http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/index.html
AZ Congressmen Trent Franks up bright and early saying we need more guns.
AZ Congressmen Trent Franks up bright and early saying we need more guns.
Another school shooting in AZ
- Thread starter Funky Bunch
- Start date
Criminals looking for attention will always pick soft targets. But God forbid anyone be allowed to protect themselves.
No.
'Cause kids killed in school parking lots in Compton, Burnside, or Englewood don't make the news.
We gave up on stopping Gang violence in the 80's.
Yet another shooting and people are still talking about the same BS, trying to politicize it. Why don't we try understanding why it's happening instead.
The AZ shooting is more gang\thug related from the sounds of it then an actual "active shooter" tragedy. 0120hrs is not the norm for active shooter incidents. Drug deal gone bad? Angry boyfriend?
Edit - could be dissing the Kappa or the Omega mega moos gets you the lead.
Edit - could be dissing the Kappa or the Omega mega moos gets you the lead.
Last edited:
If we're really looking for solutions, and not just looking to grandstand on one side or the other of the gun debate, then we have to realize that "school shootings" aren't a single problem. The media puts "school shooting" on anything, whether it's unrelated neighborhood violence that sprays onto school grounds, a specific dispute between two adults on school grounds, workplace violence between school staff members or the cases where someone attempts to mass kill students. They're not all the same problem. This NAU shooting sounds like a specific issue between two people that came to violence and it's a "school shooting" really only because the two individuals live on a college campus.
I say all that not to minimize any of these incidents, but just to point out that we can't say "school shooting" as if we're solving for a single problem.
Ok, somebody who subscribes the following point of view, please chime in:
They always attack where guns aren't allowed, if we got rid of those places there would be less shootings.
Ok, so a few questions:
1) Do you believe this is why/how they choose their targets? For example, it was brought up about even the S. Carolina church. Do you think he chose a church because of gun laws? Alternatively, a student at a school does it at school, and you think, again, it is because of gun laws?
2) Where is a place that they would cower and refuse to attack? Presumably a place full of guns, which would be.....where? An NRA convention? So, in this hypothetical would this be an Anti-Gun person using a gun to shoot Pro-Gun people?
3) Picking any one of these "no gun" locations, if you removed "no guns" how many people would actually be armed? Using the S. Carolina church, or even the Oregon JUCO, how many of those attendees would actually be strapped? 3.5) And isn't it likely those people would be armed anyways? I mean, you don't get searched prior to entering a movie theater, if a gun-wearer was attending he wouldn't leave it in the car, right? At least nobody I know would.
Serious questions btw.
They always attack where guns aren't allowed, if we got rid of those places there would be less shootings.
Ok, so a few questions:
1) Do you believe this is why/how they choose their targets? For example, it was brought up about even the S. Carolina church. Do you think he chose a church because of gun laws? Alternatively, a student at a school does it at school, and you think, again, it is because of gun laws?
2) Where is a place that they would cower and refuse to attack? Presumably a place full of guns, which would be.....where? An NRA convention? So, in this hypothetical would this be an Anti-Gun person using a gun to shoot Pro-Gun people?
3) Picking any one of these "no gun" locations, if you removed "no guns" how many people would actually be armed? Using the S. Carolina church, or even the Oregon JUCO, how many of those attendees would actually be strapped? 3.5) And isn't it likely those people would be armed anyways? I mean, you don't get searched prior to entering a movie theater, if a gun-wearer was attending he wouldn't leave it in the car, right? At least nobody I know would.
Serious questions btw.
Would you be in favor of a gun or ammo tax for armed security at all schools? Kindergarten through college? If you want to own guns, you pay for security for the rest of us.
What good is voicing your opinion going to do? We already know what your opinion is.
Not really sure why people think things are worse now or really any different. There are bad people, always has been and always will
Can anyone really argue on either side of the aisle that this not getting worse? There have always been bad people, but they haven't always been taking weapons and trying to kill mass people at the frequency that is happening now. Do not bury your head in the sand.
I think we both know. If you are anti NRA, you are called anti gun. You just proved that.
I just wonder how many dead it will take to make the GOP see the light? 10,000 a year on college campuses, would that get their attention?
I already see the light: if we were to issue every single incoming freshman -in the nation- a gun and teach them to use it, and require they keep it loaded and ready, maybe some of this stuff would not happen or get stopped before it happens
Is there another political issue more important than finding the cause and stopping the mass killing of innocent Americans? If there is, I'd like to hear it.
Ok, somebody who subscribes the following point of view, please chime in:
They always attack where guns aren't allowed, if we got rid of those places there would be less shootings.
Ok, so a few questions:
1) Do you believe this is why/how they choose their targets? For example, it was brought up about even the S. Carolina church. Do you think he chose a church because of gun laws? Alternatively, a student at a school does it at school, and you think, again, it is because of gun laws?
May not be the only reason, but certainly plays a part. Hence the answers to #2.
2) Where is a place that they would cower and refuse to attack? Presumably a place full of guns, which would be.....where? An NRA convention? So, in this hypothetical would this be an Anti-Gun person using a gun to shoot Pro-Gun people?
How about the white house, a cop shop, gun show, firing range, gun shop? From the news it would be a MI person shooting innocent, law-abiding people.
3) Picking any one of these "no gun" locations, if you removed "no guns" how many people would actually be armed? Using the S. Carolina church, or even the Oregon JUCO, how many of those attendees would actually be strapped? 3.5) And isn't it likely those people would be armed anyways? I mean, you don't get searched prior to entering a movie theater, if a gun-wearer was attending he wouldn't leave it in the car, right? At least nobody I know would.
I don't carry in places that have those signs, I know others as well that abide by the laws. So if myself and those I know would carry into say our church - there would be 20+ carrying. Good chance a shooter isn't going to get us all, but i would feel pretty safe (knowing these guys\gals and how they train) if something did happen.
Serious questions btw.
----------------------------------------------------
People have tried to "shoot up" the white house, as well as other highly regulated places. And yes, certainly, our highly trained defense personnel have put an end to that threat fairly quickly. Certainly staging military at all buildings would reduce the threat, at insane costs.
But you talk about gun shows, firing ranges, gun shops, but you have to imagine what the purpose of doing so would be. Why would they choose there? Disgruntled employee? Marksman given the boot? Maybe. But if they were making a "statement", then it would stand to reason they are anti-gun.............and then your scenario would be that an anti-gun person is using a gun against pro-gun people. Do you see the disconnect I'm having with that?
So you would, in fact, carry in church if there wasn't a sign? THAT is what stopped you from carrying? I just find that hard to believe. I'd like some more input from other armed posters.
They always attack where guns aren't allowed, if we got rid of those places there would be less shootings.
Ok, so a few questions:
1) Do you believe this is why/how they choose their targets? For example, it was brought up about even the S. Carolina church. Do you think he chose a church because of gun laws? Alternatively, a student at a school does it at school, and you think, again, it is because of gun laws?
May not be the only reason, but certainly plays a part. Hence the answers to #2.
2) Where is a place that they would cower and refuse to attack? Presumably a place full of guns, which would be.....where? An NRA convention? So, in this hypothetical would this be an Anti-Gun person using a gun to shoot Pro-Gun people?
How about the white house, a cop shop, gun show, firing range, gun shop? From the news it would be a MI person shooting innocent, law-abiding people.
3) Picking any one of these "no gun" locations, if you removed "no guns" how many people would actually be armed? Using the S. Carolina church, or even the Oregon JUCO, how many of those attendees would actually be strapped? 3.5) And isn't it likely those people would be armed anyways? I mean, you don't get searched prior to entering a movie theater, if a gun-wearer was attending he wouldn't leave it in the car, right? At least nobody I know would.
I don't carry in places that have those signs, I know others as well that abide by the laws. So if myself and those I know would carry into say our church - there would be 20+ carrying. Good chance a shooter isn't going to get us all, but i would feel pretty safe (knowing these guys\gals and how they train) if something did happen.
Serious questions btw.
----------------------------------------------------
People have tried to "shoot up" the white house, as well as other highly regulated places. And yes, certainly, our highly trained defense personnel have put an end to that threat fairly quickly. Certainly staging military at all buildings would reduce the threat, at insane costs.
But you talk about gun shows, firing ranges, gun shops, but you have to imagine what the purpose of doing so would be. Why would they choose there? Disgruntled employee? Marksman given the boot? Maybe. But if they were making a "statement", then it would stand to reason they are anti-gun.............and then your scenario would be that an anti-gun person is using a gun against pro-gun people. Do you see the disconnect I'm having with that?
So you would, in fact, carry in church if there wasn't a sign? THAT is what stopped you from carrying? I just find that hard to believe. I'd like some more input from other armed posters.
Yes, lots, like any of the things that cause needless death at a much higher rate. What is the death count in the last 20 years from "mass killings"?
Why has it only picked up in the last 4 years? Nearly one mass killing per month..
It looks like it has gotten better every year under Obama. Bush really sucked however.
FBI.Gov
Findings In this study, the FBI identified 160 active shooter incidents, noting they occurred in small and large towns, in urban and rural areas, and in 40 of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Though incidents occurred primarily in commerce and educational environments (70.0%), they also occurred on city streets, on military and other government properties, and in private residences, health care facilities, and houses of worship. The shooters victimized young and old, male and female, family members, and people of all races, cultures, and religions. The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents annually. During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually. This trend reinforces the need to remain vigilant regarding prevention efforts and for law enforcement to aggressively train to better respond to—and help communities recover from—active shooter incidents. The findings also reflect the damage that can occur in a matter of minutes. In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less. Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face.
Findings In this study, the FBI identified 160 active shooter incidents, noting they occurred in small and large towns, in urban and rural areas, and in 40 of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Though incidents occurred primarily in commerce and educational environments (70.0%), they also occurred on city streets, on military and other government properties, and in private residences, health care facilities, and houses of worship. The shooters victimized young and old, male and female, family members, and people of all races, cultures, and religions. The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents annually. During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually. This trend reinforces the need to remain vigilant regarding prevention efforts and for law enforcement to aggressively train to better respond to—and help communities recover from—active shooter incidents. The findings also reflect the damage that can occur in a matter of minutes. In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less. Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face.
You are horrendous at quoting.
Ok, somebody who subscribes the following point of view, please chime in:
They always attack where guns aren't allowed, if we got rid of those places there would be less shootings.
Ok, so a few questions:
1) Do you believe this is why/how they choose their targets? For example, it was brought up about even the S. Carolina church. Do you think he chose a church because of gun laws? Alternatively, a student at a school does it at school, and you think, again, it is because of gun laws?
May not be the only reason, but certainly plays a part. Hence the answers to #2.
2) Where is a place that they would cower and refuse to attack? Presumably a place full of guns, which would be.....where? An NRA convention? So, in this hypothetical would this be an Anti-Gun person using a gun to shoot Pro-Gun people?
How about the white house, a cop shop, gun show, firing range, gun shop? From the news it would be a MI person shooting innocent, law-abiding people.
3) Picking any one of these "no gun" locations, if you removed "no guns" how many people would actually be armed? Using the S. Carolina church, or even the Oregon JUCO, how many of those attendees would actually be strapped? 3.5) And isn't it likely those people would be armed anyways? I mean, you don't get searched prior to entering a movie theater, if a gun-wearer was attending he wouldn't leave it in the car, right? At least nobody I know would.
I don't carry in places that have those signs, I know others as well that abide by the laws. So if myself and those I know would carry into say our church - there would be 20+ carrying. Good chance a shooter isn't going to get us all, but i would feel pretty safe (knowing these guys\gals and how they train) if something did happen.
Serious questions btw.
----------------------------------------------------
People have tried to "shoot up" the white house, as well as other highly regulated places. And yes, certainly, our highly trained defense personnel have put an end to that threat fairly quickly. Certainly staging military at all buildings would reduce the threat, at insane costs.
Armed - on site personnel quieted the threat quickly. Not saying that all that CC are well trained but that is an onus upon those that choose to carry. Why would one not become proficient if trying to defend oneself? This could be a "rule" put in place (options).
But you talk about gun shows, firing ranges, gun shops, but you have to imagine what the purpose of doing so would be. Why would they choose there? Disgruntled employee? Marksman given the boot? Maybe. But if they were making a "statement", then it would stand to reason they are anti-gun.............and then your scenario would be that an anti-gun person is using a gun against pro-gun people. Do you see the disconnect I'm having with that?
Why choose there - lots of people... I believe the "mass shootings" are mostly derived from going "postal" so disgruntled or MI plays a part. Or their statement is that they are BS crazy and wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Was the guy that killed Chris Kyle anti-gun? That was on a range.
So you would, in fact, carry in church if there wasn't a sign? THAT is what stopped you from carrying? I just find that hard to believe. I'd like some more input from other armed posters.
I would carry in a heart beat in church. I adhere to the rules laid out (unlike some) there are signs in Iowa City that are Gun Free and I adhere to those, my office doesn't allow weapons, I adhere to those. Why does it shock you that people follow the rules?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that using a church as an example of proving this trend is a false one?
Interesting that you are willing to further limit gun carrying, and require more hoops to jump through.
I'm not sure what else you are trying to say. I don't see you making the case that these sites are somehow chosen because of lack of guns. You seem to agree that it is mostly disgruntled people/MI choosing to do so for non-gun-related reasons.
What is this supposed to respond to?
I presume this is the meat: During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.
