Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

[knowell]

So is a gun free zone part of security or not?

It is part of a lack of security. I would assume that police or other professional security personnel are allowed to carry in a gun free zone. We do not do this for most schools.

 

[MysteryMen]

Why?

Because there's this implication that if it wasn't a gun free zone, someone would have been there with a gun to stop the shooter. Which is BS. 99 times out of 100 that doesn't happen.

And there's a lot of benefit that comes with having a gun free zone, namely being able to arrest/remove someone who has a gun on campus without having to figure out whether they are about to commit a crime.

 

[MysteryMen]

It is part of a lack of security. I would assume that police or other professional security personnel are allowed to carry in a gun free zone. We do not do this for most schools.

So your issue is that the school didn't have security staff...that has nothing to do with a gun free zone

 

[wakephan09]

So your issue is that the school didn't have security staff...that has nothing to do with a gun free zone

Exactly. The security guard on campus was unarmed not because it was a gun-free zone, but because the school didn't want an armed security guard on campus. It was a gun-free zone regardless.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

also, one security guard on an entire campus is not going to stop a dude on the other side of campus with 6 guns on him and surprise attack

 

[knowell]

Because there's this implication that if it wasn't a gun free zone, someone would have been there with a gun to stop the shooter. Which is BS. 99 times out of 100 that doesn't happen.

And there's a lot of benefit that comes with having a gun free zone, namely being able to arrest/remove someone who has a gun on campus without having to figure out whether they are about to commit a crime.

I think it may depend on which state you are in as to what the chances are that someone would have been likely to shoot back. It does seem that all the shootings tend to happen in gun free zones. Whether some cowardly shooter takes that into consideration when he chooses where to unleash his gun is hard to say. I do not think these guys are looking for a fair fight and they want to be sure they are the only ones with a gun. Since most people do not carry in most states, it may not make much difference. Then again, you never know. Not sure why advertising that no one else will have a gun on the premises is a good idea other than it makes people feel safer.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i really doubt the decision hinges on "gun free" vs not-free zone designation in these attacks

 

[Deacfreak07]

I feel much the same way. Would not the same apply to a petite women? Without a weapon, would she not be at an extreme disadvantage if confronted by a would be rapist? Having a gun and knowing how to use it could make her not feel threatened when living alone or when going somewhere alone late at night. Overall, banning handguns likely does more good than harm, but there are situations where legitimate defense is an issue and an outright ban will make some people less safe.

Let's just ban all men from having guns.

 

[knowell]

Let's just ban all men from having guns.

I think no one would disagree if we could remove all guns by banning them. I think we have plenty of evidence that making a law to ban something is not the same getting rid of that thing. Some people just don't like to follow laws.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I think no one would disagree if we could remove all guns by banning them. I think we have plenty of evidence that making a law to ban something is not the same getting rid of that thing. Some people just don't like to follow laws.

Let's just ban all men from buying guns then.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

This is that time of the week where we argue about whether or not people would start making guns if there were a gun ban, like people made bootleg booze during prohibition.

 

[PhDeac]

It is part of a lack of security. I would assume that police or other professional security personnel are allowed to carry in a gun free zone. We do not do this for most schools.

So when a Republican debate is a gun free zone, it's security. When a school is a gun free zone, it's a lack of security.

 

[PhDeac]

also, one security guard on an entire campus is not going to stop a dude on the other side of campus with 6 guns on him and surprise attack

No matter the campus and no matter how many security guards, they can't be everywhere to stop everybody. But it makes their job easier if they can stop anybody with a gun because it's a gun free zone.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

yeah, i agree. i was saying it's dumb to expect a security guard to stop a mass shooter.

 

[knowell]

So when a Republican debate is a gun free zone, it's security. When a school is a gun free zone, it's a lack of security.

I am not sure what is hard to understand here. I don't know of any republicans in favor of gun free zones. They are a construct to make those who fear guns feel safer. The debates were held in a "gun free zone" but there was security to protect the candidates. If we supplied sufficient security at schools, that would work there as well. We either do not have the money or the will to put that kind of security on our schools. Even so, I am not sure how it helps to have a neon light telling the nutjob that he will be able to shoot unopposed at our schools.

 

[knowell]

No matter the campus and no matter how many security guards, they can't be everywhere to stop everybody. But it makes their job easier if they can stop anybody with a gun because it's a gun free zone.

Having to wait for police to arrive is not much of a defense. I would rather take my chances with a couple of trained people with guns already on site. At least then, you would have some chance.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

they must be in favor of them because their debates and rallies are gun free zones

 

[MysteryMen]

I am not sure what is hard to understand here. I don't know of any republicans in favor of gun free zones. They are a construct to make those who fear guns feel safer. The debates were held in a "gun free zone" but there was security to protect the candidates. If we supplied sufficient security at schools, that would work there as well. We either do not have the money or the will to put that kind of security on our schools. Even so, I am not sure how it helps to have a neon light telling the nutjob that he will be able to shoot unopposed at our schools.

You can't seriously think that these people pick their targets because they are gun free zones. Because I would like to think that most places in public society are in fact gun free zones, because its fucking dumb to carry a gun around with you as you go through your every day life and therefore most people don't do that.

It's not like there's a bunch more people, or potentially no more people, in non-official gun free zones with guns than there are in gun free zones.

 

[knowell]

You can't seriously think that these people pick their targets because they are gun free zones. Because I would like to think that most places in public society are in fact gun free zones, because its fucking dumb to carry a gun around with you as you go through your every day life and therefore most people don't do that.

It's not like there's a bunch more people, or potentially no more people, in non-official gun free zones with guns than there are in gun free zones.

Most people don't. Some people do. In some states it is more than just a tiny fraction. Why take that chance if you are planning on killing a bunch of people on your last day on earth.

 

[PhDeac]

Having to wait for police to arrive is not much of a defense. I would rather take my chances with a couple of trained people with guns already on site. At least then, you would have some chance.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Unless you want to station "trained people with guns" in every classroom, residence hall, student center, etc on campus, no matter the campus and no matter how many security guards, they can't be everywhere to stop everybody.