Florida School Shooting

[Adrift]

It's kinda like they don't take the safety of the kids nearly as seriously as they do the control of guns!

What? That's not at all true. Certainly not for me.

And why can't we have both protest for gun control AND protest against incompetence in schools, the mental health industry and the FBI and police. Why is it an either/or option rather than an also/and option? Assuming this is just left/right politics sniping, aren't the left typically the ones protesting the lack of funding for the mental health industry and the incompetence of police anyways?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I'm sorry, I really don't see how the context matters even in reply to my post. The statement still doesn't assert anything about all or some armed staff members, trained or untrained. At least, I didn't read it that way.

I'm not commenting further - you had the last word, so I'm no longer posting on this.

[Adrift]

I'm not commenting further - you had the last word, so I'm no longer posting on this.

Well when you put it like that, I guess you win.

[Starlight]

The fact is, nearly 100% of mass shootings since 1950 happened in "gun free zones"...

It's long past time we abolished the deadly "gun free zone".

WOW. A stunning claim, if true.

So I fact checked it... totally false.

Firstly I had a look at who exactly was making that claim in your linked article. It's a site run by economist John Lott who's claims and methodology are pretty much laughed at by the wider scientific community, and whos numerous wild claims about guns in his books have been pretty completely debunked.

Dr Louis Klarevas takes issue with Lott's claims:

In Klarevas’ book Rampage Nation, he said that Lott has used too loose a concept of gun-free zones.

Klarevas disagrees with gun advocates who define a "gun-free zone" as simply an area that bans private citizens from carrying a gun.

For example, Lott characterized Fort Hood and Washington Navy Yard, military sites attacked by gunmen, as gun-free despite the presence of armed security.

"There’s an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?" Klarevas writes. "The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But that’s an absurd suggestion."

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority [93, i.e. 83.8%] occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

So far from your link's bizarre claim that 98.4% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, it looks like the number is actually 84.8% occurred in gun-allowing zones.

[Cow Poke]

What? That's not at all true. Certainly not for me.

I assumed Sparko was talking about the people running the school in this situation - not the mondaymorningquarterbacks on Tweb.

And why can't we have both protest for gun control AND protest against incompetence in schools, the mental health industry and the FBI and police.

The latter is what really failed in this case. Had the system worked, the "child" wouldn't have been able to legally purchase firearms.

Why is it an either/or option rather than an also/and option? Assuming this is just left/right politics sniping, aren't the left typically the ones protesting the lack of funding for the mental health industry and the incompetence of police anyways?

You'd have to ask them - I'm for mental health assistance.

[Cow Poke]

Well when you put it like that, I guess you win.

Nope, you do!

[Cow Poke]

So far from your link's bizarre claim that 98.4% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, it looks like the number is actually 84.8% occurred in gun-allowing zones.

So, if we change definitions of terms, we can change the statistics. Stunning.

[Psychic Missile]

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority [93, i.e. 83.8%] occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.[/box]
So far from your link's bizarre claim that 98.4% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, it looks like the number is actually 84.8% occurred in gun-allowing zones.

The Mandalay Bay Hotel had an armed security team. Stoneman Douglas High School and the Pulse nightclub both had an armed police officer acting as security. Fort Hood is a military base. Armed security is no guarantee of stopping a spree shooter.

[Starlight]

So, if we change definitions of terms, we can change the statistics. Stunning.

Actually, even with the same definitions, it looks like the numbers given by Lott in MM's link are just totally false. Even if you count, as Lott did, areas with armed security guards as "gun-free zones" (!), the vast majority of mass shootings happened in areas where private citizens were legally permitted to carry.

[Starlight]

The Mandalay Bay Hotel had an armed security team. Stoneman Douglas High School and the Pulse nightclub both had an armed police officer acting as security. Fort Hood is a military base. Armed security is no guarantee of stopping a spree shooter.

But wouldn't it have been much better if all the people being shot at in Vegas had been able to pull out their own guns and shoot into the air / in the general direction of the hotel / at anyone they could see nearby who was firing a gun ( )?!

Maybe the armed security guards themselves need armed security guards? Would that fix it?

[Zymologist]

But wouldn't it have been much better if all the people being shot at in Vegas had been able to pull out their own guns and shoot into the air / in the general direction of the hotel / at anyone they could see nearby who was firing a gun ( )?!

Maybe the armed security guards themselves need armed security guards? Would that fix it?

Probably nothing can "guarantee" stopping a spree shooter (with no casualties, I'm assuming is the implication), but what would you suggest in the event of a spree shooter opening fire?

[Darth Executor]

The Mandalay Bay Hotel had an armed security team. Stoneman Douglas High School and the Pulse nightclub both had an armed police officer acting as security. Fort Hood is a military base. Armed security is no guarantee of stopping a spree shooter.

All the more reason to be allowed to pack heat yourself.

[Littlejoe]

I have to admit...after I posted that...I wondered if I had taken my humor too far.

My wife tells me I have a rendency to self-distruct in social situations...


(P.S. you seem to have emoji's down. What's the one with the character rubbing their chin and thinking?)

Here is a list of smilies for those who don't remember or know them:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...milies-for-now

[Darth Executor]

What? That's not at all true. Certainly not for me.

Yes it is. You're one of the people who routinely dismisses the easy path and goes for nearly impossible policy with massive resistance. If you cared about stopping shootings you wouldn't pick the issue that antagonizes conservatives the most to push the hardest. Let's face it, you just like to argue and actually ending massacres would remove a topic of debate from your repertoire.

[Darth Executor]

Probably nothing can "guarantee" stopping a spree shooter (with no casualties, I'm assuming is the implication), but what would you suggest in the event of a spree shooter opening fire?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/us/do...cre/index.html

"Douglas Haig, an Arizona man who says he sold tracer ammunition to the gunman in October's Las Vegas massacre, was arrested Friday on a charge of conspiring to manufacture and sell another type of ammunition -- armor-piercing bullets -- in violation of federal law.

A criminal complaint alleges two unfired .308-caliber (7.62mm) rounds found in gunman Stephen Paddock's hotel room had Haig's fingerprints on them as well as tool marks from his workshop. The bullets in the cartridges were armor-piercing, with an incendiary capsule in the nose, the complaint says."

We know as a matter of fact that in this case anti-gun laws would not have done anything to stop him since he used a black market supplier. So while fartlight and PMS are laughing it up they are completely ignorant of the case and how badly it wrecks their case for gun control.