Only a citizen with a gun can stop a shooting spree …

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

… or maybe not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, with it being only a shotgun instead of a semi-automatic rifle that was being used, it was easier to counter than is often the case in these sorts of incidents.  Yet wouldn't that too be an argument in favor of stricter gun control than we currently have?

[Never]

Well, the students who used their bodies as a weapon were very brave, that's for sure.

I think you make a good point in writing that we should question the argument that only guns can stop shooting sprees. A gun might make it easier to do so, but that would really only be the case if the individual using the gun was a skilled marksman (a big if, since I personally doubt that many people who like guns for protection would be able to properly use them in a crisis) and did not panic under pressure. Not panicking when someone is opening fire on people is a lot to ask of anyone.

[memphis]

Obvious point is obvious.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obvious point is obvious.

Then why do so few see it?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Obvious point is obvious.

Then why do so few see it?

Your use of the word "only" in the thread title isn't proper, in my view.  I think the more common saying is "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun".

[AggregateDemand]

ITT: people celebrating that an (alleged) murderer who conspired to commit mass murder is still living

[Beet]

ITT: people celebrating that a murderer who conspired to commit mass murder is still living

He's going through the justice system where he will be tried, and if convicted, punished according to law. What's wrong with that? You would rather just have people shot on sight?

[AggregateDemand]

Oh. I thought the point of this thread was to follow various trains of thought until you found an absurd conclusion, like pepper spray is a suitable replacement for a firearm during a killing spree.

[Hatman 🍁]

Grumps' dream world is to have everyone armed, so that everyone can shoot each other and let Got sort 'em out.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oh. I thought the point of this thread was to follow various trains of thought until you found an absurd conclusion, like pepper spray is a suitable replacement for a firearm during a killing spree.

You won't convinced gun-obsessed Americans that more firearms aren't the only solution to firearm violence, but it's nice to see that there are some brave people out there. 

[King]

"Only a good guy on a shooting spree can stop a bad guy on a shooting spree."
Falling Down 2

[SPC]

The point of an armed citizenry is not the idea that it is likely that an armed citizen will thwart a shooting spree. However, the presence of an armed citizen raises the costs of failure for the assailant, as a small probability of dying before completing one's homicidal objective is certainly a greater deterrent than a smaller probability of being pepper sprayed. If the assailant were actually a skilled marksman, concealed carry would be better for this purpose, as it creates uncertainty, whereas open carry informs the assailant of whom to target first. On the other hand, the typical mass shooter is usually a coward, and would be deterred either way, preferring to search for victims in a gun-free zone.

[memphis]

The point of an armed citizenry is not the idea that it is likely that an armed citizen will thwart a shooting spree. However, the presence of an armed citizen raises the costs of failure for the assailant, as a small probability of dying before completing one's homicidal objective is certainly a greater deterrent than a smaller probability of being pepper sprayed. If the assailant were actually a skilled marksman, concealed carry would be better for this purpose, as it creates uncertainty, whereas open carry informs the assailant of whom to target first. On the other hand, the typical mass shooter is usually a coward, and would be deterred either way, preferring to search for victims in a gun-free zone.

Quite a few of these shooters kill themselves as part of the rampage. Avoiding death has nothing to do with it. They're obviously severely disturbed. You can't seriously look at these folks and try to rationalize their behavior.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The point of an armed citizenry is not the idea that it is likely that an armed citizen will thwart a shooting spree. However, the presence of an armed citizen raises the costs of failure for the assailant, as a small probability of dying before completing one's homicidal objective is certainly a greater deterrent than a smaller probability of being pepper sprayed. If the assailant were actually a skilled marksman, concealed carry would be better for this purpose, as it creates uncertainty, whereas open carry informs the assailant of whom to target first. On the other hand, the typical mass shooter is usually a coward, and would be deterred either way, preferring to search for victims in a gun-free zone.

Quite a few of these shooters kill themselves as part of the rampage. Avoiding death has nothing to do with it. They're obviously severely disturbed. You can't seriously look at these folks and try to rationalize their behavior.

While many are not afraid of death, that doesn't change the fact that they can the most people in the least amount of time in a gun free zone.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The point of an armed citizenry is not the idea that it is likely that an armed citizen will thwart a shooting spree. However, the presence of an armed citizen raises the costs of failure for the assailant, as a small probability of dying before completing one's homicidal objective is certainly a greater deterrent than a smaller probability of being pepper sprayed. If the assailant were actually a skilled marksman, concealed carry would be better for this purpose, as it creates uncertainty, whereas open carry informs the assailant of whom to target first. On the other hand, the typical mass shooter is usually a coward, and would be deterred either way, preferring to search for victims in a gun-free zone.

Quite a few of these shooters kill themselves as part of the rampage. Avoiding death has nothing to do with it. They're obviously severely disturbed. You can't seriously look at these folks and try to rationalize their behavior.

While many are not afraid of death, that doesn't change the fact that they can the most people in the least amount of time in a gun free zone.

Obviously they would go to a gun-free zone if the idea is to take out as many as possible!  But do you think getting rid of gun free zones by arming people would deter them?  I thought the conservative argument is always that you can't stop crazy?  Disturbed people who go on these suicide-rampages would certainly be able to take a few people out before anyone carrying a firearm stops them.  They don't plan on making it out alive anyway.  What we have seen for years is that many times these things happen because guns are easy to obtain.  Even if they are bought illegally, we still dedicate so many resources in police and security to responding to the aftermath of a shooting spree, rather than using that time and energy to effectively combat the illegal gun trade in the first place.

[Simfan34]

ITT: people celebrating that an (alleged) murderer who conspired to commit mass murder is still living

:?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

For what it is worth, while gun free zones are more prone to mass murders, they are generally safer than non-gun free zones.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Giffords shooter was taken down by unarmed people when he stopped to reload.

[ilikeverin]

The point of an armed citizenry is not the idea that it is likely that an armed citizen will thwart a shooting spree. However, the presence of an armed citizen raises the costs of failure for the assailant, as a small probability of dying before completing one's homicidal objective is certainly a greater deterrent than a smaller probability of being pepper sprayed. If the assailant were actually a skilled marksman, concealed carry would be better for this purpose, as it creates uncertainty, whereas open carry informs the assailant of whom to target first. On the other hand, the typical mass shooter is usually a coward, and would be deterred either way, preferring to search for victims in a gun-free zone.

Quite a few of these shooters kill themselves as part of the rampage. Avoiding death has nothing to do with it. They're obviously severely disturbed. You can't seriously look at these folks and try to rationalize their behavior.

While many are not afraid of death, that doesn't change the fact that they can the most people in the least amount of time in a gun free zone.

If that's what mass shooters are trying to do, they're not thinking it through very well.  If you read reports of a lot of these shootings, they'll end with something like "the shooter was discovered dead of a self-inflicted wound with umpteen-million rounds of ammunition and three working guns".  Those represent a lot more people they could have killed if they didn't just decide to shoot themselves - which usually seems to happen when the gun they have in hand jams or is in need of reloading.

[FDRfan1985]

Anyone caught in act of killing somebody needs to be hung by their thumbs or trigger finger.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A heartwarming story.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html

[dead0man]

A heartwarming story.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html

Indeed, any story that ends with a dead bad guy and a couple more going to jail forever is a good story.


....but the fear mongers won't care.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A heartwarming story.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html

Indeed, any story that ends with a dead bad guy and a couple more going to jail forever is a good story.


....but the fear mongers won't care.

Considering that for every heartwarming tale such as this, there are far more sorrowful tales of guns used in domestic violence, I'd say it's the gun nuts who show a lack of care.  But hey, that's the price we pay for living in a free society, isn't it?

[dead0man]

Sure, those tales make better headlines, but do we (can we?) know for certain that the actual numbers lean that way?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, those tales make better headlines, but do we (can we?) know for certain that the actual numbers lean that way?

You've got to be kidding me.  About one-third of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims are dead because of domestic violence  (link)  Applying those figures to the rates of firearm homicides (link) one gets roughly 1,000 people killed by a gun in domestic disputes each year.  (Roughly 600 females and 400 males).  These incidents happen daily and since it's usually only a single death each time (save when the children also get killed) they aren't newsworthy on the national level.