posted by Spock
You dont get it. You dont understand the psychology behind this stuff. Most of these shooters are cowards and young. The shootings occur at soft targets. The idea that someone may shoot back would deter some of this. To argue against this idea just shows how much you dont understand.
Please, feel free to educate me from your vast knowledge of the human psychology behind this. I'm sure you have case studies with controls and variables, of course.
The truth is that you don't get it. You're not wrong that this is cowardly, and the people who do this are often (but not always) young. What you're missing is in your assumption that they're interested in self-preservation. Have you not noticed that a significantly high percentage (an overwhelming majority) either kill themselves before capture or had plans to do so?
A homicidal asshole who doesn't care if he lives or dies isn't going to be afraid of dying at the hands of someone else with a gun. Hell, we use the exact same argument to demonstrate that they don't care what laws are in place.
If someone is intending to murder, they don't care about the laws. But if someone is intending to commit suicide, they don't care about armed opposition, either.
I'm not even pro-regulation FFS. I'm one of the biggest gun-humpers (I've decided to use this phrase as a point of pride) around. But insisting that more guns automatically results in deterring this behavior or fewer deaths is presumptuous. You're naive if you think it's that simple.
For the record, I'm in full support of allowing teachers and faculty to be armed if they choose to. Whether or not there's a causal relationship between an absence of guns and these events, I still don't think that means that someone shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves for the purpose of protecting themselves. I think any adult should have that right. I'm just not so naive as to believe that it would automatically result in fewer of these sorts of events.
posted by ppaw1999
I think the last few school shootings were at schools that had on duty police officers assigned to these schools. I would think the shooters were aware these officers were at the schools when they made their attacks. It didn't seem to deter them.
Don't confuse him with facts.
posted by Spock
First off, these campuses are huge. Reaction times are longer than we may think.
Reaction times aren't knowable prior to such an event happening. You're arguing from a position of absence of evidence.
Also Parkland officer was a coward. He never went in. The recent one the other gun showed up and the shooting stopped. Also I guess you dont remember that a resource officer just stopped a shooter.
The shooter didn't know that the Parkland officer wasn't going to go in. For all the shooter knew, the officer was the second coming of John McClane. It didn't deter him, either way.
I didn't forget that a resource officer stopped a shooter. But I also didn't forget that an unarmed patron of Waffle House did as well. Pointing to individual incidents isn't an adequate defense unless you're arguing against a categorical statement (an "always/never" statement).
Your initial statement was that more guns would reduce the problem. Not fix it when it arises. You don't have any evidence to suggest that that is true. At least not any that cannot be countered with equally credible evidence.
