Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

Are you referring to the notorious North Hollywood shootout back in 1997? The only fatalities were the two perpetrators although 11 police officers and 5 civilians were wounded. The police on scene only had their sidearms (which aren't accurate at long distances and won't penetrate the body armor the robbers wore even if they did hit them) until SWAT showed up. Interestingly, several officers had to borrow rifles (AR-15s IIRC) from a nearby gun store to combat the robbers. Thank God they could.

Maybe - I may be confusing two separate incidents. I recall two FBI agents being killed and I had thought it was a bank robbery. Nevertheless, the point stands.

[Teallaura]

Do you think it is a good idea that criminals, often violent, should have access to such things?

But you just argued that gun control didn't work. Are you now suggesting that maybe criminals shouldn't have ready access to such things as guns?

[Darth Executor]

That may be, but despite the overwhelming data presented here, I simply cannot shake the idea that no guns means no gun murders. It just makes logical sense to me. I can't explain the surveys. I don't know why they say what they say, but they simply don't make logical sense in my mind.

There's no such thing as no guns. And the US has an open border with a third world country where parts of it are literally run by criminal organizations with lots of money and weapons. So even if gun control theoretically worked in an island nation like Australia, and even if it did not have other consequences you haven't even considered so far, it's simply not doable. The gun control crowd can't even make it work in a single city, the idea that they will stop the movement of weapons throughout the entire country is absurd.

[demi-conservative]

In your opinion, should we legalize vigilantism? That way even more citizens could help the cops take out the bad guys.

'Legalized vigilantism' is oxymoron. I'm sure cops are okay with volunteers, with proper training, who don't want pay though!!

Average joes with gun to defend from muggers is good. Same average joes trying to 'take out' gang is not so good idea.

No need for citizens to be active and go around looking to stop crime, that is job of police. What has been case for years and years is that they have guns to stop crimes when there is need.

[demi-conservative]

The idea that people would rebel really makes me sad. It basically tells me that people worship their guns. They've made them a false idol.

Remember two million statistic? Telling those people they need to give up guns is saying 'too bad, you must leave yourself, also wife, also daughters vulnerable to mugging, rape, murder, etc etc.'

[Darth Executor]

The idea that people would rebel really makes me sad. It basically tells me that people worship their guns. They've made them a false idol. It paints a picture of gun owners as one step away from the type of people they're saying they need their guns for...law breakers. You're probably right that it would result in some major push back, but it makes me really sad that that's the case.

That's really silly, like saying people who would rebel if the state instituted mandatory sodomy have made a false idol out of not being raped. Seems to me you don't recognize the importance of gun ownership because of your own personal flaws (which you probably think are a mark of high character), like rolling into the fetal position if attacked and hoping the other person stops kicking you.

[Zymologist]

That's really silly, like saying people who would rebel if the state instituted mandatory sodomy have made a false idol out of not being raped. Seems to me you don't recognize the importance of gun ownership because of your own personal flaws (which you probably think are a mark of high character), like rolling into the fetal position if attacked and hoping the other person stops kicking you.

This whole pinning the blame on the gun owners who would rebel if the government showed up to take them away (at gunpoint, ironically) seems to overlook the rather obvious fact that we only know they're willing to rebel with their guns because someone else is willing to use violence to take them away. It's reminiscent of a movie villain who says something like, "See what you're making me do? This blood is on your hands," as he commits violent crimes.

[Mountain Man]

I've known two people killed by guns. In both cases people who DANGED WELL KNEW BETTER did something STUPID that resulted in death. There are very few things that can be mishandled and readily cause death and dismemberment to others. Chain saws, maybe, but they're frankly more likely to hurt the moron playing with them.

A gun is NEVER perfectly safe - only a fool handles a gun that way.

You make my point for me: handled responsibly,a gun is perfectly safe. As you say, it was someone doing something "STUPID" that led to accidental death.

[Jedidiah]

Well, if that's the case, why isn't a truck standard issue in the military? I mean, it would have saved a lot of time training people to shoot, since most people already know how to drive when they get into the military. I mean, when I was in the military, we had trucks, but no one ever taught us to use them to kill people.

This is below your intellectual level. I am disappointed.

[Jedidiah]

"Going postal", 'road rage' et al - the increase in violent response to even mild aggravation over the last thirty years has been staggering - yet there are no statistically corresponding mass shooting sprees.

Not a good comparison. How do you compare statistic of just postal workers versus the entire population of the United States?

Edmond, Oklahoma, 1986

On August 20, 1986, during the Edmond post office shooting, 14 employees were shot and killed and 6 were wounded at the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office by Patrick Sherrill, a postman who then committed suicide with a shot to the forehead.
Ridgewood, New Jersey, 1991

A former United States postal worker, Joseph M. Harris, killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott, and killed her boyfriend, Cornelius Kasten Jr., at their home. The following morning, on October 10, 1991, Harris shot and killed two mail handlers, Joseph M. VanderPaauw, 59, of Prospect Park, New Jersey, and Donald McNaught, 63, of Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, at the Ridgewood Post Office.
Royal Oak, Michigan, 1991
The U.S. post office in Royal Oak

On November 14, 1991 in Royal Oak, Michigan, Thomas McIlvane killed five people, including himself, with a rifle in Royal Oak's post office, after being fired from the Postal Service for "insubordination." He had been previously suspended for getting into altercations with postal customers on his route.
Two events in 1993

Two shootings took place on the same day, May 6, 1993, a few hours apart. At a post office in Dearborn, Michigan, Lawrence Jasion wounded three and killed one, and subsequently killed himself. In Dana Point, California, Mark Richard Hilbun killed his mother and her dog, then shot two postal workers dead.

As a result of these two shootings, in 1993 the Postal Service created 85 Workplace Environment Analysts for domicile at its 85 postal districts. These new positions were created to help with violence prevention and workplace improvement. In February 2009, the Postal Service unilaterally eliminated these positions as part of its downsizing efforts.
Goleta, California, 2006

Jennifer San Marco, a former postal employee, killed six postal employees before committing suicide with a handgun, on the evening of January 30, 2006, at a large postal processing facility in Goleta, California. Police later also identified a seventh victim dead in a condominium complex in Goleta where San Marco once lived. According to media reports, the Postal Service had forced San Marco to retire in 2003 because of her worsening mental problems. This incident is believed to be the deadliest workplace shooting ever carried out in the United States by a woman.

Going with the "going postal" label: In the low population of postal workers how are these not mass shootings? These are just pulled from Wikipedia with no checking or anything.

You do not get mass shootings in these sort of local rage situations. Road Rage is another example of the same sort of thing.
\

[RumTumTugger]

I don't consider it a punishment anymore than it's a punishment for me not to own a rocket launcher, but if that's what you want to call it, yes, I'm okay with punishing the innocent in this way if it means that less people die.

Let me rephrase are you saying you are ok with punishing innocent law abiding citizens by taking way their means to protect themselves from the guilty violent criminals who will get guns anyway or use something else to commit their violent act because they care nothing about the Law that is why we call them Criminals. And before you mention the Police how do you expect them to be there 24/7 for everyone? Sorry your solution is no solution.

[Mountain Man]

And before you mention the Police how do you expect them to be there 24/7 for everyone?

"Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away..."

[rogue06]

But you just argued that gun control didn't work. Are you now suggesting that maybe criminals shouldn't have ready access to such things as guns?

I never thought it was a good idea for criminals, primarily violent ones, to have guns. Unfortunately gun control laws have been very ineffective at keeping them out of their hands while disarming honest citizens. A really bad idea.

What has worked have been laws that lock up those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. This has put some very bad folks behind bars where they belong for a long time and was probably a major factor in the massive drop in violent crime we've experienced since the 90s (about the time these laws were passed).

[rogue06]

Let me rephrase are you saying you are ok with punishing innocent law abiding citizens by taking way their means to protect themselves from the guilty violent criminals who will get guns anyway or use something else to commit their violent act because they care nothing about the Law that is why we call them Criminals. And before you mention the Police how do you expect them to be there 24/7 for everyone? Sorry your solution is no solution.

And don't forget even the Supreme Court has ruled that the police department aren't there to protect someone (Warren v. District of Columbia) but rather to investigate crimes and try to arrest those who broke the law. Personally I don't want to be a crime statistic.

Then you have cases where the police have been ordered to stand down (like when Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake infamously ordered the police to provide space for "those who wished to destroy") or when the police simply abandoned their jobs and headed for the hills (like in New Orleans during Katrina).

It has been things like this that have led many people who previously favored gun control to go out and purchase a firearm for protection "just in case."

[rogue06]

Maybe - I may be confusing two separate incidents. I recall two FBI agents being killed and I had thought it was a bank robbery. Nevertheless, the point stands.

The point also stands that the police didn't stand a chance and some of them would indeed have died if it wasn't for the gun store handing out AR-15s so that they could keep the criminals at bay until SWAT arrived.