View Single Post
Old 01-16-2013, 01:57 PM   #51
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 953
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
They don't ensure our safety but it promotes an environment that is less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive (i.e. in the heat of the moment) occurrences.
First of all, how do you know that gun-free-zones are "less prone to negative consequences resulting from impulsive occurrences"? Have you considered that an armed authority figure nearby may result in even fewer impulsive occurrences of all types?

Current levels of negative consequences - fewer mass shootings by people looking for soft targets - fewer non-gun fights, bullying and other negative consequences of impulsive occurrences + more gun fights as a result of more guns being present = a net gain or net loss in violence?

Second of all, a gun-free-zone is only effective at lessening gun violence if it's kept that way. Some jackass shows up and in an instant turns it into a gun-free-except-for-the-psychopath-zone and THAT'S when the problem occurs. So unless you have a way to make gun-free-zones absolutely impervious, serious consideration has to be given to the idea that creating a gun-free-zone = creating a tantalizing target for gun wielding psychos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
We've already established if a person is committed in doing so... they will regardless. So taking into consideration whether they'll obey said "gun free zone" is inconsequential. And while an armed teacher might be able to stop a situation before it escalates, anyone with half a brain will take the teacher out first. That in an of itself negates any true benefit from removing the gun free zone criteria.
No, it doesn't negate it. A car alarm gives true benefit by dissuading at least some would-be thieves, even if it won't stop the most dedicated, skilled or completely crazy car thief.

Yes, some nut jobs are tactically rational enough (and dedicated enough to that specific target) to shoot the teacher or on-campus cop first. But for every 1 of those shooters, there may be 10 that think "gee, I wanna shoot some mofos today, wonder where I should go maybe my old school, oh, no wait, Mr Smithers has a gun in his desk, I don't want to get shot back at, so I'll go to the movie theater where no one will be armed because it's a gun-free-zone".

In addition, you may be correct that the gun in Mrs Brown's desk won't save her or the kids in her class because NutJob is going to pop her first. But if every other teacher has a gun in their desk, after they hear the first shots, the shooter will have a MUCH harder time going room to room. Instead of slaughtering unarmed people whose only available course of action is hide and hope, he might be stopped much earlier.

You must recognize how much worse the shooters tactical situation becomes in the case where he'll face armed people instead of unarmed people, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
I support gun ownership. But I am tired of hearing the flawed logic behind why we should abolish said zones.
You accuse others of using flawed logic, but you're reaching conclusions without any actual information, you're just deciding what you think would be the outcome. Your position isn't any stronger than those that would have .50 cals at every doorway. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's right.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
What was the best thing before sliced bread?
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote