of machinery specifically designed to be deadly is a "right."
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Gun free zones don't really have any meaningful way of being effective though. If they're surrounded by non gun-free zones with no actual way to prevent guns for passing in an out of them.
Exactly right.
Unless one wants a police.state, or thinks eliminating guns world wide is viable (Not banning, completely doing away with existing guns and the capacity to manufacture them), then gun free zones don't work, as you say.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm fully aware of weapons being useful as a deterrent to burglaries, robberies, etc.
What I'm asking is if you are aware of the sheer scale of difference between gun murders and DGU's?
But what we're talking about here is troubled psychopaths shooting a place up oftentimes intending to die. So why would they care if a teacher is armed?Hell, they might even think it would be more fun that way. F*cked up as that may seem, it wouldn't surprise me.
And if the presence of weapons does not deter a shooter it is possible that the weapons themselves will be able to stop him. I know you will say "well if he knows there are guns he can go after those with the guns first" and to that I'd say...they should not advertise which teachers are armed. There are holsters that can be hidden within your pants that can give you quick and easy access, they don't need to walk around with a gun visibly on their hips like a cop.
And assuming a school had a few teachers that were armed...perhaps he could take out one by surprise, but after shots are fired the other armed teachers would be alerted.