How To Create a School Shooter

[myth-one.com]

Today it's reached my immediate neighborhood! Ten dead, ten wounded in the school shooting in Santa Fe -- yet we never edge closer to understanding why.

Let me propose an example of how we create school shooters:

A child is routinely bullied because he is different in some way. But schools have a "zero tolerance" for bullying. So the principal separates the student being bullied from those bullying him.

The effect is to ostracize the student even more as he sits alone at an assigned separate table during lunch -- his few "friends" remaining with the crowd.

He consoles himself during lunch and every other spare second with his only true friend -- as he remains bent over his smart phone playing video games.

His favorites are the combat games, in which the basic goal is to kill the most zombies, ghosts, aliens, or whatever. They are the enemy. He learns to excel at these games.

The more he plays, the more he views himself as a winner.

He has two worlds -- the real world and the video world. In one, he's an ostracized failure. In the other, he's always a winner.

If time moves on without some external change in his real world, there will always remain the possibility that he might switch his real miserable world with his pleasurable fantasy world.

Real guns are readily available, he knows the rules of the game, and the definition of winner and loser are well-defined!

It's simply a matter of execution on his part:

Do I have the "courage?" The entire world would be discussing my body count. I would go viral! I would be famous! I would no longer be ignored!

But one simple act by one individual might prevent one of these tragic events.

When you see someone alone, ask if you can join them. Shake their hand, try to say something complimentary, or even hug them!

And now abideth faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love.

Be that external change in someone's life. Love them.

================================================================

Another day, another school shooting.

Guns everywhere, government incompetent to do anything, and education has reached new lows.

I'm just a damn fool, and I had to say something.

We need to discuss this!

Anyone got any new ideas?

[Clownboat]

Hmmm. I have already attempted to explain that the whole purpose of banning small arms is to minimise the access criminals and the mentally disturbed might have to them.

This argument ignores all those that use firearms to save lives.
It also ignores that fact that you will only successfully remove firearms from those that abide by the law. Criminal by definition do not abide by the law. This is important.

And if you think a hunting rifle, or even a semi-automatic assault weapon, is some kind of guarantee of freedom, you are sadly deluded.

Did you enjoy defeating that strawman?

Neither is much use against an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, or a cruise missile, or...

And here you continue.
Be well.

[Clownboat]

Here is where you lose me. I abide by the law. You can take my guns, but it would be foolish to think that criminals will then not use their tool (gun) to take advantage of those they perceive to be weaker.

But if they are caught with it they'd be in far more trouble, they have this one great reason to deescalate.

Criminals are not banking on getting caught. They are banking on not getting caught while committing their crimes. Therefore, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do little except to empower criminals.

So I own them to hunt.

I will grant you, that's a good reason for owning guns.

Others own them to prevent being raped again (or for the 1st time).
Some to help them feel safer in their own homes or when they are on the streets.

So feeling safe then.

And to preventing rape, muggings and even mass shootings.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas ... index.html
(CNN)The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren't for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said.

When Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire inside First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday, Stephen Willeford, who lives near the church, grabbed his own gun and ran out of the house barefoot to confront the gunman.

Some just enjoy target shooting. Ever shot clay pigeons? Lots o fun IMO.

That you can do without having access to them outside of specific locations.

Once again, zero focus on criminals and their ability to have firearms.

We are still free here in America. This includes using our land for what we see fit so long as we are not breaking any laws. You are not describing America.
In North Korea, you are free to choose which available haircut you will have. That type of 'freedom' is also not the kind of freedom we enjoy here.

Mace can do that too.

So you acknowledge the self confidence a firearm can provide to some women, yet you would seek to remove it as a tool?
Why should we seek out something that in effect will remove the firearm from the said rape victim while doing nothing about the firearm that said rapist used to commit the rape?

I would need to see stats on that as my dealings with bullies would suggest just the opposite. Bullies prey on the weak after all.

But they can prey just fine, now with less risk.

Sounds like you are seeking to reduce the risk that criminals have when commiting crimes. Why not argue for reduced sentences for raping (for example)? That would decrease the risk for rapists as well.
I would argue that we should increase 'risk' for criminals.

The police rarely prevent the crime though. They arrive after the fact to take a statement (assuming your still alive of course).

Presumablly then to try and apprehend the criminals.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Why can't you have your police to feel safe while gun owners can have their gun to feel safe?

Because that is less safe.

False, and demonstrably so I believe.
Again, I don't have firearms and ammo in my home, but if I did, I could better protect myself and my family with them, compared to calling the police after the criminal has had his way with us and departed. Especially if the criminal is the only one of us that has a firearm and especially, especially if the criminal has murdered us.

Simple. You seem to have a desire to remove guns from law abiding citizens, thus making all homes (besides those of criminals) gun free and a preferred target for criminals.

That doesn't answer my question, why does that seemed counter intuitive to my end goal?

I honestly thought your end goal was to prevent violent crimes. Providing a mechanism for violent criminals to have guns while not allowing law abiding citizens to have firearms is counter inuitive.
Perhaps I don't know your end goal?

I am not able to share this victim mentality with you. Apparently I'm just not capable.

So fight him with your Sai.

Fighting a criminal with my Sai would also be counter intuitive to gaining this victim mentality.
Why can I defend myself and my family with a Sai, but not with a firearm though? You do know criminals have access to firearms.

I am not arguing that you should own a gun, but you are in fact seeking to remove that right from law abiding citizens.

Noted, I am seeking to do that.

Also note that you are seeking to impose your will, while I seek to allow those that wish to protect themselves with tools that are also available to criminals that would do them harm.

Personally, I see 'your will' in this matter as irrelevent. The right to self preservation. That I see as very relevant.

Afterwards plus paperwork, but they did end up catching the prep afterwards. My stuff was never recovered though.

Imagine you were trained on how to use a firearm and you were carrying that day. Its possible that your stuff would have been protected and that is because you had the ability to protect yourself (and you likely would have had to do nothing more than show that you were not defenseless). Obviously in your scenario, you were incapable of protecting yourself, much like how many rape victims are incapable of protecting themselves without additional tools.
Taking tools that help us to protect ourselves just so criminals can feel safer seems illogical.

I would agree that self preservation is a human right and I acknowlege the hundreds of thousands if not millions that are preserved due to firearms. You are actively seeking to remove the best tool many have to protect themselves. Shame on you?

Nah, I am just saying the cost is too great and the comparative better choice is to ban the access to said tool.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are preserved due to firearms. What about the cost of removing self preservation via firearms?
Other means are not as effective. Not everyone can use a Sai after all.

More gun deaths in gun free zones would suggest just how wrong you are.

You will notice that many of the guns involved in these mass shooting incidents are legally obtained.

One of many reason as to why you will fail to remove guns from criminals. Felons can order gun kits off the internet for example, so what good would removing my guns (assuming I'm law abiding) do? If I witnessed a mass shooting, you would have taken my ability to stop it away.

I have repeatedly said that "I" don't own guns to repel my government nor any government. So why would you have me join the police or army?

Because you kept talking about the mentality of not leaving others to do the protecting. And yet here you are, with the victim mentality of needing the government to take care of them for a feeling of safety.

This doesn't follow.
My argument is that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves. Joining the police or the military does not accomplish this.

I suggest that you are not well informed on the mentality of bullies. The weaker the prey, the more confident the bully. A rape victim that you have removed of having their firearm is now weaker and this weakness will be projected to the bully.

A confident bully is a less trigger happy bully too.

You didn't address the projecting of confidence that some would be rape victims project due to the confidence they have when they feel safer for having a firearm on them.
Either way, I urge you to stop empowering criminals. It is counter productive to a safe community to have empowerd criminals.

It was never claimed that it did, but should we just glance over the 162,000 lives that would have been ended if not for defensive gun use?

Yes, due to the cost involved.

Please describe this cost. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Specifically, what cost is incurred because I own firearms. Make a good argument and perhaps I'll willingly give up my guns.

[Bust Nak]

Criminals are not banking on getting caught. They are banking on not getting caught while committing their crimes.

Right, but that doesn't mean they won't take precautions in case they get caught.

Therefore, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do little except to empower criminals.

And a criminal feeling in control is a less trigger happy criminal.

And to preventing rape, muggings and even mass shootings.

That's what the police is for.

"The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren't for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said."

Alternatively, the deadliest shooting in Texas history didn't happen at all because the would be terrorist could not get hold of any guns. I prefer that head line.

Once again, zero focus on criminals and their ability to have firearms.

That's because criminals aren't gonna to listen.

We are still free here in America. This includes using our land for what we see fit so long as we are not breaking any laws.

Well, I am talking about changing the law here. Appealing to current law just misses the point.

So you acknowledge the self confidence a firearm can provide to some women, yet you would seek to remove it as a tool?

Yes, yes I am.

Why should we seek out something that in effect will remove the firearm from the said rape victim while doing nothing about the firearm that said rapist used to commit the rape?

Because mace is not a deadly weapon.

Sounds like you are seeking to reduce the risk that criminals have when commiting crimes. Why not argue for reduced sentences for raping (for example)? That would decrease the risk for rapists as well.

Because that won't lower gun death.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Guns aren't an essential liberty.

False, and demonstrably so I believe.

And yet the gun death and crime rate of some other countries are way better than the US.

Again, I don't have firearms and ammo in my home, but if I did, I could better protect myself and my family with them, compared to calling the police after the criminal has had his way with us and departed. Especially if the criminal is the only one of us that has a firearm and especially, especially if the criminal has murdered us.

But you are not taking into account that the criminal would be less likely to murder you if you are compliant.

I honestly thought your end goal was to prevent violent crimes. Providing a mechanism for violent criminals to have guns while not allowing law abiding citizens to have firearms is counter inuitive.

How?

Fighting a criminal with my Sai would also be counter intuitive to gaining this victim mentality.

That's the point, you don't have to hold this victim mentality regardless of the owner ship of guns.

Why can I defend myself and my family with a Sai, but not with a firearm though?

Because guns are deadly weapons.

Also note that you are seeking to impose your will, while I seek to allow those that wish to protect themselves with tools that are also available to criminals that would do them harm.

Also noted.

Personally, I see 'your will' in this matter as irrelevent. The right to self preservation. That I see as very relevant.

The right to self preservation need not involve guns.

Imagine you were trained on how to use a firearm and you were carrying that day. Its possible that your stuff would have been protected and that is because you had the ability to protect yourself (and you likely would have had to do nothing more than show that you were not defenseless). Obviously in your scenario, you were incapable of protecting yourself, much like how many rape victims are incapable of protecting themselves without additional tools.
Taking tools that help us to protect ourselves just so criminals can feel safer seems illogical.

Imagine I pull out a gun and get shot myself. No thanks.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are preserved due to firearms. What about the cost of removing self preservation via firearms?

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives ended by firearms.

One of many reason as to why you will fail to remove guns from criminals. Felons can order gun kits off the internet for example, so what good would removing my guns (assuming I'm law abiding) do?

So that Felons can't order gun kits off the internet.

If I witnessed a mass shooting, you would have taken my ability to stop it away.

Then so be it.

My argument is that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves. Joining the police or the military does not accomplish this.

Sure it does. The entire purpose of the police and the militrary is to protect ourselves.

You didn't address the projecting of confidence that some would be rape victims project due to the confidence they have when they feel safer for having a firearm on them.

I did, I said mace could do that for a potential victim.

Please describe this cost. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Specifically, what cost is incurred because I own firearms. Make a good argument and perhaps I'll willingly give up my guns.

That would be the annual 12-ish gun deaths per 100,000.

[Clownboat]

Criminals are not banking on getting caught. They are banking on not getting caught while committing their crimes.

Right, but that doesn't mean they won't take precautions in case they get caught.

My point was that they will still have guns. You have done nothing to dispute that.

Therefore, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do little except to empower criminals.

And a criminal feeling in control is a less trigger happy criminal.

How much control should we give to our criminals? Perhaps we should make violent crimes non criminal, that would give them a feeling of control. Just following your thinking to its logical conclusion.

And to preventing rape, muggings and even mass shootings.

That's what the police is for.

Unfortunately, the police show up after the fact. Once there is already a victim. You seek to disarm the victim and give control to criminals.

"The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren't for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said."

Alternatively, the deadliest shooting in Texas history didn't happen at all because the would be terrorist could not get hold of any guns. I prefer that head line.

We all would, but it is an unrealistic expectation to expect terrorist to not have firearms. I also wish there wasn't cancer, but guess what, my wishing is just as ineffective as yours above.
My example was a real life example. Please give this man the respect he deserves for putting his life on the line for his fellow humans.

Once again, zero focus on criminals and their ability to have firearms.

That's because criminals aren't gonna to listen.

Thank you for that. I think we are about done.

Well, I am talking about changing the law here. Appealing to current law just misses the point.

Talk about missing the point. You seek to empower criminals and make their criminality less risky. You seek to disarm law abiding citizens. I do not believe that it is I that is missing the point.

So you acknowledge the self confidence a firearm can provide to some women, yet you would seek to remove it as a tool?

Yes, yes I am.

I cannot support what you seek and your arguments have not been convincing. If I was a criminal ironically, I would be all about what you propose.

Because mace is not a deadly weapon.

And if the person that is going to be raped needs to use deadly force, then what? We just tell her to shut up and be a good little victim? I know, we send the police to take a statement. That should do...

Sounds like you are seeking to reduce the risk that criminals have when commiting crimes. Why not argue for reduced sentences for raping (for example)? That would decrease the risk for rapists as well.

Because that won't lower gun death.

Please answer the question. Why not reduce the sentence for rape as it will reduce the risk to the criminal? This was argued for earlier after all (reducing risk for the criminals).
Similar to how not allowing women (for example) to carry a firearm will make being a rapist less risky. Those criminals shouldn't have it so hard and they certainly shouldn't have to worry about being prevented from comitting acts of violence. Or should they have it hard and should they have to worry about the risk involved with comitting crimes?

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Guns aren't an essential liberty.

Strawman. I didn't say they were. Ben Franklin however, is saying you deserve neither.

False, and demonstrably so I believe.

And yet the gun death and crime rate of some other countries are way better than the US.

Strawman. No one has argued otherwise.

But you are not taking into account that the criminal would be less likely to murder you if you are compliant.

I just don't have this victim mentality. I don't seem to have the ability to understand it. For that I'm sorry...
I would defend my family with whatever I best saw fit. Whether that is with a gun or with being compliant. You seek to take one option away from me though. That I don't appreciate as protecting my family is a duty of mine (IMO).

I honestly thought your end goal was to prevent violent crimes. Providing a mechanism for violent criminals to have guns while not allowing law abiding citizens to have firearms is counter inuitive.

How?

The people you have already admitted above that won't abide by the law will be the only ones with firearms. As you have said, they will not listen. The field is then set in favor of the criminal instead of the law abiding citizen. That is why it is counter intuitive.

That's the point, you don't have to hold this victim mentality regardless of the owner ship of guns.

It seems I'm not able to hold it. So, please respect my right of self preservation (even though I don't act on it) to defend myself with a tool that is available to the criminal (if I so choose and am not a violating a law myself of course).

Why can I defend myself and my family with a Sai, but not with a firearm though?

Because guns are deadly weapons.

So is a Sai. So once again, why are you ok with me defending my family with a Sai, but not a firearm?

Personally, I see 'your will' in this matter as irrelevent. The right to self preservation. That I see as very relevant.

The right to self preservation need not involve guns.

Strawman. I have never argued that self preservation requires a gun. We both know that some people are not very apt at self preservation. We have tools for those people and a firearm is one such tool though.

Imagine I pull out a gun and get shot myself. No thanks.

Better to have the option to protect yourself (if its truly needed) then to not have the option. I feel safe myself without a firearm, but I acknowledge those that don't.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are preserved due to firearms. What about the cost of removing self preservation via firearms?

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives ended by firearms.

You failed to address the cost.
Again: Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are preserved due to firearms.

So that Felons can't order gun kits off the internet.

And yet you do not seek such things. You seek to remove guns from law abiding citizens and to empower criminals and not make being a criminal so risky. Therefore, I suggest you change your focus to the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

If I witnessed a mass shooting, you would have taken my ability to stop it away.

Then so be it.

Now I'm confused. Are we seeking to have more or less mass shootings?
Perhaps we should seek to empower those that would commit mass shootings? Perhaps we should make being a mass shooting less risky?
Just following your line of thought here.

Sure it does. The entire purpose of the police and the militrary is to protect ourselves.

Demonstrably false:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

You didn't address the projecting of confidence that some would be rape victims project due to the confidence they have when they feel safer for having a firearm on them.

I did, I said mace could do that for a potential victim.

Sure, mace can for some, but I'm not asking about those victims. I'm talking about those that are empowered because they feel safe carrying their firearm, not mace (or having it in their home).

Please describe this cost. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Specifically, what cost is incurred because I own firearms. Make a good argument and perhaps I'll willingly give up my guns.

That would be the annual 12-ish gun deaths per 100,000.

You forget the lives saved due to defensive use of guns though. Also, my guns have never killed a human and have never been involved in your stat you list above.
Therefore, disarming me will be ineffective to preventing gun deaths it would seem. Perhaps you should focus on criminals and leave us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves how we see fit?

[Bust Nak]

My point was that they will still have guns.

That won't matter if they don't bring it.

How much control should we give to our criminals? Perhaps we should make violent crimes non criminal, that would give them a feeling of control. Just following your thinking to its logical conclusion.

Why, when what I've proposed is enough?

Unfortunately, the police show up after the fact. Once there is already a victim. You seek to disarm the victim and give control to criminals.

It's a price worth paying for.

We all would, but it is an unrealistic expectation to expect terrorist to not have firearms.

And yet many terrorist in Western Europe use knifes and large vehicles because they don't have firearms.

Talk about missing the point. You seek to empower criminals and make their criminality less risky. You seek to disarm law abiding citizens. I do not believe that it is I that is missing the point.

So why did you appeal to existing laws?

I cannot support what you seek and your arguments have not been convincing. If I was a criminal ironically, I would be all about what you propose.

But would you still shoot people?

And if the person that is going to be raped needs to use deadly force, then what?

Then sorry you are out of luck.

We just tell her to shut up and be a good little victim? I know, we send the police to take a statement. That should do...

That's exactly it.

Please answer the question. Why not reduce the sentence for rape as it will reduce the risk to the criminal?

I told you exactly why - it won't reduce gun death.

Or should they have it hard and should they have to worry about the risk involved with comitting crimes?

They should have the exactly level of hardness to have the best balance of the amount of gun death and level of rape.

Strawman. I didn't say they were. Ben Franklin however, is saying you deserve neither.

Are you sure? He said those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither. I am proposing we give up a little non-essential liberty purchase long lasting safety. Doesn't seem like Franklin was referring to me at all, as Guns aren't an essential liberty.

No one has argued otherwise.

The point was, you don't think it's worth changing things to attain said better crime rate.

I just don't have this victim mentality. I don't seem to have the ability to understand it. For that I'm sorry...
I would defend my family with whatever I best saw fit. Whether that is with a gun or with being compliant. You seek to take one option away from me though. That I don't appreciate as protecting my family is a duty of mine (IMO).

Noted.

The people you have already admitted above that won't abide by the law will be the only ones with firearms. As you have said, they will not listen. The field is then set in favor of the criminal instead of the law abiding citizen.

But that's what it takes to achieve my stated goal of less gun death.

It seems I'm not able to hold it. So, please respect my right of self preservation (even though I don't act on it) to defend myself with a tool that is available to the criminal (if I so choose and am not a violating a law myself of course).

So if the law is changed so all guns are illegal, then your right of self preservation to defend myself with a tool that not in violating a law, would still be in effect.

So is a Sai.

It's meant to disarming, is it not?

Strawman.

What the hell is going on here? This is far from the first time you did this. You say one thing, I point out the something that you seemed to have not taken into account in your statement, and that amounts to a strawman to you?

I have never argued that self preservation requires a gun.

Then why are you brining up self preservation at all, if you knew self preservation does not require a gun.

We both know that some people are not very apt at self preservation. We have tools for those people and a firearm is one such tool though.

Well I am proposing that you have one less tool.

Better to have the option to protect yourself (if its truly needed) then to not have the option.

Not if said option leads to more danger.

Again: Hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are preserved due to firearms.

Trumped by the hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives that are ended due to firearms. Why doesn't this count as addressing your point?

You seek to remove guns from law abiding citizens and to empower criminals and not make being a criminal so risky.

Of which, removing gun kits from the internet would be part of, obviously. I have no idea why you would think I would ban the ownership guns and yet not ban the supply side as well.

Now I'm confused. Are we seeking to have more or less mass shootings?

Less.

Perhaps we should seek to empower those that would commit mass shootings? Perhaps we should make being a mass shooting less risky?

Only in ways that would reduce the amount of gun deaths.

Just following your line of thought here.

Bottom line, other countries have made it work, follow what they do.

Demonstrably false:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

That's less than idea, I am sure you would do a better job. Join the police and protect us.

Sure, mace can for some, but I'm not asking about those victims. I'm talking about those that are empowered because they feel safe carrying their firearm, not mace (or having it in their home).

Sorry they are out of luck.

You forget the lives saved due to defensive use of guns though.

Not worth the 12-ish death / 100,000 / year caused.

Also, my guns have never killed a human and have never been involved in your stat you list above.

That's what an average does, spead the numbers around to even those who are not directly involved.

Therefore, disarming me will be ineffective to preventing gun deaths it would seem. Perhaps you should focus on criminals and leave us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves how we see fit?

Nah. I like the crime rate of Western Europe much better and is willing to swap guns for it.

[Clownboat]

Your opinion on gun ownership and how one protects themselves and their families is noted.
I do not share your way of thinking and do not count on others for protection (outside of national security). I do not need a gun to feel safe myself, but acknowledge that millions of people do. I assume they care about protecting themselves and their families much like I do and acknowledge that firearms are a very effective means to do so. I do not seek to take their ability to protect themselves away from them.

Therefore, your arguments about removing guns/an ability to protect yourself and your family is lost on me. Perhaps some readers here find your words as meaningful though?

I wish I could count on others to protect me and my family, but I acknowledge it as my responsibility to handle my self preservation (which is why I'm skilled in hand to hand and do not rely on firearms personally). Some people do though and they are not forgotten for me...

I am not seeing a way for you to make an argument that will give me a 'victim mentality' and I don't think I will convince you that your safety is your own and not the responsibility of someone on the other end of a phone.

I see our disagreement as a mentality difference, not one of arguments.
Be well and let me know if there is anything specific you would like me to address.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 56 by Clownboat]

After reading your exchange with bust nak, I have a few questions.

How effective are guns at preventing rape?
How effective are guns and protecting someones family?
How easy is it to acquire guns for nefarious purposes in America?
How many guns are smuggled into or out of America for nefarious purposes?
What is the firearm suicide rate and how does it stack up to countries that don't have such easy access to guns?
What is the accidental homicide rate and how does it stack up to countries that don't have such easy access to guns?

I understand a lot of the mentalities behind the concept of being able to defend yourself with firearms but my understanding is that in reality it is not effective most of the times and more often than not, if a firearm is discharged in a home, it is done not in defense of someone else. I also believe that no matter how legal guns are, women get raped an awful lot in America anyway. Often with the aggressor being armed.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 56 by Clownboat]

After reading your exchange with bust nak, I have a few questions.

How effective are guns at preventing rape?

In the hands of a trained person, there is nothing more effective at preventing rape (discounting things like walking around with security personal and such of course).

How effective are guns and protecting someone's family?

In the hands of a trained person, there is no better way to protect your family (discounting things like living in a bunker and such of course).

How easy is it to acquire guns for nefarious purposes in America?

Extremely easy. Felons can literally order gun kits off the internet that they can assemble.

How many guns are smuggled into or out of America for nefarious purposes?

Unknown.

What is the firearm suicide rate and how does it stack up to countries that don't have such easy access to guns?

Don't know and don't care personally. People that are set on committing suicide will commit suicide. My wife's uncle stood in front of a train (guns were available).

What is the accidental homicide rate and how does it stack up to countries that don't have such easy access to guns?

No idea, but like with stairs and cars, there will be accidents and no one is arguing to get rid of them due to the accidents that will occur. It could be argued that some people need stairs and that some people need cars. Some would argue that they need a gun to protect themselves and their families even though I may not share in their feelings.

I understand a lot of the mentalities behind the concept of being able to defend yourself with firearms but my understanding is that in reality it is not effective most of the times and more often than not, if a firearm is discharged in a home, it is done not in defense of someone else.

I'm trained in hand to hand. A trained person with a gun has the advantage over me. Seeking to take this advantage from those that are looking out for themselves and their families is not something I currently can get behind.

I also believe that no matter how legal guns are, women get raped an awful lot in America anyway. Often with the aggressor being armed.

Guns don't prevent rape directly (besides instances of brandishing and scaring said piece of garbage). Sure it might make a possible rapist rethink his raping due to the idea that his life might get ended if he attempts to rape. However, a gun in the hands of a women trained to use it has the possibility to stop said rape. Those women would lose this ability to potentially stop from being raped.

On a personal note and this is coming from someone that has NEVER publicly carried a firearm. I like the idea of having an armed populace (not everyone of course). For example, the shooting that happened in the Denver movie theater could easily have been stopped if a trained person with a gun had the courage and ability to do the right thing.

Not everyone in that theater would need to be trained with firearms and carrying. Just one person is all it would have taken. Just like how one man with a gun stopped the mass shooting in the Texas church.

Others are scared of the idea that some fellow humans may have a firearm. One person takes comfort and another is fearful. To each their own it seems.

After having this discussion, it seems to be a matter of mentality. Some look to others (police for example) to protect themseleves, while others see it as their responsibility to protect themselves. I acknowledge the different playing fields when it comes to ones ability to protect themselves. I may not feel the need to carry (or have available in my home) a firearm for example, but some people do.

Facts:
Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch encouraged its Western recruits to use trucks as weapons. A 2010 webzine article, "The Ultimate Mowing Machine," called for deploying a pickup truck as a "mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/world/te ... index.html

If people were scared of vehicles like they are guns, I could see argument being made to ban them as well to stop violent vehicle acts. Vehicles don't scare people though, guns do. Fear is driving this IMO.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 58 by Clownboat]

If you're willing to argue that guns should be easily accessible to the greater public for the purpose of preventing rape, you should probably have some evidence to support that. Here's a website that indicates rape is higher in the U.S compared with Canada and New Zealand who have no access to guns and only slightly less than Australia who also have no access to guns. If guns prevent rape then perhaps America is just a really rape heavy country because they still have a lot of people getting raped.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

Evidence indicates that when people say "a good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun", they are not speaking the truth. Most gun deaths are from "good guys", legally licensed owners. And the best chance children have at getting shot is because their parents own a gun, even with safe handling and storage practices, children are more likely to die to a gun in their home than anywhere else in the entire country.

https://theconversation.com/if-lawful-f ... e-do-48567

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violen ... HWYYIgzbic

Is it not a bad thing for people with prior records of violence having that easy access to such deadly weapons?

It might not be completely known but we know the problem is severe as most guns recovered from crime scenes in mexico are traced to the US. Not enough for the Americans to just stick to killing each other, huh?

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/pe ... 11305.html

Surprisingly with suicide (or I was surprised when I first learned), most of the time suicide is quite impulsive and very situational with most people who attempt and survive never making a second attempt on their lives. Guns being as effective as they are don't give people the chance to get their lives back in control which, statistically speaking, they would otherwise do.

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/the-facts ... -and-facts

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/

Some people can argue whatever they want, stairs and cars are not purpose built lethal weapons. The idea that guns are a good method of protecting your family is just a blatant falsehood though, they are far more likely to kill your family members than they are to protect them with only 65,000 defensive uses of guns per year accross the whole country, most not used in the home

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60214382 ... lf-defense

People can make up whatever fantasy they like that if they were armed an at a shooting event they would step up and protect everyone and win the day but enough people are armed in America including during these events where they just don't. Their scared and panicked and training isn't the same as actually doing. Soldiers in war often intentionally miss their targets even after months of basic and months in combat because our knee jerk reaction (most of us at least) is to not kill other people, even if they're shooting at us. Here's where people need to stop pretending that intuition is a helpful guide to these issues. Look at the statistics and do something about saving lives instead of imagining doing it at shooting events like these (not saying you are one of the fantasists). Australia took away most of their guns and our overall suicide rate dropped a good measure, our overall homicide rate dropped a good measure and we definitely feel pretty safe even though there are a few guns still in circulation, I've never seen one and even when gang violence comes they don't brandish guns very often because the penalties are so strict.

Guns should scare people. They are purpose built weapons of war and America has 120 for every 100 person with a whole bunch just walking around with them, loaded and ready to kill anyone their owner thinks is asking for it. someone jumps out of their car a bit to quickly near this guy with his loaded handgun and he may as well be a dead man, especially if he isn't white and looks poor.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 58 by Clownboat]

If you're willing to argue that guns should be easily accessible to the greater public for the purpose of preventing rape, you should probably have some evidence to support that.

I understand how guns can prevent rape. It is also my opinion that guns can prevent rape. It is not my responsibility to make you understand, especially since it appears you don't, but I'll try.

Filthy, if you hypothetically were going to rape someone, and they were trained on how to use a firearm and didn't want to be raped, what is it that you think they would do to you? Would it effectively stop you from raping if you had a gun pointed at you? What if you were approaching said victim and just happened to notice a bulge on their side. Would that alone not give you pause?

Here's a website that indicates rape is higher in the U.S compared with Canada and New Zealand who have no access to guns and only slightly less than Australia who also have no access to guns. If guns prevent rape then perhaps America is just a really rape heavy country because they still have a lot of people getting raped.

Perhaps. You are free to make such an argument if you would like. I'm all eyes. However, if we are in fact a rape heavy country, should people not be allowed to take preventative measures, even if they are scary to you personally? Does/should your fear rule the day? My daughters ability to protect themselves with a firearm if they so ever choose, just doesn't have time for your fears.

Evidence indicates that when people say "a good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun", they are not speaking the truth. Most gun deaths are from "good guys", legally licensed owners. And the best chance children have at getting shot is because their parents own a gun, even with safe handling and storage practices, children are more likely to die to a gun in their home than anywhere else in the entire country.

Yes Filthy, guns, stairs and automobiles are all dangerous. Stairs get us up and down in elevation and cars are to get us from point a to point b. Guns are one of the best ways for some to protect themselves. They all have purposes and all can and will be abused. I would venture a guess you are just more fearful of guns and have already accepted that automobiles and stairs kill, so they are a non issue.

Let's follow your line of thinking though for a moment. Parents with cars, are far more likely to have children that die from using said car. Why should parents be allowed to own cars? Think of the children!

"But cars aren't made to kill". Either was heroin and led paint.

Is it not a bad thing for people with prior records of violence having that easy access to such deadly weapons?

It is a bad thing, but it is the world we live in. Therefore, law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with what criminals would use to harm us.

It might not be completely known but we know the problem is severe as most guns recovered from crime scenes in mexico are traced to the US. Not enough for the Americans to just stick to killing each other, huh?

What would taking guns away from law abiding citizens do to stop this? What is your point, that criminals have and will have guns? That has been my argument all along, but thanks for the acknowledgement.

Surprisingly with suicide (or I was surprised when I first learned), most of the time suicide is quite impulsive and very situational with most people who attempt and survive never making a second attempt on their lives. Guns being as effective as they are don't give people the chance to get their lives back in control which, statistically speaking, they would otherwise do.

So you want to take my guns away, and those from law abiding citizens that own for self preservation, so that people just might fail at killing themselves?> I'm sorry, but your rights stop where someone elses nose begins.

People drive cars off of cliffs to kill themselves. I'm going to need you to give up your car. You convinced? What if I'm really, really, really, really scared of automobiles? You convinced yet?

Some people can argue whatever they want, stairs and cars are not purpose built lethal weapons.

Which is why they are not used in self defence (cars are at times) like firearms are.

The idea that guns are a good method of protecting your family is just a blatant falsehood though, they are far more likely to kill your family members than they are to protect them with only 65,000 defensive uses of guns per year accross the whole country, most not used in the home.

Your stats are just countered by stats from the other side:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.

I see your 65,000 and raise you to 3 million.

People can make up whatever fantasy they like that if they were armed an at a shooting event they would step up and protect everyone and win the day but enough people are armed in America including during these events where they just don't. Their scared and panicked and training isn't the same as actually doing. Soldiers in war often intentionally miss their targets even after months of basic and months in combat because our knee jerk reaction (most of us at least) is to not kill other people, even if they're shooting at us. Here's where people need to stop pretending that intuition is a helpful guide to these issues. Look at the statistics and do something about saving lives instead of imagining doing it at shooting events like these (not saying you are one of the fantasists). Australia took away most of their guns and our overall suicide rate dropped a good measure, our overall homicide rate dropped a good measure and we definitely feel pretty safe even though there are a few guns still in circulation, I've never seen one and even when gang violence comes they don't brandish guns very often because the penalties are so strict.

I can't believe I have to point this out, but Australia is not America. Thanks for the story about Australia though. Ever lived here in America? Spent much time in Detroit have you? This isn't even apples and oranges IMO, this is apples and bowling shoes.

Guns should scare people. They are purpose built weapons of war and America has 120 for every 100 person with a whole bunch just walking around with them, loaded and ready to kill anyone their owner thinks is asking for it. someone jumps out of their car a bit to quickly near this guy with his loaded handgun and he may as well be a dead man, especially if he isn't white and looks poor.

Your fear of guns need not be evidenced. I acknowledge your fear and the fact that you would like them to go away. I don't share your fear, nor would I like them to go away.