• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass shootings are more likely at...

Where is it most likely for there to be a mass shooting

  • Police station

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • National guard base

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gun show

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NRA national matches

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32
So you admit now that it is statistically more likely at schools than gun shows now?
I dont recall ever saying it wasn't.
But you're trying to equate "statiscially more likely" to "explains whe itts neve rhappend". The ONLY way you can do this is to compare the sttictial likely hood to the number of people involved -- someting you cannot do.

Any person is just as likely to be a target as any other person; the only difference is where that person is likely to be when the killer chooses to engage. The killers do NOT choose to engare at places where there are lots of people with guns. Why?

Prove it.
Prove that anyone at any time at any place can be a target?
This proves itself.

Prove that there is a reason why the killers do not choose to engage their targets where there are also large numbers of guns?
Easy: it hasn't happened.
 
I dont recall ever saying it wasn't.
But you're trying to equate "statiscially more likely" to "explains whe itts neve rhappend". The ONLY way you can do this is to compare the sttictial likely hood to the number of people involved -- someting you cannot do.

Any person is just as likely to be a target as any other person; the only difference is where that person is likely to be when the killer chooses to engage. The killers do NOT choose to engare at places where there are lots of people with guns. Why?


Prove that anyone at any time at any place can be a target?
This proves itself.

Prove that there is a reason why the killers do not choose to engage their targets where there are also large numbers of guns?
Easy: it hasn't happened.

It could have never happened because there has not yet been an instance when the killer's target was at a gun show when they wanted to kill them. Just because something has not happened does not mean it cannot. Even if it could not happen, it still could be for reasons other than the presence of guns. So once again, show some evidence that schools are more likely to be targeted by mass killers than gun shows due to the presence of guns at a gun show.
 
It could have never happened because there has not yet been an instance when the killer's target was at a gun show when they wanted to kill them. Just because something has not happened does not mean it cannot. Even if it could not happen, it still could be for reasons other than the presence of guns. So once again, show some evidence that schools are more likely to be targeted by mass killers than gun shows due to the presence of guns at a gun show.

I have decided that this discussion is about as much fun as banging my head on a brick wall. This person is not interested in understanding why such crimes happen, and the role that firearms play in them. He just wants to wear you down so he can reaffirm the rightness of his own views. He isn't capable of objective thought.
 
I have decided that this discussion is about as much fun as banging my head on a brick wall. This person is not interested in understanding why such crimes happen, and the role that firearms play in them. He just wants to wear you down so he can reaffirm the rightness of his own views. He isn't capable of objective thought.

To use a police term, it's his modus operandi.
 
It could have never happened because there has not yet been an instance when the killer's target was at a gun show when they wanted to kill them.
There is absoluely NO way you can assume that.
Thus, everythng based on that assumption is invalid.

Any person is just as likely to be a target as any other person; the only difference is where that person is likely to be when the killer chooses to engage. The killers do NOT choose to engare at places where there are lots of people with guns. Why?
 
There is absoluely NO way you can assume that.
Thus, everythng based on that assumption is invalid.

Any person is just as likely to be a target as any other person; the only difference is where that person is likely to be when the killer chooses to engage. The killers do NOT choose to engare at places where there are lots of people with guns. Why?

I am not assuming it, I am offering it as a possibility. I know that is a subtle difference, but hopefully you will follow that simple difference. Note though, that you are assuming, based on zero evidence, that the reason no one has shot up a gun show is because there are guns there. Until you can prove, or even show evidence, that the reason no one has shot up a gun show is the presence of guns, your question is meaningless and without merit.
 
If you want to concede the argument, go ahead.
Otherwise, stop whining.

No one has conceded anything. We are just laughing at you vainly struggling to defend a failed position.
 
No one has conceded anything. We are just laughing at you vainly struggling to defend a failed position.
Funny... I'm laughing at YOU for the same thing.
 
I am not assuming it, I am offering it as a possibility.
That and $1.00 proves you have enough money to buy a an order of froied an McD.

Note though, that you are assuming, based on zero evidence, that the reason no one has shot up a gun show is because there are guns there.
I am? Have I claimed that?
Or, have I continually asked for a supportable reason to think that the available of guns is NOT a factor?
Its a subtle difference; hopefully you will follow that simple difference

And so, I ask again:
Why do killers NOT choose to engage their targets at places where there are lots of people with guns.
 
That and $1.00 proves you have enough money to buy a an order of froied an McD.


I am? Have I claimed that?
Or, have I continually asked for a supportable reason to think that the available of guns is NOT a factor?
Its a subtle difference; hopefully you will follow that simple difference

And so, I ask again:
Why do killers NOT choose to engage their targets at places where there are lots of people with guns.

And as I have stated, it could be any number of reasons. The fact that guns are present is not highly likely to be one. The risk in either place is so low as to be disregarded.
 
And as I have stated, it could be any number of reasons.
You missed the "supportable" part. Haven't seen one of those.

The fact that guns are present is not highly likely to be one
Support this.
 
But there ARE guns present in schools. I already discussed this.

That's the problem. Mass shootings DO happen in places where people are armed. That's why the poll is logically flawed. Statistically speaking, the presence of guns does not deter mass shootings the way guns may deter more predatory/opportunistic types of crimes.

I think it's great to argue gun rights. But we should do so without using false information or assumptions.

Do guns deter crime? Absolutely. Do guns deter mass shootings (a very specific type of crime with a very specific, ideologically motivated perpetrator)? No. They don't.

/discussion.


I'll concede that you may have a point. I have not studied in depth the mindset of those who engage in these mass-murder sprees, as differentiated from ordinary criminals and serial killers (whom I have studied).

Possibly they are not deterred by the presence of armed persons, as a general thing. Possibly the reason these shootings tend to happen in places where the majority of the victims are unarmed is chance... I'm willing to entertain the idea at least.

But, let's consider some mathmatics.

If a University has 5000 students, 500 teachers and staff, and 5 campus police officers on duty, and only the five campus cops are armed...that gives us 1 person in 1,100 who is armed. This would tend to give a mass-shooter a pretty good array of victims to kill before an armed person arrived on the scene to stop him, unless he were careless or unlucky enough to blunder into one of the five cops immediately.

Now lets say that those with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry on campus. This means those who are 21 or older and have completed the required background checks, range score, written test, etc...responsible adults who cared enough to jump through all the hoops.

Florida has a population of about 18 million. Of these, about 1.2 million have concealed carry permits (CCW hereafter).

(source:) Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a percentage of about 7%.

The hypothetical university above has 500 staff. It has 5000 students, of which let's assume 1000 are 21 or older (just a reasonable guess, 20%). That gives us 1500 adults, at 7% means probably 105 CCW holders.

105 CCW holders, compared to 5 campus cops. Now let's cut that number; in my experience about half of CCW people actually carry on a daily basis, so let's say only 55 are actually carrying at the time of an incident (assuming it was lawful to carry on the campus...in most states it isn't.)

If the would-be mass shooter has 5 armed campus cops to avoid, he could rack up quite a body count before being stopped...as witness Virginia Tech. If he had 5 cops and 55 armed CCW citizens (the latter being hidden among the general population, their weapons being concealed and them not in uniform), we just increased his chances of being stopped early by 11 times...that's a 1,100% increase.

The odds that among the first 20 people to encounter the mass-murderer, there will be a campus cop are one in 55. If we factor CCW into the equation, the odds become 1 in 5. Bear in mind that at VAtech, many people saw or heard the shooter without getting shot, mostly by hiding, barricading a door or running away. The likelihood that this guy could walk around shooting dozens of people with impunity as happened at VA just decreased eleven-fold.


I'm not talking about deterrence effect here, really. I'm talking about someone putting a 115-grain hollowpoint thru Mr. Mass Murder's brainpan and ending him right there.


Personally I think it is well worth legalizing CCW on campus, not only for this reason but because of the right of responsible, law-abiding adults to bear arms. The vast majority of universities recieve public funds to some degree; this makes them liable as "a public institution" does it not? Then a public institution should no more deny responsible adults their 2A rights than it should their 1A rights.


G.
 
You missed the "supportable" part. Haven't seen one of those.


Support this.

You have not offered a supportable position, in fact, you have supported nothing yet. You have implied that somehow places with guns are safer from mass killers, but considering that the chance of being killed anywhere by a mass killer is so microscopically low, the fact that no one has been killed by a mass killer at a gun show is meaningless. No one has been killed by a mass killer in my hometown either, why might that be? Is it because of guns?
 
You have not offered a supportable position...
You havent noticed?
I haven't taken a position.

However, YOU have.

Now, support your position that, while ther may be any mumber of reasons why these people do not go after their targets when the are guns around the poresence of those guns is not highly likely to be one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom