#guns in schools don't deter mass shootings

[anamericangirl]

As a high-schooler, it's strange to see adults arguing over something that seems like a no-brainer. Why remove people's security (guns) because of the minority who misuse them? All of these school shooters had some form of mental illness, and I don't think the problem is guns.

Also, personally speaking, I'd feel much safer if my teachers were armed. If some deranged person ever came strolling in, trying to kill my classmates and me, there is a higher possibility of that person being neutralized without us having to wait for police and risk dying. They say they care about us but also want to remove an essential factor in making our schools safer in the face of a life-threatening situation.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need guns. But the world is far from ideal; we can sit around and lament about how things should be or adapt and make the best out of our situation.

Well you're a lot smarter than a lot of adults. With all the research we have that shows over 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and that the people committing the shootings are all seriously mentally ill in some way, and the fact that even the mere possibility of someone having a gun has deterred crime, and with the records we have of armed citizens stopping mass shooters much faster than police and with less deaths, you would think it would be a no brainer.

And as much as they talk about "common sense" gun control what they don't realize is that common sense is actually against them. Common sense would question why they want to take guns from victims just to call people with guns to come save them. Common sense would show that if you're armed or someone around you is armed there's a nearly 100% chance you can stop a would-be-mass shooting before it becomes a mass shooting. Common sense would say if someone is trying to shoot you, shooting them yourself has a much better success rate than running away.

If there is a shooter at a location and the only person that has a gun is the shooter you are guaranteeing a substantial loss of life before there's even a chance of stopping them. But if someone is armed, the shooting can be stopped as quick as it starts.

Guns are the best defense against another gun. It is a no-brainer and what's concerning is that the politicians who call for gun control while surrounding themselves with armed guards are refusing to give children the same protection they give themselves.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Marjorie Taylor Greene Harassing Parkland Shooting Survivor and Gun Control Activist David Hogg

What is truly astonishing to me is that this was posted by Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) herself. She’s proud of it.  This is what she wrote:

Needless to say, this really upset people like Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter died in the Parkland shooting.

Besides the video showing Marjorie Taylor Greene to be an awful, insensitive human being, it also shows that she is very ignorant about guns and schools.

*   *   *

Armed Guards at Schools Don’t Deter Mass Shootings 

For instance, there is no evidence that armed guards at schools deter shootings. According to Alex Yablon, writing for The Trace:

But the record usually doesn’t back up the deterrence theory — gunmen have often targeted schools with armed guards. In four high-profile 2018 school shootings — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March, and Santa Fe High School in Texas in May — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing. [emphasis added]

According to Yablon, there are only “a handful of documented cases in which an armed security guard or police officers have stopped a school shooting.” Furthermore:

In the 25 shootings in the [Texas State University’s] ALERRT study that targeted schools, none were brought to an end by armed staff, guards or police officers returning fire. These shootings most commonly ended when the shooters were restrained by unarmed staff. [emphasis added]

*   *   *

If Americans Wanted to Stop Mass School Shootings They Would Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons

According to Clifton Leaf, writing for Fortune, following a 1996 shooting where 35 people died in Port Arthur, Australia, “semi-automatic and other military-style weapons” were banned in Australia. Leaf goes on to say:

So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.

Nothing, that is, in a good way.

Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.

As for mass killings, there were no more.* Not one in the past 22 years.

[emphasis added]

_________

*More accurately, there were no more Australian mass shooting deaths in the double digits since 1996. The highest number of Australian mass shooting deaths since 1996 happened in 2018 when a grandfather killed 6 of his family members and then himself.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>‘Guns everywhere’ hasn’t solved it, there are 100 million more GUNS in this country than there are PEOPLE.

Mass shootings are highly likely to take place in 'gun-free zones'. Like schools.

>‘Open Carry’ CERTAINLY hasn’t solved it because it was never MEANT to (Was always a Political/Intimidation/Fashion Show).

It's funny how I put this post in my notes before the guy in Indiana shot an attempted mass shooter in a mall where guns were banned. The cops and public are calling him a hero.

Also, where's your evidence no criminals have been deterred by someone open carrying, ever?

>‘Gun Free Zones’ were always little more than an attempt to stem the tide…-A band-aid on a gaping wound.

Except most gun crimes aren't with legal guns to begin with. I also like how you acknowledge GFZs now, considering your first two points completely ignored them.

It's entirely possible you know GFZs don't prevent mass shootings, and are just lying. Yet you think an even wider ban will do the trick?

>‘Responsible Gun Owners’/‘If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Criminals Will have Guns’ aren’t even arguments. [...]

I'd say they stopped being 'responsible gun owners' the second they decided to murder people.

I also like how you have all this ANGRY SPUTTERING and CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL* and somehow completely failed to rebut or even understand the actual point; violent criminals who own guns probably won't give them up if guns were banned, which would leave non-criminals relatively defenseless.

The people who'd turn in guns would be law-abiding folks.

Maybe there would be a few...million gun owners who had 'boating accidents' with their guns, but the criminals would still know their prey are probably sitting ducks.

>This is NOT a ‘Mental Health Issue’. There are 100’s of MILLIONS of people on this planet with ‘Mental Health issues’ that have never even TOUCHED a gun. It IS a SOCIETAL Issue that, in THIS country, is CENTERED by our attitudes ABOUT guns.

If one guy with schizophrenia says he sees Abraham Lincoln in a Borat swimsuit sitting on his kitchen counter, and nobody else with schizophrenia does, does that mean he's lying? Or does that mean that his particular manifestation of mental illness worked that way?

Can you even view things in a non-collectivist way?

Also, did you forget your meds?

And that's five. That's all the points I allowed myself to respond to, because I don't have all week to explain how you're wrong.

*Yes, I know, but my bold is to highlight keywords to make my posts more readable, and catch people's eye while scrolling. Not because I think the YELLING my NPC nonsense makes me more right.

Go after the gun industry. @chrismurphyct

[anamericangirl]

i see in your bio that you are pro-gun! how do you think the school shootings should be prevented? or do you think that they are not a big problem

It's not as big of a problem as the media has led us to believe. They sensationalize cases of school shootings and act as though they are an epidemic when they account for like 1% or less of all crime committed.

But I think the best way to prevent school shootings is to give children protection from them. Right now, schools have to come up with their own drills for what to do if a shooter enters. They don't have a way to protect or defend kids against these criminals. They really can just run and hide and hope for the best.

We've seen from the most recent incidents that schools cannot rely on resource officers or the police to protect them. And if we take away guns from citizens then they don't have a choice but to rely on the police. And like we saw in Uvalde, sometimes police will just chill in the hall for over an hour while kids are being slaughtered a few doors down.

So I think some good steps to take would be stop making schools gun free zones. Over 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Over the years, research and studies have shown that even the possibility of a person having a gun has deterred criminals from targeting a location or victim.

We need to allow school faculty who own guns to bring them onto campus, to conceal carry them onto the property if they so choose. A gun is the best defense against another gun. It is the number one way to stop a mass shooting dead in its tracks or prevent one from happening. And we've seen that in recent events like when Elisjsha Dicken stopped a mass shooter at a mall saving countless lives. You can't stop people from committing crime, but you can give people a way to defend themselves against it.

The biggest proponents for gun control are celebrities and politicians who don't leave their homes without armed guards following them everywhere. We need to give our children the same protection celebrities and politicians give themselves.

[acespoliticalwaffles]

Im first addressing the very last part because I think you misunderstood me. I was genuinely offering you the sense of closure/control/finality that I always want/need. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but I see how it could come across that way. And I guess saying "done with you" sounds a bit weird, but I mean:

But also, most (or at least a very significant amount) of gun violence is done in the heat of the moment. The person was just angry, and happened to have a gun, which they for some reason decided to use to take their anger out on people. As for school shootings and mass shootings for terroristic purposes, some of them definitely would have tried really hard, but some of them really might have gotten deterred by not being able to legally get a gun, because illegally getting a gun is WAY harder than doing it legally, and some of them would have legitimately gotten to frustrated with the process to continue or would have straight-up failed. You can't stop ALL shootings, but you CAN stop some.

Also, 1 and 2 don't exist everywhere in the US. My state literally just voted whether or not to institute 1, and we're a blue state, so I imagine most red states don't have it. (But again I'm a little too lazy to look it up.)

Also, are you seriously arguing that "mass stabbings" actually happen all the time but we don't hear about them because they don't get people talking about gun control?

Alright, I amend my statement to: civilians shouldn't be able to own something that can kill 20 people in two minutes. And idk what you mean by the hog argument, but whatever. I really am trying to be done with this conversation so I really don't care. (Partially because I do sometimes get kind of mean, and I don't like that.)

Anyway, my point with the last part last time was essentially: "I don't want to continue this even though I always sort of want to get the last word in, so go ahead and respond to me if you feel that way too, but I probably won't." I'm saying it again for this reply, and I hope I'll be able to not respond.

“Alcohol doesn’t kill people in drunk driving accidents—it’s the people who do the killing. It’s our Constitutional right to bear Old Milwaukee.”

— the argument of every Right wing bastard on social media following a mass shooting

[whtwlf]

Here are some counters to the initial counters for those who are thinking about using the brother's arguments:

A. 110% accurate. B. The individual right to bear arms has been around since long before 2008. Its not as though up until 2008 no one outside of the government owned firearms. Having a precedent now doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before. C. Let's take a look at how well strict gun laws have worked out for Mexico or even some place closer to home like Chicago (also affectionately called Chiraq) or Detroit. It's also important to point out that multiple notable mass shootings on school campuses happened with weapons using "low capacity magazines" (Columbine, Virginia Tech). At Virginia Tech, the shooter's solution to the ban on "high capacity magazines" (see: normal capacity) was simply to carry more of the legally obtainable "low capacity" mags. And I don't recommend using examples like the Oklahoma city bombing and say "there hasn't been a similar bombing since" as if there had ever been a bombing like that before when that particular type of fertilizer wasn't banned. D. Knife attacks in China are absolutely as lethal as a school shooting (8 dead), so was the bombing in Paris (137 dead) and the numerous truck rammings across Europe (86 dead). E. Parents trust their children with teachers on a daily basis. If they can trust a teacher who has passed a background check, they should be able to trust armed guards who pass the same background check. Though personally, I don't think a single armed guard is the solution to mass shootings in schools. F.   Saying that the mentally ill are less likely to commit crimes doesn't mean that when those crimes are committed, they aren't more deadly. I'm not saying that only mentally ill people commit gun related crimes, but I am saying that I don't know of any study that has statistics on how many mass shooters are mentally ill. That would be a better argument if the numbers were in favor of gun control. Also, it's a little condescending to compare mental illness to criminal insanity. I don’t recommend using the nukes argument either. A nuclear weapon is used to deter major world powers from going to war by using the threat of wiping all life from the planet, it is not used for individual defense. The same can be said about an F-22. G. Violence may be trending down but mass shootings are certainly increasing in frequency, though I think religion should be kept out of gun control arguments on both sides. H. Tell that to the Vietnamese. I don't think they got the message. I. This misses the point. If the government knows a person has 5 rifles, they could hypothetically come to take those 5 rifles. If the government knows that a person is armed but not how many weapons they have, they can offer up 2 and hide 3. Or hey, with no registered weapons, they might not come for that person at all. I also don’t think a “kicking down doors to raid your house for guns” method of operating is doing to last long when people start fighting back, which is kind of the whole point of the second amendment.

Saw this shared on FB. It covers counter-arguments for a lot of the most common pro-gun points you’ll see people raise. Long read, but very helpful.