- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shooting at California festival
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:38 am to GetCocky11
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:38 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Except there was a police presence there at the time. Police carry guns. That didn't stop the shooter.
Because the shooter knew it was a big event and the police can’t be everywhere in the event at once. He knew he’d have time to do what he wanted before the cops came and mowed him down because there would be no one else armed and able to stop him.
0
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:39 am to Centinel
quote:
It's not so much that a "good guy with a gun" could stop the shooter, it's the fact the shooter knows there won't be a "good guy with a gun". At their hearts these types of people are cowards.
Let's say we open up concealed and or open carry everywhere by law. We also make the next leap that this completely deters shooters. Won't this just cause those that were otherwise planning mass shootings to simply change to bombs or trucks to attack crowds? That is a well-worn argument in these types of debates.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:39 am to GetCocky11
quote:
I think the contributing factor is the shooter knowing that a lot of potential victims would be bundled together in one place.
With no guns.
As opposed to a lot of potential victims bundled together in one place where some might have guns.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:41 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Other than the fact these mass shootings only take place in places and events where the shooter knows there will be a shite load of people and he’ll be the only one with a gun?
You're making stuff up.
We've seen shooters target military installations. We've seen shooters target actual policemen.
You think the Vegas guy gave a shite if there were firearms there or not?
Gun free zones are way down the list of factors, if they're even relevant at all.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:42 am to slackster
quote:
You're making stuff up.
We've seen shooters target military installations. We've seen shooters target actual policemen.
You think the Vegas guy gave a shite if there were firearms there or not?
Gun free zones are way down the list of factors, if they're even relevant at all.
Give me a list of mass shootings that didn’t occur in a gun free zone compared to mass shootings that did take place in a gun free zone.
I’ll wait
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:44 am to slackster
quote:
You think the Vegas guy gave a shite if there were firearms there or not?
I didn't read all of this thread, but this is dumb. The dude was in a barricaded hotel room.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Give me a list of mass shootings that didn’t occur in a gun free zone compared to mass shootings that did take place in a gun free zone.
Well that wouldn't be a fair comparison because there are simply more places that are by nature "gun free" vs. places where guns are expected to be carried.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:45 am to Darth_Vader
Again I ask why wouldn't they just switch to bombs as there weapon if they were concerned about the presence of guns?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Give me a list of mass shootings that didn’t occur in a gun free zone compared to mass shootings that did take place in a gun free zone.
I’ll wait
What will that prove?
I know it often ends up being a gun free zone. I'm not stupid. I'm arguing correlation =/= causation.
If you made fun free zones go away, I don't believe the list would look any different. Less deaths? Probably, but same locations.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:46 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Again I ask why wouldn't they just switch to bombs as there weapon if they were concerned about the presence of guns?
Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. I simply would rather default to not having "gun free zones."
It's stupid and gives people a false sense of security.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:46 am to GetCocky11
quote:
because there are simply more places that are by nature "gun free" vs. places where guns are expected to be carried.
Are there though?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:46 am to Janky
quote:
I didn't read all of this thread, but this is dumb. The dude was in a barricaded hotel room.
So you are agreeing it wouldn't have mattered if there were 100s of guns in the crowd?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:48 am to Obtuse1
In that instance, yes I agree. No one was going to be able to find the right room and shoot up there and get him. If he was part of the crowd, then my answer would be different.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:49 am to slackster
quote:
We've seen shooters target military installations.
Not jumping into this argument but the base shooting at Fort Hood must be what you are talking about. That place was 100% a gun free zone on orders of the Base Commander. So don’t use that as an example. If you are talking about overseas, then you are just being dumb. That’s literally a war zone over there.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:49 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Well that wouldn't be a fair comparison because there are simply more places that are by nature "gun free" vs. places where guns are expected to be carried.
Only if you ignore the fact these mass shooters want to create as much carnage as possible because most know going in they’re going to die in a matter of minutes when the cops eventually show up. It’s those few minutes, when they’re in a crowd of helpless unarmed people that the mass shooters are wanting. Take away those few minutes so the next time some idiot gets the idea to do something like this they’ll change their mind because they know that more than likely they won’t have those few minutes of being the only one with a gun.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:49 am to Obtuse1
quote:
So you are agreeing it wouldn't have mattered if there were 100s of guns in the crowd?
100’s of intoxicated people pulling guns at a festival, what could go wrong?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:49 am to Janky
quote:
I didn't read all of this thread, but this is dumb. The dude was in a barricaded hotel room.
What's dumb about it? He picked out a target with a shite ton of people. Being a gun free zone or not is of no consequence.
This post was edited on 7/29/19 at 9:50 am
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:50 am to jbgleason
quote:
That place was 100% a gun free zone on orders of the Base Commander.
All military bases are. Only MPs are allowed to regularly carry weapons. If you're not actively training out in the field, all weapons are locked in the armory and personal weapons are verbotten.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:51 am to slackster
quote:
If you made fun free zones go away, I don't believe the list would look any different. Less deaths? Probably, but same locations.
So you’re admitting that without gun free zones these mass shootings would see lower body counts? Lives would be saved?
Then what’s the point of gun free zones?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 9:52 am to slackster
It is dumb because of what I have stated. A guy barricaded in an elevated hotel room is not a fair comparison to a shooter that is actually part of the crowd. It is like saying if the guy was in an armored tank would it have mattered if there were guns in the crowd.
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News