Look, unfortunately there are evil people in this world. Sometimes they attack those very locations you mentioned because they KNOW there won't be any resistance. So yes, anyone who can legally do so should have the means to protect themselves regardless of where they go or what they're doing.
My point about protection and deterrence weren't meant to address the problems that got us here. They were meant to act as compensating controls to help deal with a known risk.
Knowing that if you as a person who wants to go cause trouble and shoot up a location might run into someone who is armed an will fight back isn't a deterrent? Improved physical security is known to act as a deterrent. Criminals are looking for the easy target. The one with the least amount of resistance. A locked gate. A locked door. An armed guard. Those all deter the vast majority of criminals.
I'm not expecting every patron of a restaurant to pull a firearm if a robbery happens. I'm also not expecting everyone to neutralize a threat. I'd expect them to use their weapon to defend their family or those nearby after finding cover, etc. I'd rather be armed and have a chance than be sitting there without one and have to deal with whatever comes next.
What gun culture are you talking about? Who? Are you talking about the boys/young men on social media showing off their Glocks with the illegal switch installed? Or are you talking about the guys who collect?
Say we implement a mandatory training class that folks need to take in order to buy a firearm. And shootings/crime don't decrease. Then what?
Do you really want to set the precedence of checking for competency before exercising a right?
There are definitely those who go to the extreme.
According to some of the "experts" we've had a bazillion mass shootings this year.
I'm all for accountability. Let's start by properly penalizing those who commit violent acts with a firearm. No bail. No pleas. No parole.
I'd venture the guess that out of all of the people I know who carry, that not a single one of us want to be in a mass shooting and have the chance to shoot another person.
Look, unfortunately there are evil people in this world. Sometimes they attack those very locations you mentioned because they KNOW there won't be any resistance. So yes, anyone who can legally do so should have the means to protect themselves regardless of where they go or what they're doing.
My point about protection and deterrence weren't meant to address the problems that got us here. They were meant to act as compensating controls to help deal with a known risk.
Knowing that if you as a person who wants to go cause trouble and shoot up a location might run into someone who is armed an will fight back isn't a deterrent? Improved physical security is known to act as a deterrent. Criminals are looking for the easy target. The one with the least amount of resistance. A locked gate. A locked door. An armed guard. Those all deter the vast majority of criminals.
We need to be specific about what we're talking about here in terms of crime. This incident was a mass shooting, and most of the debate and news coverage when it comes to shooting is about mass shootings. When we talk about mass shootings (where 4 or more are murdered) with gangs, we're not looking at the same factors because they don't have the same motivations, so the method to stop them is different.
An armed populace can act as a deterrent when we're talking about crimes where the criminal actually wants to live and intends on getting away. If we're talking about robberies, home invasions, or a drunk attacking you and your family--yes, a gun is a deterrent.
It is not a deterrent, meaning, it does not dissuade someone from killing people if they're only goal is to kill as many people as they can and then either kill themselves, or have a death by cop suicide. When we're talking about mass shootings, what you're talking about is just how to minimize casualties, but it does not to deter someone that doesn't care about their life. There is always going to be some soft target, or a way to catch people off guard if the goal is just to murder.
What gun culture are you talking about? Who? Are you talking about the boys/young men on social media showing off their Glocks with the illegal switch installed? Or are you talking about the guys who collect?
The gun culture that I am talking about is people that think a gun is a toy, or a tool to be used to solve a problem and intimidate others. This whole "Fuck around and find out" culture that gives a lot of guys fake confidence and dares people to try them. Showing up to protests with guns as a means to intimidate instead of using words and debate to get your points across.
A person that recognizes the danger that a gun has should also recognize the importance of training and competence---but that recognition gets completely ignored because of these delusions about them one day having to fight aliens, zombies, or the US military when it turns communist.
Say we implement a mandatory training class that folks need to take in order to buy a firearm. And shootings/crime don't decrease. Then what?
Do you really want to set the precedence of checking for competency before exercising a right?
It wouldn't be something that happened over night. Culture takes time to change. It's not just an issue with training anyways so that's not going to be the magic fix. But generally speaking, people that have to go through more steps are proving their competence and responsibility in the process.
Let's not pretend as if this is just about "rights". Weaponry is a very particular thing we're talking about that extends past the individual. This isn't like voting or speech. We're talking about dangerous weapons that can be turned on the public. The idea that it violates your rights to check your competency with a weapon that you want to bring out to the public is just absurd to me.
I'm all for accountability. Let's start by properly penalizing those who commit violent acts with a firearm. No bail. No pleas. No parole.
I'd venture the guess that out of all of the people I know who carry, that not a single one of us want to be in a mass shooting and have the chance to shoot another person.
I'm not expecting every patron of a restaurant to pull a firearm if a robbery happens. I'm also not expecting everyone to neutralize a threat. I'd expect them to use their weapon to defend their family or those nearby after finding cover, etc. I'd rather be armed and have a chance than be sitting there without one and have to deal with whatever comes next.
You're all for selective accountability it seems. I'm all for penalizing people that break the law, but I think it is equally, if not more important to not give them obvious openings to harm people in the first place. I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun ownership, and "trust me, bro, I'm responsible" isn't a workable system in a country with hundreds of million people when we're talking about something that has the potential to cause so much destruction in that brief a time period.
I think you misunderstood my last point. I'm not saying you or anyone else WANTS to be in a mass shooting, or wants a chance to shoot other people. I am saying that you are putting the responsibility of your want to own certain guns on society, and leaving none for the gun holders. You don't want the responsibility of proving your competence to have a dangerous weapon in public, but you want the public to instead "be responsible" by buying their own weapons to protect themselves from would-be mass shooters.
And again, this doesn't even address the problem. More guns is more bullets flying, and that's supposed to be safer?
You're talking about YOUR individual safety and YOUR individual chance to survive, it might be better for you, but it isn't better for society. At the end of the day, this isn't about safety for you, that's not as important to you as your "right" to have the gun. I think that's where part of the disconnect is on some of these debates is that the priorities aren't the same.
