Yet Another Shooting on a Campus

The confines of my logic, or question? My logic is that more guns is not a solution to gun violence, which is the proposition from many. My question was to highlight the objective reality that there is nowhere with 100 % armed people. I wonder why that may be? Why doesn't the army or whoever want all their soldiers walking around armed? Are they just in idiot mode?

There has been no evidence or case made regarding more guns reducing damage. You can state it as your belief, but you aren't actually demonstrating anything. Meanwhile, I can point to many places both nationally and abroad that have less gun violence for various reasons. I am going to give more weight to the possible solutions with some supporting evidence, rather than one without.

 

Not even remotely the same. Cops are people. Crates are not people.

 

Another mindblowing analogy. Guns are now vaccinations against shootings?! Again, how do you support this claim?

I have no idea what your point is regarding crazy people shooting vs teaching sane people to shoot. None.

 

No, your logic is the same as those who believe by giving the HPV vaccination, we are turning our women in to whores. Let me simplify. Simply because, in a hypothetical world, we, that is, the United States, and citizens of, allow, others, meaning citizens, legally able to do so, the ability to carry firearms, on any public property (am I spelling it out well enough?) DOES NOT mean that everyone, who is allowed, will actually carry a firearm. No more so than suddenly making people less susceptible to HPV will turn them into sex crazed individuals.

Colorado is a shall issue state, right? So presumably you and all your friends have the legal ability to get a carry permit? Do all of you have carry permits? No. Shocked. It is almost as if the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean everyone will actually do it... or that anyone will actually do it.

Therefore, the slippery slope argument that simply because more guns are allowed will result in more guns is exactly that, a slippery slope argument. It is erroneous.

Further, the military doesn't spend millions of dollars teaching people to shoot, as in shooting accurately, or ability. They spend millions of dollars teaching their people to shoot, period. Read "On Killing," or Wiki it. For as long as we've looked at the psychology of war, there have been plenty of people incapable of actually firing in life and death situations. This leads me to believe that even if everyone carried a firearm, that the vast majority wouldn't even shoot. For moral reasons, or fear of possible arrest, or fear of being shot by police, or whatever.

So again, what are you worried about with more firearms on scene? That someone will be armed but fail to fire? Oh no, the massive harm!

 

Again, you fail to realize that I, nor anyone else, is advocating that we should just put loaded handguns on everyone's desk, but, in fact, are talking about putting loaded handguns on someone. Someone, being people.

 

They have most definitely entered idiot mode, absolutely. Our unit remained 100% armed overseas, but I had to have my CO sign my rifle out of the armory to teach a class, stateside. So yea. But more than anything, a military base is Federal property. And when firearms were banned on Federal property (White House, Congress, etc), military bases fell as well, whether command felt it justified or not.

Yes. Less violence. Can you point to one with none? Because that's what you are asking from me. Zero gun violence.

Meanwhile, I can point to reduced violence while staying within American ideals. So you get reduced violence, with European ideals, and that's good. But anyone proposes means that, based on reality, shows reduced violence with American ideals, and that's bad.

Gotcha. Perfect world is Switzerland.

 

When did I say everyone would or does carry a gun? I was responding to the idea that "if everyone did carry..."

I am worried about allowing and even increasing access to firearms for crazies.

 

I'm all for putting guns on trained people. How could you not get that from what I've said regarding training vs untrained?

 

IP, go watch the game.

 

I can see where this is game is headed.

 

And I'm injecting reality into this fantasy and highly improbable scenario. Never has "everyone carried," nor ever will "everyone carry."

Yes. At 18, an adult that meets all requirements to legally purchase a rifle can buy a rifle. If at 19 that person exhibits mental instability, that isn't well documented, or knocks them off the future purchase list, they still have the weapon they bought at 18.

Which means, realistically, you've succeeded in doing nothing.

Not too many people disagree that we shouldn't do more with mental health. Trying to wrap it in with firearms ownership is, however, not the best way to get it done.

 

Dude. That signature is insane. It's the message board equivalent of a face tattoo.

 

Because it's a bogus idea. What is "trained?" Who do you consider "trained?"

Is there an age limit for "trained?" If a retired LEO, 40 years in the job, now 90 years old. Is that person still "trained?"

If stats show that "trained" LE and military shooters hit 2/3s of their shots on target, compared to 1/3 of civilian shooters, is that sufficient "training?"

Gunfights aren't are procedures. Training just helps. It isn't a solution.

 

Terry Pratchett, man. C'mon.

 

I was talking to IP.

 

My bad. Don't have sigs on, so just assumed it was mine. Dark humor isn't always humorous.

 

Are you talking to me? Did you see gun ownership/gun control in my stated plan for action?

 

My view is that the mental health stands alone.

The above quote is linear. This then that, in nature. It's clearly step 4.

 

If the rate of shootings significantly decrease, job done. If not, then we have to do something more aggressive.

 

Take a decade at a minimum to see any meaningful and verifiable change. Easily a decade.

Which means the year after a solid program for mental health is implemented, we're already on aggressive mode.

There's no way politics allows enough time to see the fruits of the program. So the results that come then get pinned on the "aggressive"' policies, and we scrap the mental health program. Call it pessimistic. But that's how Inl see it going.