WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

One of the "talking points" of any side in the matter that I actually appreciated being reminded of---given all the "armed responsible citizens can be a deterrent or "limiter" to these events" type of talk---is how there are outstandingly few examples, out of reams and reams of violent incidents, where an "armed citizen" even apparently provided any deterrent or limited any damage.

So in a smarter world we could at least bury that piece of blather.

---------- Post added December-16th-2012 at 09:13 PM ----------

BTW, honestly, I would vote to sterilize :) everyone who thought (or at least shared the thought) that "people would just do the same with knives as they do with guns." I am not going to go into all the actual psychological reasons why it's absurd to make that a generalized claim for such killings (it <the attempts > would be so with a small minority but not even close to most of these events, before we even get to the ridiculousness of comparing amount of damage done).

Oh, remember I am a gun guy, too, and am even pretty open about people quite properly being a transitory event whose duration should be mitigated by others in all kinds of matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abdcskins

But how often does that happen? Also, don't you think that would just escalate the situation? If someone comes at me with a gun wanting my wallet I'm going to give it to them. Not pull out a gun. That is going to lead to bloodshed. I'd rather have my life.

Seems like some people love violence.

---

Is it escalation if they are going to take your life rather than just your wallet?

Some do love violence....apparently quite a few

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumbo

One of the "talking points" of any side in the matter that I actually appreciated being reminded of---given all the "armed responsible citizens can be a deterrent or "limiter" to these events" type of talk---is how there are outstandingly few examples, out of reams and reams of violent incidents, where an "armed citizen" even apparently provided any deterrent or limited any damage.

---

What if the shooter's first victim (his mother) had access to weapons?

Yeah, tasteless I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twa

yet one can shield a class full of kids and clearly be defensive,both in use and mere presence

why did this prick choose this defenceless target?

what have most all of the killing fields shared

---

What about the Ft. Hood shooter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCSaints_fan

What about the Ft. Hood shooter?

---

You mean the guy that chose to knowingly shoot unarmed soldiers by choice or the Allah Akbar part?

Kinda like the punk shooting his mother in bed, but at least that punk killed himself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abdcskins

Because they are used to kill.

---

and they also protect people in a time where the possibility of eliminating them altogether is non-existent. We can't change history. The cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumbo

One of the "talking points" of any side in the matter that I actually appreciated being reminded of---given all the "armed responsible citizens can be a deterrent or "limiter" to these events" type of talk---is how there are outstandingly few examples, out of reams and reams of violent incidents, where an "armed citizen" even apparently provided any deterrent or limited any damage.

So in a smarter world we could at least bury that piece of blather.

---------- Post added December-16th-2012 at 09:13 PM ----------

BTW, honestly, I would vote to sterilize :) everyone who thought (or at least shared the thought) that "people would just do the same with knives as they do with guns." I am not going to go into all the actual psychological reasons why it's absurd to make that a generalized claim for such killings (it <the attempts > would be so with a small minority but not even close to most of these events, before we even get to the ridiculousness of comparing amount of damage done).

Oh, remember I am a gun guy, too, and am even pretty open about people quite properly being a transitory event whose duration should be mitigated by others in all kinds of matters.

---

Probably the most astute post I've read in the entire thread. Everything you wrote is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumbo

One of the "talking points" of any side in the matter that I actually appreciated being reminded of---given all the "armed responsible citizens can be a deterrent or "limiter" to these events" type of talk---is how there are outstandingly few examples, out of reams and reams of violent incidents, where an "armed citizen" even apparently provided any deterrent or limited any damage.

So in a smarter world we could at least bury that piece of blather.

---

actually statistics consistently show that places in the country with open-carry laws, or places where it's much easier to get concealed carry permits have far less crime. An armed citizen may not be stopping a shooting rampage, but criminals are far less apt to try to rob someone who they know may be armed and will shoot back. Florida observed a large decrease of crime on it's own citizens, and the crime rose on tourists after they relaxed their laws on concealed carry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twa

a armed populace limits killing

---

This isn't born out by reality.

The simple fact is that in the least armed countries of the developed world, murder rates are several times lower than ours. Gun homicides are the vast majority of homicides in well armed countries like the US and Switzlerand. They are, by far, the easiest and most available thing to kill people with in a well armed country.

The real truth is that people don't kill each other anywhere near as much when it's not so easy to do so.

Our populace being so well armed has absolutely made everyone less safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

actually statistics consistently show that places in the country with open-carry laws, or places where it's much easier to get concealed carry permits have far less crime. An armed citizen may not be stopping a shooting rampage, but criminals are far less apt to try to rob someone who they know may be armed and will shoot back. Florida observed a large decrease of crime on it's own citizens, and the crime rose on tourists after they relaxed their laws on concealed carry.

---

I carry and I'm not a "gun control" guy. So, most of that doesn't matter as I am thinking of the incidents of this nature. I had my first hand-gun at 15 (already had a rifle and shotgun). The most firearms I ever owned at one time was, we'll say, over a dozen. But I also don't buy a lot of the typical bull**** I get from most "gun guys" (not talking about you at all) and many I know are stupid *******s or even a bit (or a lot) unbalanced.

It all goes together quite well, though it's not inherently so, of course. :)

But show me the (good) data you speak of---because I see my share, and your claim leaves me somewhat blank. I've heard such, just never seen actual valid studies showing it. I am more than open to it. :)

I have been around/raised by/worked alongside LEOs most of my life, and they tend to suffer from the same thinking I am sharing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevemcqueen1

This isn't born out by reality..

---

tell that to those disarmed before the genocides

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twa

You mean the guy that chose to knowingly shoot unarmed soldiers by choice or the Allah Akbar part?

Kinda like the punk shooting his mother in bed, but at least that punk killed himself

---

You were implying that schools are somehow targeted because shooters know the occupants are unarmed. OTOH with Ft. Hood, the shooter knew he would run into armed guards at some point(granted from what I hear, military bases are not as armed as I would have thought and only MPs carry loaded weapons), but went ahead with his plan anyway - when a much better target would have been a school or a perhaps a shopping mall/theatre/etc. And I remember a few years back a shooter killing an officer in the parking lot of a police station in Fairfax County, which is like going into the hornets nest - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050800968.html , when he very well could have targeted the school that was just down the road (one that he had attended, incidentally).

So my point was, no I don't think fact that the occupants are armed or unarmed the enters much into the equation of the shooter. Its a suicide mission anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twa

You are missing the point, law enforcement are not the targets for good reason....the lambs are

---

Ah, so everyone should roll around with guns so we can have a good ol' fashioned John Wayne-style shootout?

I stand where I stand as far as gun control, but on this Monday morning I am still deeply saddened by this tragedy Didn't think it would affect me as much as it has, but my seven month old granddaughter is the constant reminder of the pain and suffering that those famlies are going through right now and will continue to go through for Lord knows how long. I'm pretty certain a lot of those parents in some way want to die and join their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

actually statistics consistently show that places in the country with open-carry laws, or places where it's much easier to get concealed carry permits have far less crime. ...

---

Cause and effect could be the other way around - places with high crime rates may respond by restricting gun rights.