Posted December 22nd, 2012 - 5:46 am by 
from San Isidro, Argentina (Permalink)
from San Isidro, Argentina (Permalink)You literally took the topic out of my fingertips - i had just logged in with the idea of opening a discussion thread on this. :-)
Despite the media hyperbole, mass shootings seem to be no more frequent today than before, even despite the fact than in the US gun ownership among civilians has surpassed the staggering number of 300 million firearms. Reason.com has a good piece on this on their website.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common
No one can really prevent mass shootings, but having armed civilians around who are willing to confront aggressors certainly helps lower the death toll.
From what I gather from news reports, when confronted by armed force, be it police or armed civilians, most of these aggressors either surrender (think Anders Breivik, the mass shooter from Norway) or turn the guns on themselves (think Columbine or Virginia Tech) rather than be caught alive.
The average police response time varies from country to country, but no one will be sooner on site than the victim, and every minute saves lives.
Gun control, on the other hand, has proven ineffective time and time again. Thougher gun laws make little to no difference, as they will be invariably violated by the criminally oriented. We have laws against murder, and that hasnt stopped any shooter. They have gun laws in the US, which are already rountinely violated by shooters.
If not, check out the death tolls from shooting massacres in Europe - according to John Lott, the per shooting death toll seems to be higher than in the US, a fact often overlooked in the media.
Ever wonder why these shootings usually tend to happen in so called "gun free zones"? Shooters are mentally unstable, but not stupid. You don't usually see such massacres at shooting ranges, militia camps, police stations or military bases (in the Ft. Hood attack, military personell were not allowed to carry firearms).
Despite the media hyperbole, mass shootings seem to be no more frequent today than before, even despite the fact than in the US gun ownership among civilians has surpassed the staggering number of 300 million firearms. Reason.com has a good piece on this on their website.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common
No one can really prevent mass shootings, but having armed civilians around who are willing to confront aggressors certainly helps lower the death toll.
From what I gather from news reports, when confronted by armed force, be it police or armed civilians, most of these aggressors either surrender (think Anders Breivik, the mass shooter from Norway) or turn the guns on themselves (think Columbine or Virginia Tech) rather than be caught alive.
The average police response time varies from country to country, but no one will be sooner on site than the victim, and every minute saves lives.
Gun control, on the other hand, has proven ineffective time and time again. Thougher gun laws make little to no difference, as they will be invariably violated by the criminally oriented. We have laws against murder, and that hasnt stopped any shooter. They have gun laws in the US, which are already rountinely violated by shooters.
If not, check out the death tolls from shooting massacres in Europe - according to John Lott, the per shooting death toll seems to be higher than in the US, a fact often overlooked in the media.
Ever wonder why these shootings usually tend to happen in so called "gun free zones"? Shooters are mentally unstable, but not stupid. You don't usually see such massacres at shooting ranges, militia camps, police stations or military bases (in the Ft. Hood attack, military personell were not allowed to carry firearms).
