Map of 74 school shootings since Newtown

One thing is clear when it comes to figuring out guns and crime -- the research out there has many flaws, much of which have to do with how information is gathered (or not gathered, in part thanks to an NRA-backed ban on federally funded gun safety research). I think that having more guns is riskier, but you can (and have) show research that seems to prove the opposite. Except no one really has undeniable scientific proof either way.

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/26/firearms-science-and-the-mis.html
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/07/guns.html

With political positions on guns getting more entrenched, that means we'll argue more, and the only changes that come depend on what interest group is strongest. And for the last 35 years, that has been the pro-gun group.

 

If the number is 74 or 41 I still don't get it...how could this have happened? I am willing to bet most, if not all of these schools were "gun free zones." Did the shooters not see the signs?

 

Wonder if the Vegas shooters knew they were shooting cops. Why would they otherwise? Cops have guns. Then they went to Walmart where they killed a good guy with a gun. Did they not know Walmart is gun free?

 

The most virulent of pro-gun advocates seem to believe if we're all armed, then no one will shoot anyone ever. But the Vegas case is an example of the most important element in these nuts' grand plan not being who has the most guns, or who is the best shooter, but surprise. Also, it seems like you're hearing more of these cases where the shooter is wearing body armor or protection of some sort, so now it's even tougher for the alleged good guy with the gun to be the hero.

In Seattle Pacific's case, all that was needed to bring down a shooter was pepper spray -- no risk of collateral damage. In the Reynolds High shooting in Oregon, the gym teacher's dedication to get to the principal's office in a hurry despite being shot saved a lot of lives because then everyone was warned and could take cover.

 

True.

But, even nuts know that cops are armed. And, if you want to blow one (ore even two, especially if there are two of you) way, while they're eating pizza, that's not so hard.

With concealed carry, you don't know who might be armed. You can't just take out the armed guy at the start of your killing spree, because you don't know who he or she may be.

As for the "good guy with a gun" in this instance, this was sadly one of the few instances where there really was a second shooter. He likely would have taken out a single shooter, and been a hero. Instead, the woman killed him.

 

It's debatable whether he would have taken out the shooter, but maybe he would have. And justifiably so. I have less of an issue with concealed carry than I do the idea that somehow that makes the person carrying -- and everyone around that person -- inherently safer. If you're not shooting first, you're at a disadvantage. Or you have to be in the crowd, or sneaking up on someone. That's assuming you're a good enough shot to hit your target, or that you're not discovered before you fire.

I'm sure that's why the NRA and others are so interested in stand-your-ground laws. That way, you don't necessarily have to wait for someone else to shoot first. The risk, of course, is that then EVERYTHING escalates into a gunfight because now you've allowed anyone "reasonably threatened" to start firing. I think we all know of a recent case where that happened.

 

1 school shooting is unacceptable in my book. Whether it's 1 or 33 or 74 or 4,967,349, it's too many.

Shouldn't we be more focused on a solution than arguing about a damn number and whether it's accurate or not?

Any ideas? I'm gonna say we should just completely do away with guns. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

You also must take into account the idea that most of these shooters don't want to live anyway, which is why they often turn the gun on themselves. So how is conceal/carry going to deter someone who is not afraid to die? Sure, the good samaritan with the gun might prevent further killing, but people are likely to die before that happens.

 

From PolitiFact (not sure it matters, since all needless gun deaths are tragic, regardless of circumstance):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/13/everytown-gun-safety/have-there-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/

 

Aren't all needless deaths tragic regardless of the cause? Or do only gun deaths matter?

 

Yes, of course. But gun deaths are the only ones that people don't try to prevent. The only ones in which people actively and vehemently defend the instrument of death, and by proxy the deaths themselves, as necessary to our "great country."