Another Mass Shooting in the US

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
5,718
I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
12,096
Location
Liverpool
I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?
Spot on.
We only have to convince the NRA now
How insulting to have their conference today. Couldn’t make it up.
 

Blue in Munich

Professional Yeti Impersonator
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
13,586
Location
Worcester Park
The police stopping the parents are well armed with rifles strapped to their chests.
Not trying to blame anyone I am just struggling to see the logic of not going in asap.
I appreciate your not a US Cop.
But you have more knowledge of this than most of us.
I've not seen the footage of the police stopping the parents, but the first thing that comes to mind there is that they are trying to save the parents from themselves; in situations like that, those who are emotionally invested don't necessarily make the wisest decisions, and the police would get royally criticised afterwards if a few parents went in & got killed. I'd also wonder if in having to keep the parents out, the parents effectively made the decision not to go in for the police; if I was a trained professional going in to take on the gunman, the last thing I'd want would to be the meat in the sandwich between the gunman and the well-intentioned amateurs who wouldn't keep out. Been in a few like that without the firearms and they were bad enough.
 

Swinglowandslow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
2,546
I don't understand. As the gun supporters like to have us believe, if more citizens have guns, then they will shoot the bad guys. Problem solved.

However, it clearly took ages for anyone to confront the gunman in this case. Surely a citizen somewhere had a gun, and they could have gone in with 10, 20, 30 minutes or so? Not only that, it now seems even the police didn't go in.

Of course, the answer is obvious. I would never expect any citizen to put themselves in that situation when a crazy person is only to happy to kill them. And even the police will feel the same, unless they are a highly trained armed unit.

So, can we please use this as a prime example that good people with guns are not the answer in stopping bad guys with guns, especially ones with assault rifles?
Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house? Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do?
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?
 

Pants

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
1,196
Apparently Trump will be/is giving a speech at the NRA meeting in Houston supporting 2nd Ammendment. Some reports are saying that everyone will be screened and no-one will be allowed in with a firearm, knife, spray, tazer etc. You couldn't make it up. :rolleyes:
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
12,096
Location
Liverpool
Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house? Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do?
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?
The 2nd amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms.
But your spot on that dosnt mean they can have assault rifles.
The biggest excuse given is to defend your self, but an AR is a weapon of assault not a defensive one
It would go a long way to ban the manufacture / ownership and sale of these mass killing machines.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
12,096
Location
Liverpool
I've not seen the footage of the police stopping the parents, but the first thing that comes to mind there is that they are trying to save the parents from themselves; in situations like that, those who are emotionally invested don't necessarily make the wisest decisions, and the police would get royally criticised afterwards if a few parents went in & got killed. I'd also wonder if in having to keep the parents out, the parents effectively made the decision not to go in for the police; if I was a trained professional going in to take on the gunman, the last thing I'd want would to be the meat in the sandwich between the gunman and the well-intentioned amateurs who wouldn't keep out. Been in a few like that without the firearms and they were bad enough.
Yes I agree. You don’t want a bunch of parents getting killed as well.
But the parents need to know the Police are taking action to stop the shooter.
Sadly that does not seem what happened here ,they delayed to long with a catastrophic outcome.
The head of safety admitted they got it wrong
Said on the news that “he just walked through the door.”
If that’s true all the security in the world won’t help if you leave the door open.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
28,437
The 2nd amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms.
But your spot on that dosnt mean they can have assault rifles.
The biggest excuse given is to defend your self, but an AR is a weapon of assault not a defensive one
It would go a long way to ban the manufacture / ownership and sale of these mass killing machines.
Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention. But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
12,096
Location
Liverpool
Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention. But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Spot on.
But how many laws do we have still on the book, from when Dick Turpin was robbing people.
Money justifies a lot sadly.
 

RRidges

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2022
Messages
485
Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.

How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention. But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
That's, unforunately, neither how it's worded, nor, mainly, how courts have ruled.
See this link for info https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
22,014
Location
Northumberland
Which begs a couple of questions- if you are correct.
1. Bad guys get guns illegally, regardless of whatever law the Country has in controlling them - so , people are at the whim of the bad guys, cos nobody can do anything about them?
2. THe USA gun laws are in dire need of amendment. Assault rifles should be banned -period. Applications for firearms, - side arms- need to show proper cause and strict control of storing, access etc. But, do you stop the decent guys having a gun in the house? Back to the bad guys at 1. above..?
He comes in your house with a gun- you, being a good guy is not allowed to have one- what do you do?
That's a fair question to put to those who wish to ban all good citizens from owning any sort of gun.
As with s lot of questions, too much polarising goes on. Each side thinks the other is totally wrong, and until that changes there won't be any progress.

Last point- there are more guns in US than there are people , apparently.
How high are the chances of bad guys resorting to using guns?
The bad guys have guns concept is an interesting one but it doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny. If all bad guys have them then why do we and other countries not have more shootings? Everything is loaded in their favour isn't it?

Someone comes into your house with a gun in the UK, let them have whatever possessions you have, they can be replaced. Enter a house with a gun in the US and someone might die, maybe the homeowner. How is that better? They need to stop thinking that guns protect them. They don't, they put them in greater risk.

How many people who aren't career bad guys would be prevented from spontaneous shootings by better regulations? The person who has been sacked, the teenager dropped by his high school football coach etc. Everyone else kicks a box, swears under their breath. Americans on the edge go on a spree.

I don't expect anything to change, sadly, but 'every journey starts with a first step ' 😁
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,774
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
I grew up in NI in the Troubles. Seeing soldiers and police with guns was normal, and hearing bombs and shootings was pretty common. I remember a school playground battle with rubber bullets brought by one kid after he found them in town after a previous nights battle. I have been to the US many many times, although mostly to relatively civilised parts, so have seen many cops, security guards and others with weapons.

It should be obvious that fewer guns means fewer shootings. Gun checks and mental health surveillance is laughable in a system so fragmented as the US. Most average people can't get basic healthcare let alone be monitored for developing mental health problems when they go postal. And the idea that morons like Trump perpetuate that the cure for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is nauseating.

Active shooter drills at school fills me with horror. The NRA and hard core federalists who read The Constitution as a sacred text are willing to see kids killed as the acceptable price for their way of life. Simple as that. Many senators are bought and paid for, so nothing will ever happen to revoke the second amendment.
 

stefanovic

Medal Winner
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
1,233
There is always a price to be paid, and in the case of the USA having the most freedoms it's gun ownership.
They have dug quite a hole for themselves from which there is no escape unless they are prepared to surrender their freedoms.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,774
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
There is always a price to be paid, and in the case of the USA having the most freedoms it's gun ownership.
They have dug quite a hole for themselves from which there is no escape unless they are prepared to surrender their freedoms.
I don't agree with that proposition. I think the freedom to go to school and not get shot is quite important, and should be more important than the freedom to use a lethal military grade weapon for fun. None of these guys is part of a well organised militia defending their country from an oppressive Government.

And the US really doesn't have the most freedoms.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
16,666
Location
Espana
Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…

All what if’s, but if the police have been taking the dollar why didn’t they show some BALLS? Truthfully, I can understand the reluctance from a procedural point of view but I feel the “Protect and Serve” was sadly lacking.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
22,014
Location
Northumberland
Here’s a thought, though purely from a devil’s advocate point of view. Imagine if one of those well armed parents had gone in before 19 kids had been shot. Imagine if several police had gone in sooner - maybe one had been shot but the others nailed the killer…
What if the 18yr old couldn't have got a gun / rifle in the first place? Nothing else comes in to play if that doesn't happen.

In terms of an armed parent going in, the thinking is that they are likely to cause more damage/death than good. Perhaps in this instance that would not have been the case but you don't get hindsight when these things happen. After all, who could see why so many young children would have been shot. There is no sense to it.
 
Top