As comically retarded as that article is and the stunned cunt who wrote it, it pales in comparison to the comments section. Its Darwin's wading pool.
So, wait, mass shootings like this are so rare and random that we shouldn't change or make gun laws in response to them, but they're not so rare and random that we can't start wondering whether or not there's a correlation with medication. Got it.
I think if we legalized marjiuana this whole mass shooting thing would be completely solved. Murderer's internal monologue as he's puffing legally on MJ: "You know what I really hate? Black people. I think I'm gonna go to [any Atlanta shopping mall] and shoot a whole flock of 'em." ... *takes a hit*.... "Yeah fuck black people!! With their too big for them t-shirts, their white basketball shoes with the laces off, tongue out and sweat pants tucked into them! Imma be all 'rub your coco butter on this bitch!! bam bam bam bam!!! AHAHAHA that's gonna be so great!!!!" ... *takes a hit*.... "Shit, I forget where I can buy a gun. I wonder if they sell them at the corner store? I should remember to pick one up when I get some beer in a bit." ... *takes a hit*... "Ah fuck it, maybe I'll just walk around the mall and yell insults at them. Driving to the store is too complicated anyway." ...*takes a hit*... "...I wonder if I have the stuff to make frito pie?" /gun violence in America
Well, mass shootings aren't random in that they usually happen in gun free zones like schools or malls. Military installations are pretty much gun free too, funny enough. It's pretty obvious why people target those areas, they know everyone but the school resource officer or MPs will be unarmed. I'm not saying the solution is arming teachers or completely getting rid of gun free zones is the answer, but hanging up signs that basically say sheep ready for slaughter isn't a good idea.
Given that the guy entered the area with a shotgun, and proceeded to shoot and kill armed people and take their weapons and keep shooting, can you really describe the place this happened as a "gun free zone"? Given that said individuals who were armed and presumably trained were, sadly, killed and their weapons taken and used to kill more people, do you really want school teachers taking on that kind of responsibility? But my post was really about the spurious connection between anti-depressants and spree shootings. For that matter, Columbine was not a gun free zone. A school security guard was on duty that day, armed, and exchanged gunfire with Klebold and Harris. It didn't do a whole lot of good.
This post rambles like a mofo. I'm asking all of these questions (well most of them) genuinely. So what is the military's logic making something a gun free zone? I like to think that those guys know what they are doing with guns. And there might be a lot of guns in this country, but how many people carry on a daily basis? I'd bet that amount is pretty tiny, so wouldn't that make a lot of the country gun free by default? Also, have the shooters explicitly said, "I went there because it was a gun free zone."? That's sort of implied, but I'm not sure that enters into their heads as much as we assume. I think their choice of targets is more personal. If it was just about being gun free, why hasn't anyone gone into a bar and shot it up? These shooters are also not afraid of death, so they could care less about someone else being armed. They are okay with dying. Even if everyone carried all the time, I don't think it would solve problems in regard to mass shootings. To be effective in a situation like that you have to lots of training and experience. More training and experience than the vast majority of the public would ever be able to acquire. I don't even think the police have enough training for it. Officers arrived on the scene in under 5 minutes to Columbine, but they didn't know how to effectively respond and we know how that ended. (Fun fact: the guns were just supposed to be the icing on the cake, the main meal for those guys was a series of bombs which if had exploded would have put the death toll in the hundreds I believe.) And as far as someone's credentials with gunfights goes, I think Wyatt Earp is near the top of the list. One of the things he is most well-known for is cleaning up a city by enforcing a strict ban on firearms. I'm super conflicted about guns. I like guns. I shoot guns. But I do think the arguments adopted by a lot of pro-gun folk are simplistic and sort of downplay the grief and suffering that they can cause. They also tend to fall into this rambo trap. If you are supremely confident about your ability to shoot a bad dude who is shooting at you first without going through hours and hours of military level training on a regular basis, I think you need to reevaluate. Your odds go up if you have a gun I suppose, but are those minimal odds of you surviving worth limiting the remedies that might help alleviate the rest of gun violence in the country? Maybe. I'm not sure. But just to complicate things even more, I think swimming pools are responsible for a far greater number of child deaths than guns. Video about average people reacting to active shooter situations.
I say we bring back the Gladiator games. Admit every dude who's psychopathic enough to want to kill a bunch of people while simultaneously not caring about his own life. It would be like "Minority Report," except the killers out themselves. Popcorn anyone?
That gun free zones are even a thing, let alone a debate point in the "discussion", only shows how far removed the U.S. is on this issue compared to the entire rest of the Western world. As a country, you love guns. And the pro-gun people love their guns in a religiously fundamental way, to the point they'll actually argue to keep the status quo (dozens shot per day/comparatively frequent mass shootings). Still one of the greatest countries ever, just with a way higher chance of being killed by a gun. I do think Revengeofthenerds' weed idea could help a bit though.
You know your country has a huge love of guns, or lawyers, when Starbucks has to write a sternly worded letter to gun owners not to open carry in their stores please, but won't be enforcing any sort of anything at any level unless the customer(s) are disruptive. Carry on, basically. All of this because people were turning their "we don't take a stance" on anything into political rallies.
I would not say it was sternly written, they respectfully asked that people who open carry do not do that any more as it makes some people uncomfortable. I would say that is a reasonable request, we have to have a sign in our bar that says no guns aloud or people could carry, those who weren't drinking of course.
Sternly worded is hyperbole on my part. The situation is what makes it fucked up. Starbucks had no policy on the issue and would leave it up to localities laws on the matter. Both sides seized on this and used Starbucks as a rallying cry for their cause. Gun right's activist saw it as some libertarian stance where they should be left alone if they aren't causing a problem. Anti-gun activist saw it as a rally cry for what they had hoped had been a much more left leaning company. Gunners started, like idiots, lugging in AR15s and long guns to buy lattes and anti gunners were hassling and trying to provoke open carriers (complaining to management and calling police when there was no situation that warranted it.) Starbucks was forced to take a stand because they just didn't want to be a political statement that was, one nothing they stood for, two, couldn't control, and three looking out for their bottom line as a private business.
I've always thought it to be pretty stupid for anyone outside of uniformed law enforcement to open carry. There aren't many situations where it wouldn't make people uneasy, mostly because they have no idea who the fuck you are or whether or not you have a permit. I have a carry permit and even I would raise an eyebrow if I saw someone in plain clothes open carrying in a store.