We need to be specific about what we're talking about here in terms of crime. This incident was a mass shooting, and most of the debate and news coverage when it comes to shooting is about mass shootings. When we talk about mass shootings (where 4 or more are murdered) with gangs, we're not looking at the same factors because they don't have the same motivations, so the method to stop them is different.
The gun control folks don't care about specifics. If they did, this entire conversation (we have as a society) would be different.
An armed populace can act as a deterrent when we're talking about crimes where the criminal actually wants to live and intends on getting away. If we're talking about robberies, home invasions, or a drunk attacking you and your family--yes, a gun is a deterrent.
It is not a deterrent, meaning, it does not dissuade someone from killing people if they're only goal is to kill as many people as they can and then either kill themselves, or have a death by cop suicide. When we're talking about mass shootings, what you're talking about is just how to minimize casualties, but it does not to deter someone that doesn't care about their life. There is always going to be some soft target, or a way to catch people off guard if the goal is just to murder.
I never said that there wouldn't still be murders. I'm saying that regardless of where they happen, armed resistance can dissuade all but the most determined criminal most of the time.
The gun culture that I am talking about is people that think a gun is a toy, or a tool to be used to solve a problem and intimidate others. This whole "Fuck around and find out" culture that gives a lot of guys fake confidence and dares people to try them. Showing up to protests with guns as a means to intimidate instead of using words and debate to get your points across.
Those people are complete tools and while might be a legal gun owner aren't the cream of the crop by any means. If showing up at a protest with a gun influences the situation, then why don't you see that allowing competent people to carry in these stupid gun free zones would as well?
A person that recognizes the danger that a gun has should also recognize the importance of training and competence---but that recognition gets completely ignored because of these delusions about them one day having to fight aliens, zombies, or the US military when it turns communist.
Really? Those nut jobs usually form their own militias and get put on some watchlist.
It wouldn't be something that happened over night. Culture takes time to change. It's not just an issue with training anyways so that's not going to be the magic fix. But generally speaking, people that have to go through more steps are proving their competence and responsibility in the process.
Let's be real here . . . there are multiple groups with their own "gun culture" that you're referring to. Some might change and become more responsible and others won't even consider it.
Let's not pretend as if this is just about "rights". Weaponry is a very particular thing we're talking about that extends past the individual. This isn't like voting or speech. We're talking about dangerous weapons that can be turned on the public. The idea that it violates your rights to check your competency with a weapon that you want to bring out to the public is just absurd to me.
Would you not agree that more people have died due to our votes? So you're okay if we check competency before folks are allowed to vote? Or if we required them to get a voter ID?
You're all for selective accountability it seems.
Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.
I'm all for penalizing people that break the law, but I think it is equally, if not more important to not give them obvious openings to harm people in the first place.
This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say lose the gun free zones and if they must exist in some locations provide better, hardened security.
I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun ownership, and "trust me, bro, I'm responsible" isn't a workable system in a country with hundreds of million people when we're talking about something that has the potential to cause so much destruction in that brief a time period.
I'm against irresponsible people in general . . . whether it's gun ownership, driving, having a kid or voting. The latter having the potential to cause much more long-term destruction.
I think you misunderstood my last point. I'm not saying you or anyone else WANTS to be in a mass shooting, or wants a chance to shoot other people. I am saying that you are putting the responsibility of your want to own certain guns on society, and leaving none for the gun holders. You don't want the responsibility of proving your competence to have a dangerous weapon in public, but you want the public to instead "be responsible" by buying their own weapons to protect themselves from would-be mass shooters.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. I like many others have completed the required training and obtained the state issued permits to carry. If the public is responsible for buying their own weapons they become gun holders.
And again, this doesn't even address the problem. More guns is more bullets flying, and that's supposed to be safer?
People don't want to address the mental health aspect for some reason. People don't want to point out the actual demographics involved in gun violence. We as individuals can only address our own issues and hopefully contribute to addressing them on a larger scale.
You're talking about YOUR individual safety and YOUR individual chance to survive, it might be better for you, but it isn't better for society. At the end of the day, this isn't about safety for you, that's not as important to you as your "right" to have the gun. I think that's where part of the disconnect is on some of these debates is that the priorities aren't the same.
Yeah, you are completely disconnected with what I've said and my stance on this issue.