Mass shootings are more likely at...

Goobieman said:

You would agree than that these instances are then not pillars upon which to base an argument for more gun control.
Right?

Click to expand...

Sure. Anyone who worries about being a victim of a mass shooting (unless they're involved in something illegal like drugs) is being completely irrational.

I'd say schools and I'll give you a different potential reason.

School shootings have largely been made up recently of people that attend the school and are school age, be they college or high school.

In both you have at times high stress environments mixed with generally emotionally immature people. With college often times yo uhave people coping for the first time with being away from home and on their own in some way shape or form. In both, but more often in high school, you have people that are continually ridiculed and ostracized from their little pocket society. You have multiple areas with large amounts of people together in a planned and organized fashion in which people can plan accordingly for. And in general security is relatively lax in most of these places with high schools tending to have perhaps a single security guard and colleges a few cops to go over the entire place, along with the issues with lack of guns on the grounds, and the fact that many of these that becoming more common in "middle class" and "white colar" invironments where security checks in general aren't occuring as often.

Add all that together and you have a recipe for potential mass shootings.

That said, given the magnitude of how many educational institutions we have in this country along with the millions that attend said institutions and compare that to the relatively low, relatively speaking, number of mass shootings and you'll see that even with the above stated mass shootings are not really "likely" anywhere in the U.S. outside of potential areas of heavy gang presence.

Kandahar said:

Sure. Anyone who worries about being a victim of a mass shooting (unless they're involved in something illegal like drugs) is being completely irrational.

Click to expand...

I don't worry about it. I simply believe it is possible and worth preventing.

I want to add that I think the idea that schools are more likely to have a mass shooting because the people there are unarmed is foolish. I don't think that is a significant factor in some one choosing a target for a mass shooting.

Redress said:

I want to add that I think the idea that schools are more likely to have a mass shooting because the people there are unarmed is foolish. I don't think that is a significant factor in some one choosing a target for a mass shooting.

Click to expand...

So, the likelihood that you will be engaged by defensive gun fire is not a significant factor? Okay, let’s try this…

Two schools, identical in every conceivable way EXCEPT one has certain teachers licensed to carry weapons whereas the other does not. Which one are you going to attack?

Goobieman said:

Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.

Click to expand...

Mass shootings are more likely at any large gathering of people. Simple math; mass shootings happen because someone who is already off their rocker decides to take as many down with him as he can and finds a crowd of people. Has nothing to do with the second amendment on either side of the argument. It has to do with crazy people killing people.

Redress said:

I want to add that I think the idea that schools are more likely to have a mass shooting because the people there are unarmed is foolish. I don't think that is a significant factor in some one choosing a target for a mass shooting.

Click to expand...

Really.
If the schools were known to have numerous armed guards/police officers on duty, how many of the people that shot up the various schools do you suppose would have done so anyway, rather than picking a place where they were more likely to succeed?

jallman said:

Mass shootings are more likely at any large gathering of people. Simple math; mass shootings happen because someone who is already off their rocker decides to take as many down with him as he can and finds a crowd of people.

Click to expand...

Why then do they not happen at places where there are generally a large number of guns and people that know how to use them, and instead tend to happen at places where there are not?

Ethereal said:

So, the likelihood that you will be engaged by defensive gun fire is not a significant factor? Okay, let’s try this…

Two schools, identical in every conceivable way EXCEPT one has certain teachers licensed to carry weapons whereas the other does not. Which one are you going to attack?

Click to expand...

The one where the people I want to kill are at.

Goobieman said:

Why then do they not happen at places where there are generally a large number of guns and people that know how to use them, and instead tend to happen at places where there are not?

Click to expand...

There aren't a large number of mass shootings to start with. Secondly, it isn't about the guns with several of your choices; its about the access to those places. Most people, especially people mentally ill enough to go on a shooting spree, don't have unfettered access to military bases, guard posts, police stations, etc. NRA rallies don't happen every day but a school campus is always there, always teeming with human activity, and doesn't really restrict access.

Shooting sprees aren't about the second amendment on either side of the argument. They are about mentally ill people going off their rocker and taking as many people down as they can.

Redress said:

The one where the people I want to kill are at.

Click to expand...

They're in both schools in equal proportion. Answer the question, sir.

Ethereal said:

They're in both schools in equal proportion. Answer the question, sir.

Click to expand...

The one closest to home then.

Redress said:

The one closest to home then.

Click to expand...

I'll take your evasiveness as a confirmation of my point.

jallman said:

There aren't a large number of mass shootings to start with.

Click to expand...

Not the issue.

Secondly, it isn't about the guns with several of your choices; its about the access to those places.

Click to expand...

Excepting the NG base and the police station, all of them have equal access -- and, in all reality, many NG bases are pretty accessable as well.

Shooting sprees aren't about the second amendment on either side of the argument. They are about mentally ill people going off their rocker and taking as many people down as they can.

Click to expand...

BUT they dont seem to happen where there are large number of people with guns. IF the function is the craziness of the shooter, then it seems the places that they occour woudl be more diverse, to the point where at least SOME of them woudl happen at the places I listed.

Goobieman said:

Not the issue.

Click to expand...

Frequency of occurence most certainly is an issue when determining chances and likelihoods. Point stands: mass shootings are not a frequent occurrence to start with.

Excepting the NG base and the police station, all of them have equal access -- and, in all reality, many NG bases are pretty accessable as well.

Click to expand...

Totally untrue. There is no unfettered access to police stations, National Guard Stations, etc. You get access to the front desk. That's it.

BUT they dont seem to happen where there are large number of people with guns.

Click to expand...

They also don't seem to happen in:

Churches
Cemetaries
Banks
Hospitals
Carnivals
Bake sales
Art Galleries
Museums
Dance Clubs
Restaurants
Hotels

IF the function is the craziness of the shooter, then it seems the places that they occour woudl be more diverse, to the point where at least SOME of them woudl happen at the places I listed.

Click to expand...

How are you going to have a diverse sample of locales when you don't have an extensive number of occurrences? Goes back to point number 1: there aren't a lot of mass shootings to start with.

The issue with mass shootings is not a second amendment issue to either side of the argument. It's about crazy people with guns shooting a lot of other people.

Ethereal said:

So, the likelihood that you will be engaged by defensive gun fire is not a significant factor? Okay, let’s try this…

Two schools, identical in every conceivable way EXCEPT one has certain teachers licensed to carry weapons whereas the other does not. Which one are you going to attack?

Click to expand...

I doubt that most people who go on shooting rampages have any intention of surviving the assault, so the possibility of defensive gun fire is not going to dissuade them. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone ever going on a mass rampage at a school that wasn't their own. The shooters are almost invariably students or former students of the school. I'm not aware of a shooter ever targeting a school specifically because there would be less guns there than at some other school.

I don't really care if certain faculty are allowed to carry weapons, as long as they're being responsible. But let's not pretend it's going to dissuade a mass shooter, in that highly unlikely situation.

Kandahar said:

I doubt that most people who go on shooting rampages have any intention of surviving the assault, so the possibility of defensive gun fire is not going to dissuade them.

Click to expand...

Except that they intend to complete their 'mission' before doing so, and so then may very well be dissuaded bu the real possibility of defensive fire.
Not to mention being actually -stopped- by it.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone ever going on a mass rampage at a school that wasn't their own. The shooters are almost invariably students or former students of the school. I'm not aware of a shooter ever targeting a school specifically because there would be less guns there than at some other school.

Click to expand...

These are not related concepts.

Kandahar said:

I doubt that most people who go on shooting rampages have any intention of surviving the assault, so the possibility of defensive gun fire is not going to dissuade them. Furthermore, I'm not aware of anyone ever going on a mass rampage at a school that wasn't their own. The shooters are almost invariably students or former students of the school. I'm not aware of a shooter ever targeting a school specifically because there would be less guns there than at some other school.

I don't really care if certain faculty are allowed to carry weapons, as long as they're being responsible. But let's not pretend it's going to dissuade a mass shooter, in that highly unlikely situation.

Click to expand...

The constant knowledge that some of your teachers are packing heat could be a very real deterrent, or it couldn't be. It's all speculation at this point.

tlmorg02 said:

I disagree with your assessment of the research. The CATO institute, and even the researcher himself, admitted that they thought by studying areas that had legalized conceal carry, they would see higher crime rates. However, they were in fact surprised to find that the states with CCW actually saw a reduction in crime. There was never data to fit the hypothesis.

Click to expand...

My assessment was based on how you presented it. Now that you've added more description to the study, you'll notice that it's quite different from where you started. At first you made it seem like the study was about law abiding citizens themselves, but now it's the area where these law abiding citizens are found.

I'm just going off on what you are presenting here.

Ethereal said:

I'll take your evasiveness as a confirmation of my point.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. I do not think that guns are something that mass killers spend much time thinking about when planning their crimes. The only case where it might, possibly be considered would be when all other things are equal(they never are), and when the nutcase has access to the information(which is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

Redress said:

No, it's not. I do not think that guns are something that mass killers spend much time thinking about when planning their crimes. The only case where it might, possibly be considered would be when all other things are equal(they never are), and when the nutcase has access to the information(which is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

Guns aren't something they think about? So, they'd be just as likely to commit a killing spree on DARE day (when several police officers are present) as opposed to just another ol' school day?

jallman said:

Frequency of occurence most certainly is an issue when determining chances and likelihoods. Point stands: mass shootings are not a frequent occurrence to start with.

Click to expand...

Only if your argument is that 'small sample size' has averaged these places out. This stands only if it is somehow inherenly more likely to happen in one place than another; you argue that the relevant function is the person and not the place, so that cannot be.

Totally untrue. There is no unfettered access to police stations, National Guard Stations, etc. You get access to the front desk. That's it.

Click to expand...

The police station, yes.
Every NG base I've been on (and that's a number), they stop you at the gate and and check your driver's license. Maybe.
In fact, last one I was on, I only stopped because there was a sign that said "stop".

They also don't seem to happen in...

Click to expand...

The it seems your position that it is the shooter and not the place isnt well-supported, as crazies have access to all of these places.

Goobieman said:

The it seems your position that it is the shooter and not the place isnt well-supported, as crazies have access to all of these places.

Click to expand...

And that none of those are places people are likely to be packing either. At least not when compared to military bases and police stations.

The issue is the person, not the place and not who may or may not be exercising the right to bear arms. Hell, with police stations and guard posts, it isn't exercising second amendment rights anyway...they are civil servants and military personnel. :shrug:

Ethereal said:

Guns aren't something they think about? So, they'd be just as likely to commit a killing spree on DARE day (when several police officers are present) as opposed to just another ol' school day?

Click to expand...

Depends on whether they knew about it or not. Do you notice how extremely specific and unlikely your scenarios are getting?

Goobieman said:

Where do you think it is most likely for there to be a mass shooting?
Please be sure to state your reason, and any support for same.

Click to expand...

Support for a mass shooting ?
This problem will persist as long as the gun laws are so lax.
Study the European stats on this.. Not that they have all of the best ways of doing things.
But I doubt if the damn gun lovers know how to read and write.