What is wrong with people?

[Pali]

Oh ye of little faith...

[Akoz]

That's the thing L-A...

I'm in a crowd, shots break out, I see Shooter1, I take him out, but now there are 3 other men with guns drawn....all of this happened in the blink of an eye, there is no way a gun novice is going to truly know who are the hostiles and who are not.

This is where real training and experience comes into play and you can sense who is hostile and who is not, ideally. But when you are talking about random people with random psyche, random military training, random action movie junkie...theres just way too many ways it could play out.

For instance, Shooter1 was shooting wherever he was shooting at, but the other men with guns drawn are all aimed where Shooter1 was just eliminated. Hopefully they are trained and their guns drop as the target is neutralized and you realize there is no danger. As opposed to taking out Shooter1 and in your peripheral you see a man to your right still looking down the sights in another direction. You then call out for him to lower his weapon and he doesn't. Now you have a stand-off. He doesn't know if your hostile, you don't know if he is. It can get hairy when you are dealing with people who have not been on a tactical team together.

BUT

It's all situational and there are too many variables to get into, but the fact is that Joe Plumber is not going to be ready for a situation like this and likely would never draw his gun in the first place.

What about granny who just drew that nickel plated 9mm she got from her grandson for christmas and doesn't know wtf is going on but she shoots you thinking you were with the 1st guy!

ITS ANARCHY IN THE UK!!!

edit#24 Also what if I'm not there and the three guys that do draw their guns are wanna-be boondock saints that can't pick off pepsi cans from 10 feet away? Next thing you know they are tryin to save the day and take out the shooter and several friendlies in the process.

Alot of "What Ifs" Im going to go out on a limb and say that I doubt you can find many times where someone had to draw their gun due to a gunman in a mass shooting situation and the death toll was higher then it would have been.

As per pali's question - The people would have pulled their gun after SEEING the gunman, therefor the weapons would have been pointed at the gunman. Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Pali]

Pali's question? I think you meant L-A's.

[Demiterracotta]

This whole deal made me very sad.

Then I was made extremely angry by them interviewing children directly after that happened, that's pretty messed up.

I wish they'd catch one of these asshats alive.....I can think of all sorts of things to do to them that would make me feel better. Especially when in my opinion if you break the rules of humanity to that extreme you are no longer allowed to be viewed as a sentient feeling creature, just a pile of crap to be disposed of.

[Elrozin]

Come on, egreir. Pali just wants to give you a little poke.

[Grimulfr]

I am not really for or against gun control, but I think that the symptom of these killings must be addressed, not just the means by which they are carried out.

The symptom is the deeper psychology of what is going on inside the head of the shooters. Guns being readily available makes it easier for them to select their means of carrying out their plan but, at it's root, the availability of guns is not WHY these people kill.

They kill for any number of reasons, most of them mental or psychological.

I know I sound like I am toting the line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and I suppose I am to a degree. But it's only because I hope that the deeper and ultimately more difficult issues, such as treating the root cause of these terrible incidents, don't get pushed into the background in the face of overwhelming argument that only targets gun control.

[egreir]

Alot of "What Ifs" Im going to go out on a limb and say that I doubt you can find many times where someone had to draw their gun due to a gunman in a mass shooting situation and the death toll was higher then it would have been.

As per pali's question - The people would have pulled their gun after SEEING the gunman, therefor the weapons would have been pointed at the gunman. Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I didn't design the situation, so talk to L-A not me about the what-ifs.

And you just repeated what I said.

[Kyzarius]

I am not really for or against gun control, but I think that the symptom of these killings must be addressed, not just the means by which they are carried out.

The symptom is the deeper psychology of what is going on inside the head of the shooters. Guns being readily available makes it easier for them to select their means of carrying out their plan but, at it's root, the availability of guns is not WHY these people kill.

They kill for any number of reasons, most of them mental or psychological.

I know I sound like I am toting the line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and I suppose I am to a degree. But it's only because I hope that the deeper and ultimately more difficult issues, such as treating the root cause of these terrible incidents, don't get pushed into the background in the face of overwhelming argument that only targets gun control.

both things should be addressed. Better gun control, and easier access to mental health care. The problem is everytime someone mentions gun control, all the right leaning folks flip out "ITS NOT GUNSSSS!".

[L-A]

The reason a disgruntled employee takes a gun into a store to open fire is because he knows it's likely to be an unarmed area and easy to take other people down with him. The simple knowledge that there would a high probability of other armed people in the vicinity would likely act as a deterrent. If the disgruntled employee simply wanted to commit suicide' date=' it would be far safer for him to off himself at home rather than risk getting injured and detained and spend life in prison after an armed supermarket situation.[/quote']

I disagree with this. People who takes firearms into crowded area's with the intention of opening fire aren't what I consider to be rational human beings. I doubt any kind of deterrent is going to stop people in this frame of mind.

As far as your standoff situation, if I walked in on four guys with guns drawn but no firing, I would simply walk away. My safety takes priority over getting involved with their business. If I were to get involved, then obviously the person firing on everyone would be the target. If it's just a standoff, then that means no one is firing, no one is getting killed, just wait for police to show up and secure the facility. If it's a shoot off, then again, it means the disgruntled employee is pinned behind a barrier shooting at his attackers, and more importantly, NOT shooting innocent, unarmed victims. Authorities arrive eventually and secure the situation, take statements, and arrest the disgruntled employee. Most shooter enter these situations planning to off themself after taking others down with them. If the more likely out come becomes one where they injure no one and possibly end up in jail, they lose their incentive to go out in the first place, again a deterrent.

Interesting. I actually expected anyone with a firearm to be seen as a target and fired upon.

It's faulty to assume that any military or police have even an average amount of training with firearms, unless we are talking about Special Forces or SWAT or something similar. Just because the state says they can have a gun, doesn't mean they know how to use it.

:eek::eek:

I thought that any military or law enforcement (in this day and age) would train their members in (at the very least) basic gun safety as well as requiring some level of shooting proficiency.

I would expect that lady isn't a danger to herself or others with a firearm unless she chooses to be.

To be clearer, I would rather have one untrained lawful person with a gun in one of these situations than no one armed and the attacker free to do as he pleases.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong but:

How about if it was myself? Before you answer, let me tell you about my experiences with firearms:

I've been to the local shooting range once in my lifetime. My experience extends to firing a .22 pistol at some paper targets. I can probably hit a target, most of the time, at a distance of 7m. Probably.

If I move in next to you inscribed, how easy/hard is it for me to obtain a pistol and be allowed to carry it concealed? How safe would you feel knowing someone like myself has a firearm?

L-A

[egreir]

Just my two cents, but I don't like it at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to do it, but I wouldn't want you next to me in a kill or be killed situation.

[egreir]

Good statement from Morgan Freeman.

You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine?

Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another.

Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

[inscribed]

I disagree with this. People who takes firearms into crowded area's with the intention of opening fire aren't what I consider to be rational human beings. I doubt any kind of deterrent is going to stop people in this frame of mind.

People are no more crazy today than they were 30 years ago. The difference is that we have created environments where it is very easy for them to do a lot of damage before going out. That's all a gun free zone is.

Interesting. I actually expected anyone with a firearm to be seen as a target and fired upon.

People carry around guns now and this is obviously not the case. The only difference we are talking about now is giving teacher's back their right to carry to work. Keep in mind, we only just prevented teacher's from doing this in 1990. We are not talking about a huge change, just redacting something we created 23 years ago.

:eek::eek:

I thought that any military or law enforcement (in this day and age) would train their members in (at the very least) basic gun safety as well as requiring some level of shooting proficiency.

I would expect that lady isn't a danger to herself or others with a firearm unless she chooses to be.

They get a very minimal amount of training, and the proficiency requirements, if there even are any, are low.

No one is a danger to others unless they choose to be.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong but:

How about if it was myself? Before you answer, let me tell you about my experiences with firearms:

I've been to the local shooting range once in my lifetime. My experience extends to firing a .22 pistol at some paper targets. I can probably hit a target, most of the time, at a distance of 7m. Probably.

If I move in next to you inscribed, how easy/hard is it for me to obtain a pistol and be allowed to carry it concealed? How safe would you feel knowing someone like myself has a firearm?

L-A

Going to the gun range once is more experience than most Americans have. If you move in next to me, it's just a matter of going down to the local gun store and handing over some cash. Some guns require a background check and a waiting period. I would have absolutely zero problem with you having a firearm. They aren't that scary. And I would much rather have someone like you having a pistol on you in a situation like at this elementary school, than no one at all.

[Icor]

I am not really for or against gun control, but I think that the symptom of these killings must be addressed, not just the means by which they are carried out.

The symptom is the deeper psychology of what is going on inside the head of the shooters. Guns being readily available makes it easier for them to select their means of carrying out their plan but, at it's root, the availability of guns is not WHY these people kill.

They kill for any number of reasons, most of them mental or psychological.

I know I sound like I am toting the line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", and I suppose I am to a degree. But it's only because I hope that the deeper and ultimately more difficult issues, such as treating the root cause of these terrible incidents, don't get pushed into the background in the face of overwhelming argument that only targets gun control.

Thank you for your genius.

[Akoz]

Thank you for your genius.

As per my post, same opinion!

[Pali]

Hey, I've been on the "there's more to this than guns" bandwagon since my first post too...

[egreir]

Don't mind Awendris, they just like taking credit

[Akoz]

*cough*

I wanted to post something else too.

I work in the IT field and we "Fix" things and I was trained on the "Root Cause" path in where you find the foot cause and start there. What that means is, you drive the investigation to the “root” of the cause. You do this by driving the investigation until you can no longer drive it any further. The premises is, unless you drive the problem to the root and fix it there, the problem can occur again. So lets apply that principal to these horrible events that are happening in our world. Today, a young man of 27 years, apparently killed his mother and possibly others before entering the school where his mother taught at, and proceeded to kill and wound over 20 people, most of which were children. Obviously, this person had a very troubled mind. So the question at hand is, WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS TRADIDY? Is your answer to this question “the guns” ? Is it your assertion that if we get rid of the guns, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened? I would suggest to you that you are wrong. If we take the guns out of the equation, we are still left with the troubled mind. Lets just presume for a moment, that he had no access to guns. What do you think this sick, troubled mind would do? Would he just say “ oh well, I can’t get a gun, so I’ll just forget about my troubles” ? Not hardly. He will simply find another way. The point is, by getting rid of guns, we have not addressed the root cause of the problem, and it WILL happen again. The route cause is the sick, troubled mind. Yes, that’s a lot more complex problem to fix, but until we find a way to fix that, then we’re simply “white washing” the problem. So you would argue: but we don’t “need” automatic guns that shoot xxx number of bullets and we don’t need AR15’s. And I say to you: quit changing the subject, you’re NOT ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSE. I would suggest that you’re simply looking for a way to say “at least we did something”. You’re looking for something to make you feel better, to make you feel like we’re trying, but in reality, you’ve done nothing to solve the problem, and you have further encroached on the rights of honest, law abiding citizens. A fully automatic machine gun, a hand gun that can fire 15 bullets, a nuclear warhead , is harmless, in the hands of an honest, law abiding citizen,….. and the common automobile, a pocket knife or a can of gasoline can be a devastating weapon in the hands of a sick troubled mind. That my friends, is why you will continue to meet unrelenting opposition to your argument to “gun control”. Because it will do NOTHING to solve the root cause.

In closing, I will pray for the families of those innocent lives lost. I can fix a broken computer, but I can't fix a broken mind, so I will pray that we can come together and find a way to heal the sick troubled minds BEFORE they get to the point that they feel like this is the way out for them. For those of my friends who read these words and still feel like guns are still the problem, I still love you, and I will pray for you too. Mon coeur fait mal, mon coeur cet casse'.

[Icor]

..... Oh.

Thank you all for your genius, I meant.

[Grimulfr]

It didn't take long for people to start blaming video games.

[Trick]

Grimulfr...you are here...?