Doctor stops potential mass shooting by shooting the shooter

[Franzl]

I can also agree with the chorus that this man is an FF.

But for those that might be tempted to use this as a political argument (often while coming up with all sorts of crackpot reasons why it's immoral, dishonest, whatever the other way around in other cases), spare us the BS. For every example of guns helping you get 10 or more examples to the contrary.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
3. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/1996/the-chronicle,-muskegon,-mi,-82395.aspx?s=%22%27All+In!%27%22&st=&ps=
4. http://blutube.policeone.com/police-training-videos/935831023001-jeanne-assam-and-the-new-life-church-shooting/
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2911219/posts
6. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446
7. http://theguntoter.com/citizen-stops-mass-slaying-at-golden-food-market/
8. http://www.ktxs.com/news/RV-PARK-KILLINGS-Witness-shooter-recounts-shootout-with-gunman-who-killed-two-in-Early/15933066
9. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/2014/homeowner-fights-off-burglar,-wrtv,-indianapolis,-ind-072214.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
10. http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/story/d/story/robbery/37544/QYol8e0JSU2jJyeFLtvZXQ

Many more examples can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Please provide me with 10 counterexamples for every single story at that link, but start by giving 100 for every story I linked to.

Um, no? I'm not going to waste my time listing incidents of gun violence for you. There are plenty in the press for you to read about.

[Maxwell]

I don't feel like several people being shot is something to celebrate even if the alternative is more people getting shot.

Isn't that what war is? At least a semi-justified one?

[Joe Republic]

So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

[Iosif]

Criminalise guns.

[tik 🪀✨]

I don't feel like several people being shot is something to celebrate even if the alternative is more people getting shot.

Isn't that what war is? At least a semi-justified one?

Yeah, I suppose it is. War is always a bad situation, though, is it not? It doesn't matter if you're fighting against pure evil - death is always a loss, even if measured stoically. The glorious fighter who dies giving his life to triumph over an evil that may have otherwise taken more lives is inspiring and exciting. That sh**t sells movie tickets. In real life, though, someone died who had friends and relatives that are upset that it had to be so. As a society it's rational to ask why and if there was anything we could do to prevent the need for the hero's actions in the first place.

It's an idealistic (so, unrealistic) notion that Americans shouldn't have to live with a steady stream of violent firearm events in the news these days. It's astonishingly lame how people are saying that the solution is more of the means just in safer hands. It's lazy corner-cutting problem solving designed to appeal to people who have become docile and comfortable with the way things are. So, their BEST outcomes are 1.) Everyone lives in constant terror of everyone else, and 2.) More people receive violent injuries and/or death. That is the situation even when your solution works! How sad is that?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seriously think that story that I linked will get any national press, krazey?  Granted, you likely could read a similar story in your local paper that happened locally at least once this week, but why would teens shoot two dead in Richland County in a suspected drug deal gone bad get any coverage in Pennsylvania?  You have your own shootings to read about.  But in reading over my post I will give you one benefit of the doubt.  My pronoun usage was a little unclear if one fails to make use of context, so I'll go clear that up so that it isn't susceptible to intentional misreading.

Bad people shooting bad people rarely gets much national coverage.

Of course, the peculiar part is the definition of philly.com as 'national news'. With at most some limited exceptions, the heroic actions of Mr. Silverman are at most covered by local news. Without this thread, how would some liberal in South Carolina or elsewhere ever hear the full story of a defensive shooting in suburban Philadelphia, or the testimony of local law enforcement that Mr. Silverman's heroic actions saved many lives?

Of course, they would not! A mass shooting prevented by a heroic good samaritan gets much less coverage than a mass shooting enabled by gun grabbing liberals.

I'd already heard of this story well before you posted it, and on a public radio station no less.

[Deus Naturae]

Um, no? I'm not going to waste my time listing incidents of gun violence for you. There are plenty in the press for you to read about.

Sure, but the mere existence of gun violence does nothing to validate your claim that gun ownership has a net negative impact on society.

[Franzl]

Um, no? I'm not going to waste my time listing incidents of gun violence for you. There are plenty in the press for you to read about.

Sure, but the mere existence of gun violence does nothing to validate your claim that gun ownership has a net negative impact on society.

I suppose the existence of diabetes also does nothing to validate someone's claim that obesity has a net negative impact on society either.

Look, there's no definitive proof in debates like these. One can observe correlations and come to reasonable conclusions. You obviously don't believe the presence of guns causes them to be used more frequently than if they weren't so plentiful. That's ok. There are a lot of people in the States that believe the Earth is 6000 years old too.

[Deus Naturae]

Um, no? I'm not going to waste my time listing incidents of gun violence for you. There are plenty in the press for you to read about.

Sure, but the mere existence of gun violence does nothing to validate your claim that gun ownership has a net negative impact on society.

I suppose the existence of diabetes also does nothing to validate someone's claim that obesity has a net negative impact on society either.

Look, there's no definitive proof in debates like these. One can observe correlations and come to reasonable conclusions. You obviously don't believe the presence of guns causes them to be used more frequently than if they weren't so plentiful. That's ok. There are a lot of people in the States that believe the Earth is 6000 years old too.

First off, there's no need to insult me. The obesity example doesn't really make sense because obesity has no real benefits. A better comparison would be drugs - supporters of drug prohibition claim that criminalizing drugs protects society, while opponents claim that prohibition just puts more power into the hands of criminals and cartels. It also isn't true that reduced presence of something necessarily translates into less criminal activity involving that thing. For example, if the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by 90%, but the remaining 10% were reserved for brutal, warlike autocracies, the result would be an increase in use. Or, to go back to the example of drugs, drug legalization would probably increase the number of drug users. But, there would also be a decrease in drug-related crime because control of drugs would no longer be reserved to criminals.

[Franzl]

For example, if the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by 90%, but the remaining 10% were reserved for brutal, warlike autocracies, the result would be an increase in use. Or, to go back to the example of drugs, drug legalization would probably increase the number of drug users. But, there would also be a decrease in drug-related crime because control of drugs would no longer be reserved to criminals.

So it follows that giving every country nuclear warheads would be a good idea to decrease their usage? Somehow, I doubt that to be the case.

The thing about drugs is that, in theory, they only harm the user. In practice, of course, addiction causes harm to a lot more people, and I'm sure there would still be ample violence.

I also get the feeling that every time guns are debated in an American context, one is forced to discuss it on an entirely theoretical level without looking to the results in other places. Why is this the case? Is the USA so absolutely unique that the evidence everywhere else doesn't apply? (Granted, I can see the argument that guns are so hideously common in the States, that gun control at this point couldn't do much to get them all out of circulation.) But that still wouldn't contradict that the presence of so much gun violence is largely because of the fact that they're omnipresent in the US.



Of course, I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere. Dogma is more important than real observations in the gun debate. And the arguments and counter-arguments always stay the same.

[Deus Naturae]

So it follows that giving every country nuclear warheads would be a good idea to decrease their usage? Somehow, I doubt that to be the case.

That wasn't a great example on my part because unlike most firearms, nukes can't be mass-produced and distributed through a black market. But, if they could be easily obtained by warlike governments, it would make sense for peaceful governments to possess some kind of military technology capable of stopping foreign nukes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be clear, you're defending drug prohibition? In that case, while it's true that there are addicts who mug people in order to feed their addition(s), I'd guess that the violence resulting from that pales in comparison to the massive turf wars between violent cartels which have turned large swaths of Mexico (just to use one example) into bloody war-zones. Plus, if drugs were legalized, monopolistic cartels would have much less control over addicts, so they likely wouldn't be as violent, and could seek treatment without fear of being jailed for illegal drug use. My main point is, drugs are an example of a situation where violent crime is exacerbated, not ameliorated, by criminalization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Gun-related deaths" probably includes criminals who are shot in self-defense, so that chart is likely somewhat misleading. Beyond that, there's also the fact that the chart makes no differentiation between crimes committed with guns that were legally purchased and used and those that were not. It makes no sense to blame cases where guns were illegally obtained and/or used on a lack of gun regulation when existing regulations were being violated.

Another issue with your hypothesis is that, within the United States, there is little to no correlation between gun regulation and crime. So, that would suggest that if the United States does have higher crime rates than the rest of the world (something that your chart doesn't prove), it would be much more likely to be the result of some sort of cultural or legal factor other than a lack of gun regulation. Reiterating my point about drugs, drug criminalization is a huge cause of violence in the US, and almost certainly results in higher rates of crime, especially gun-related deaths. Drug cartels generally have no regard for any laws, whether they regulate illicit substances or firearms, so this ties back into what I've about regulations reserving control of firearms into the hands of criminals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering how, before you've even read a single word of this post, you've already decided that you're right because everything I say must be creationist-level dogma, I don't expect this argument to go anywhere either.

[Franzl]

Well, the fact that gun laws and gun crime in the US are uncorrelated isn't particularly surprising when laws are so decentralized and easy to get around. It's impossible for states with open borders to prevent weapons from other jurisdictions being brought in.

And for that reason, including the fact that there are just so many weapons in circulation, I'm not arguing that state (or local) level gun laws are or would be very effective.

I'm sure other factors play a role in the American murder rates too, I'm happy to concede the Drug War contributes to it, but it seems indefensible to claim, as I think you're doing, that the presence of guns (which are easier to get than a beer in some places) don't have a large effect on gun related crime.

It's clear that gun control does work where there's the political will to go about it seriously.

[Napoleon]

FF.


Gun free zone equals Open Criminal Zone if you ask me.

I am kind of mad at my governor Jay Nixon for vetoing concealed carry for teachers in Missouri.  I think all teachers should be allowed to carry guns to defend the children in the school.

You can't allow teachers to carry guns and continue giving them tenure at the same time because then its impossible to get rid of the crazies.

[Bull Moose Base]

Great bravery here came from the unarmed: the woman who died, continuing every day to try to help the mentally ill despite the risk to her safety, and the men who ran unarmed and tackled the gunman before he could reload and continue killing.  I'm not sure why this violent, mentally ill ex-con complaining that his gun rights were being infringed upon didn't prompt a police search that sent him to jail, preventing this tragedy. Anyway, I'm not sure this helps the conservative argument that mental health treatment is the route to creating a less violent, massively armed society.

[SPC]

Well, the fact that gun laws and gun crime in the US are uncorrelated isn't particularly surprising when laws are so decentralized and easy to get around. It's impossible for states with open borders to prevent weapons from other jurisdictions being brought in.

Do you have statistics to back up your assertion that gun-related crimes in subnational jurisdictions are committed using weapons obtained in more permissive jurisdictions, or is this just intuitive speculation? While I'm not opposed to such reasoning, the fact that guns are registered should make such data available. On a similar note, doesn't your admission that comparing the gun laws to the gun-related crime rate of areas with open borders mean that you would also have to dismiss yourdata which relies largely on EU member countries? Surely weapons smuggled across an open international border would go underreported in a survey of guns per capita?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there some reason that a gun-related crime is inherently more odious than the same crime commited in the absence of a gun? I notice that your statistics never seem to graph total crime per capita versus gun ownership per capita (and given the United States' position way to the right on that graph, it is most likely an outlier that should be removed if one wants to perform an honest analysis of the slope and its significance)

Also, can you provide an example of a jurisdiction where obtaining a gun is as simple as crossing a county line, or where obtaining a beer requires registration and a waiting period?