Crime Maine shooting - 18 dead

[panamaican]

Thanks for completely making up stuff I didn't say.

This has nothing to do with action movies dude. Let me make this as crystal clear as I can for you.

• Gun free zones need to go away. If they're government/state controlled locations that need that designation for whatever reason they need to provide adequate security to deal with physical threats.
• Citizens who can legally carry should be given the OPPORTUNITY to do so in locations such as this bowling alley.
• Physical security is a known deterrent for all by the most determined criminals.
• Feel free to check out r/dgu on Reddit for real life examples of people not freezing up.

I think you're missing the core of their argument here. Whether you label a place a "gun free zone" or not, you're always going to have places where people aren't carrying guns and people who want to commit this type of violence will always seek those places out. These are not individuals randomly deciding to start shooting. They are individuals who have scoped out their target locations and often scoped out multiple locations before settling on the location that gives them the greatest advantage.

Simply removing gun free zones affects none of that. Simply letting more people carry firearms affects none of that because the shooters are planning their attacks. There's always a chance for a good guy with a gun but the assailants are choosing minimal resistance targets.

Let's say you stop making schools gun free zones. So what? Are teachers going to suddenly all become licensed and proficient gun owners who bring their weapons to work and are always focused on the potential of a mass shooting? Or will it remain a location filled with people focused on teaching children where the adults are siloed away from each other with minimal communication about the dangers on the premises in real time? Take a hospital -- are we really expecting a bunch of doctors, nurses and lab teachs to be wandering the halls with open carry firearms, attuned to the danger that the random individual who walked into the ER is intending to starting shooting indiscriminately? Or will they be attuned to their patients and regular activities. Pick any location outside of a gun range or actively hostile environment and it's the same situation. Gun free zones aren't the problem and eliminating them isn't a solution because it ignores that regular people aren't walking around prepared to deal with violent shooting. And by the time they've switched to that mindset, a bunch of people will already be dead.

For your position to work, everyone would have to be always dialed in to dealing with mass shooters and so live their lives prepared that way. Might as well live in a war zone if that's the only solution.

 

[spamking]

We’d still have more gun deaths this way. Security and police didn’t stop that school shooting a couple years back. But let’s imagine it stops more than half of mass shootings. You can’t ignore that most gun deaths don’t even come from mass shootings. The more guns there are the more deaths there are. Families who own guns are more likely to be involved in homicide or suicide. You overestimate peoples’ ability to keep their cool. I don’t want to live in s county where every heated argument is solved with someone waving a gun in front of my face. We need some gun reform

I'm not ignoring that most gun deaths don't come from mass shootings. Not sure where you're getting that.

Mass shootings are rare. The criteria of what is or isn't a mass shooting changes to fit the gun control freak's narrative. They use it to push their desires to ban the evil AR-15.

There are people who carry daily without any issues. We're not itching to be in a gun fight.

 

[spamking]

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...un-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings

I realise it's counterproductive to engage religious people with logic, I'm just curious what the answer will be: If gunmen pick gunfree zones, why don't they pick say, Ireland or Italy or other similar countries? After all, criminals don't follow laws, so there's no point in having them. That's why there are all the napalm helicopter attacks going on, as napalm helicopters are banned. Only a good guy with a napalm helicopter stops a bad guy with a napalm helicopter! Also the government has them, so the Well Regulated Militia needs them too, to prevent tyranny. As we know as soon as you heavily restrict guns Pol Pot immediately comes and puts everyone in extermination camps, as has happened in the UK and New Zealand.

As soon as you begin to use logic let me know . . .

 

[oldshadow]

I think you're missing the core of their argument here. Whether you label a place a "gun free zone" or not, you're always going to have places where people aren't carrying guns and people who want to commit this type of violence will always seek those places out. These are not individuals randomly deciding to start shooting. They are individuals who have scoped out their target locations and often scoped out multiple locations before settling on the location that gives them the greatest advantage.

Simply removing gun free zones affects none of that. Simply letting more people carry firearms affects none of that because the shooters are planning their attacks. There's always a chance for a good guy with a gun but the assailants are choosing minimal resistance targets.

Let's say you stop making schools gun free zones. So what? Are teachers going to suddenly all become licensed and proficient gun owners who bring their weapons to work and are always focused on the potential of a mass shooting? Or will it remain a location filled with people focused on teaching children where the adults are siloed away from each other with minimal communication about the dangers on the premises in real time? Take a hospital -- are we really expecting a bunch of doctors, nurses and lab teachs to be wandering the halls with open carry firearms, attuned to the danger that the random individual who walked into the ER is intending to starting shooting indiscriminately? Or will they be attuned to their patients and regular activities. Pick any location outside of a gun range or actively hostile environment and it's the same situation. Gun free zones aren't the problem and eliminating them isn't a solution because it ignores that regular people aren't walking around prepared to deal with violent shooting. And by the time they've switched to that mindset, a bunch of people will already be dead.

For your position to work, everyone would have to be always dialed in to dealing with mass shooters and so live their lives prepared that way. Might as well live in a war zone if that's the only solution.

There are certain government areas I understand being gun free like courts and schools and some other. But that should be secured other ways and limited to only certain areas.

Private business should be able to allow or not allow guns as they please. However then they should be responsible for security for their business.

 

[HomeCheese]

I'm not ignoring that most gun deaths don't come from mass shootings. Not sure where you're getting that.

Mass shootings are rare. The criteria of what is or isn't a mass shooting changes to fit the gun control freak's narrative. They use it to push their desires to ban the evil AR-15.

There are people who carry daily without any issues. We're not itching to be in a gun fight.

Yup, narrative around mass shootings is skewed. More often than not mass shootings center abound domestic violence, most involve a past or present romantic partner. Much of the regular shootings do too. I member of my family was killed by her husband in this way. He was a legal gun owner, ammo sexual type. Afraid to be without a gun, had fancy bullets. Fucking pussy.

 

[spamking]

I think you're missing the core of their argument here. Whether you label a place a "gun free zone" or not, you're always going to have places where people aren't carrying guns and people who want to commit this type of violence will always seek those places out. These are not individuals randomly deciding to start shooting. They are individuals who have scoped out their target locations and often scoped out multiple locations before settling on the location that gives them the greatest advantage.

I'm not missing anything. I actually already discussed this . . . there have been cases where these people scoped out a place and chose to not attack it due to the security. Of course they're going to find the spot that gives them the greatest advantage and least resistance. Today, that is a gun free zone without any meaningful security.

Simply removing gun free zones affects none of that. Simply letting more people carry firearms affects none of that because the shooters are planning their attacks. There's always a chance for a good guy with a gun but the assailants are choosing minimal resistance targets.

Sigh. Again, I've already said that making the changes I've suggested won't stop every criminal from carrying out a shooting.

Let's say you stop making schools gun free zones. So what? Are teachers going to suddenly all become licensed and proficient gun owners who bring their weapons to work and are always focused on the potential of a mass shooting? Or will it remain a location filled with people focused on teaching children where the adults are siloed away from each other with minimal communication about the dangers on the premises in real time?

I've never said to remove the gun free zone designation from schools. That's one of the locations where much improved physical security is needed so the teachers can focus on teaching. Security would worry about making their environment as secure as possible.

Take a hospital -- are we really expecting a bunch of doctors, nurses and lab teachs to be wandering the halls with open carry firearms, attuned to the danger that the random individual who walked into the ER is intending to starting shooting indiscriminately? Or will they be attuned to their patients and regular activities.

Yes . . . this is exactly what I've said. Why are you purposefully ignoring what I have actually said and going with all of this ridiculous hyperbole?

Pick any location outside of a gun range or actively hostile environment and it's the same situation. Gun free zones aren't the problem and eliminating them isn't a solution because it ignores that regular people aren't walking around prepared to deal with violent shooting. And by the time they've switched to that mindset, a bunch of people will already be dead.

I never said everyone who carries is a SWAT officer. And the fact that you don't think gun free zones are a problem invalidates your entire post.

For your position to work, everyone would have to be always dialed in to dealing with mass shooters and so live their lives prepared that way. Might as well live in a war zone if that's the only solution.

Nope. You're once again arguing things I've not said and trying to reframe my comments to support your misinterpretation.

 

[panamaican]

There are certain government areas I understand being gun free like courts and schools and some other. But that should be secured other ways and limited to only certain areas.

Private business should be able to allow or not allow guns as they please. However then they should be responsible for security for their business.

Sure, it just won't have any effect on mass shootings. Let's say the barber and convenience are both gun free zone. The convenience decides to stop being a gun free zone...the mass shooter is still going to go shoot someplace. It's not a better situation to say "well they shot up the barber shop instead, so that's a win." It's not, it's still a societal loss.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not missing anything. I actually already discussed this . . . there have been cases where these people scoped out a place and chose to not attack it due to the security. Of course they're going to find the spot that gives them the greatest advantage and least resistance. Today, that is a gun free zone without any meaningful security.



Sigh. Again, I've already said that making the changes I've suggested won't stop every criminal from carrying out a shooting.



I've never said to remove the gun free zone designation from schools. That's one of the locations where much improved physical security is needed so the teachers can focus on teaching. Security would worry about making their environment as secure as possible.



Yes . . . this is exactly what I've said. Why are you purposefully ignoring what I have actually said and going with all of this ridiculous hyperbole?



I never said everyone who carries is a SWAT officer. And the fact that you don't think gun free zones are a problem invalidates your entire post.



Nope. You're once again arguing things I've not said and trying to reframe my comments to support your misinterpretation.

Definitely still missed the point. And I never reframed any of your comments, I explained why your comments don't make sense in the context of their comments.

It's pretty simple. If mass shooters target gun free zones, removing gun free zones isn't going to stop mass shooters from picking soft targets. They just have to do a little more homework before doing so. What does that solve?

The problem with your line of argument, as it relates to gun free zones, is that it assigns the existence of gun free zones a larger role in the shooter's decision making than it deserves. Mass shooters aren't becoming mass shooters because of gun free zones. When cycling through potential targets, gun free zones are easier targets to settle on. But the perpetrator is going to settle on a target one way or the other.

That he shoots up Target A instead of Target B isn't a better outcome.

 

[andnowweknow]

You know the answer, its why your finger is hovering over the report button.

 

[spamking]

Definitely still missed the point. And I never reframed any of your comments, I explained why your comments don't make sense in the context of their comments.

It's pretty simple. If mass shooters target gun free zones, removing gun free zones isn't going to stop mass shooters from picking soft targets. They just have to do a little more homework before doing so. What does that solve?

The problem with your line of argument, as it relates to gun free zones, is that it assigns the existence of gun free zones a larger role in the shooter's decision making than it deserves. Mass shooters aren't becoming mass shooters because of gun free zones. When cycling through potential targets, gun free zones are easier targets to settle on. But the perpetrator is going to settle on a target one way or the other.

That he shoots up Target A instead of Target B isn't a better outcome.

Holy crap . . . you're unbelievable.

 

[spamking]

Sure, it just won't have any effect on mass shootings. Let's say the barber and convenience are both gun free zone. The convenience decides to stop being a gun free zone...the mass shooter is still going to go shoot someplace. It's not a better situation to say "well they shot up the barber shop instead, so that's a win." It's not, it's still a societal loss.

Mass shootings are rare. Yet Everytown still uses them to push their larger goal of more gun control.



Neither @oldshadow or I have said doing away with gun free zones would prevent 100% of mass shootings, but you're absolutely ridiculous to say it won't affect them. We're also not saying that not shooting up location A is better than shooting up location B.

The ENTIRE premise of what I'm saying is that people need to be given the chance to defend themselves and not be sitting ducks in a soft target.

 

[oldshadow]

Sure, it just won't have any effect on mass shootings. Let's say the barber and convenience are both gun free zone. The convenience decides to stop being a gun free zone...the mass shooter is still going to go shoot someplace. It's not a better situation to say "well they shot up the barber shop instead, so that's a win." It's not, it's still a societal loss.

I understand that point but that gives people the choice if they want to carry then they can avoid business that don't allow it knowing it is a soft target. That's the difference and choice you make to become a soft target. Which is the whole point.

Your point is it will not stop them if their are other soft targets. Which is true but it limits their soft targets. The more hard targets the harder it is for a mass shooter.

 

[Larzon]

Americans love guns more than they love their children. What a bizzare society

 

[Claude]

First I have used a firearm in self-defense so yes its a required freedom. That happens 1.5 to 2.5 million times a year depending on which study you believe, the Clinton pushed study or the NRA. The overwhelming majority without a shot fired. Of course we love our freedoms and rights. Which by the way our constitution doesn't give us it just limits the government restrictions that can be placed on them. Our view is you are born with rights not that the government allows them. That's not the normal in most countries.

It's great you got to play Rambo and shoot the bad guys, but the large majority of americans haven't got that privilege and never will. Not to mention, the reason many americans feel the need to own a gun to defend themselves is... drumroll...

Bad guys owning guns.

And why do bad guys own guns? Well, because it's their right.

As shown by statistics, more guns =/= more safety. Otherwise the US would be safer in this regard than other developed countries. You can't fool those facts.

How is a country say Switzerland have more freedoms say civil rights. Let's compare freedom of speech and not our 2nd amendment.

Switzerland has hate speech laws. It's against the law to hurt someone's feelings. Our first amendment is much less restricted.

Now if you consider the government being a "nanny " state to be a freedom then that's different.

I'm not saying other countries have to be like the US. It's up to them what they want.

Well, I'm pretty sure the swiss are torn for not being able to use hate speech, but at least they aren't afraid their children will get shot at school. I mean if you ask me, I'd rather have the freedom of the swiss, 100%.

You don't need to cherry pick. This is what the Human Freedom Index takes into account, so you can do a full comparison.

• Rule of law
• Security and safety
• Movement
• Religion
• Association, assembly, and civil society
• Expression and information
• Relationships
• Size of government
• Legal system and property rights
• Sound money
• Freedom to trade internationally
• Regulation

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2022

With freedom and rights come responsibly and sometimes misuse of some of those rights and freedoms. That's were laws come in which we have plenty of for sure considering guns.


I'm sure all of this is wasted some you can continue with debating like a 12 year old if you want.

You're 29 in the freedom index. Several countries are doing better than you without that useless, dumb right. Easy gun access isn't making you more free, it's making you more afraid.

Cheers.

 

[Claude]

There’s nothing that gun laws can do about this

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-this-weekend-gun-violence-police/13988521/

All developed countries with strict gun laws that don't have that problem disagree.

 

[Claude]

Spoken like someone who has now clue what our laws actually are as it relates to firearms.

LOL do you really want to argue that the US has strict gun laws compared to other developed countries?

You just described your chain of posts on here.

Nope, comparing vehicles to guns is a false equivalence fallacy. Sorry.

 

[Claude]

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...un-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings

I realise it's counterproductive to engage religious people with logic, I'm just curious what the answer will be: If gunmen pick gunfree zones, why don't they pick say, Ireland or Italy or other similar countries? After all, criminals don't follow laws, so there's no point in having them. That's why there are all the napalm helicopter attacks going on, as napalm helicopters are banned. Only a good guy with a napalm helicopter stops a bad guy with a napalm helicopter! Also the government has them, so the Well Regulated Militia needs them too, to prevent tyranny. As we know as soon as you heavily restrict guns Pol Pot immediately comes and puts everyone in extermination camps, as has happened in the UK and New Zealand.

Yup. His entire " bad guys targeting gun-free zones" argument is pretty silly anyway. By his logic, Europe would be a disaster when it comes to mass shootings.

 

[oldshadow]

It's great you got to play Rambo and shoot the bad guys, but the large majority of americans haven't got that privilege and never will. Not to mention, the reason many americans feel the need to own a gun to defend themselves is... drumroll...

Bad guys owning guns.

And why do bad guys own guns? Well, because it's their right.

As shown by statistics, more guns =/= more safety. Otherwise the US would be safer in this regard than other developed countries. You can't fool those facts.



Well, I'm pretty sure the swiss are torn for not being able to use hate speech, but at least they aren't afraid their children will get shot at school. I mean if you ask me, I'd rather have the freedom of the swiss, 100%.

You don't need to cherry pick. This is what the Human Freedom Index takes into account, so you can do a full comparison.

• Rule of law
• Security and safety
• Movement
• Religion
• Association, assembly, and civil society
• Expression and information
• Relationships
• Size of government
• Legal system and property rights
• Sound money
• Freedom to trade internationally
• Regulation

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2022



You're 29 in the freedom index. Several countries are doing better than you without that useless, dumb right. Easy gun access isn't making you more free, it's making you more afraid.

Cheers.

Where did I say I played Rambo. That's your bullshit idea.

Like I said guns are used in self defense 1.5 to 2.5 million times a year approximately. The overwhelming times never fired. The anti gun like to count only times the gun is fired as self-defense and that's bullshit. The same as counting suicide on any figures.

Like I said you are counting benefits by the state as rights and freedom which are not rights. You have no rights the government doesn't give you in most countries. They don't view right as being born to you they are at the whim of the government.

If that's how you want to live who am I to question your choice.

I don't live in fear. I live prepared to protect myself and family. Wither it be from a fire and other dangers. Being prepared is not about fear it's about responsibility. My responsibility to my family.
If anyone doesn't want or believe in guns or self defense that's their right here in the US.

But you do you and do what you want and live where you like under the laws and restrictions you like.

 

[pinger]

Americans love guns more than they love their children. What a bizzare society

It's the extension of individual over society that has ruined their country

 

[djacobox372]

Americans love guns more than they love their children. What a bizzare society

Stop it with this hyperbole. You know that isn't it.

An unarmed society is at the mercy of it's leadership, or whoever else is armed.

Many Americans, including those who founded this country, rightfully fear tyranny and oppression more than they fear their anarchy more than their neighbor.

For me it's just a matter of simple statistics:

The odds of my child being murdered in a mass shooting is roughly 1 in 500,000.

I calculate the odds of my child being killed due to civil unrest or societal collapse for one of many reasons to be at least 100 times higher than that.

If those odds were to change I would change my opinion.