3 Women Hospitalized After Triple Shooting at NW Dallas Hair Salon

SmarterthanYou said:
vmtvw.jpg
Click to expand...

Tell that to Stephen Paddock's or Adam Lanza's victims
 
cawacko said:
The reality is there has always been crime, shooting and murders in America. That's just the human reality. Obviously this story is more local for you and probably made your local news but is there something about this shooting that stands out from all the other shootings or killing that took place yesterday, or the past month across the country?
Click to expand...

Shootings are as American as apple pie, Americans have become desensitized, proven by the fact that at one time a school shooting anywhere would have shocked but now it is almost expected

And I don't think you need to hear what I believe the problem is nor how to address such
 
archives said:
Right, going to shoot back at a dimwit firing from a building ten stories up, and I always knew the gun nuts were nuts, but thinking elementary age kids should be armed is beyond inane
Click to expand...
If several dozen people start firing at a window someone is going to hit it. It certainly is going to make the shooter less eager to expose himself to shoot.

There were 6 adults shot at Sandy Hook if they had been armed and fired back several kids and adults likely wouldn't have died.

Stupid strawman :palm:
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Right, going to shoot back at a dimwit firing from a building ten stories up, and I always knew the gun nuts were nuts, but thinking elementary age kids should be armed is beyond inane
Click to expand...

had they been armed, yes. it worked against charles whitman........or is that too early in the timeline for you?
 
Mina said:
The issue is that when a firearm is at hand, the chance of a situation turning deadly goes up.
Click to expand...

since the shooter brought his weapon with him, its obvious the situation was going to be deadly when he walked in the door.......if the three women had been armed and prepared to deal with violent hoodlums it might have reduced the number of shooting victims to just one........
 
comes to mind......it appears from the picture that the weapon was a longgun of some kind rather than a handgun.......it also appears from the news video that the business was not a large space.......shooter opens fire in a small space and results in three women shot in their extremities and no life threatening injuries........

my conclusion: this was not a high caliber weapon.......perhaps a pellet gun or the like?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
since the shooter brought his weapon with him, its obvious the situation was going to be deadly when he walked in the door.......if the three women had been armed and prepared to deal with violent hoodlums it might have reduced the number of shooting victims to just one........
Click to expand...

In countries with lower gun saturation, though, the chance of the shooter having had a firearm with him would have been much lower, so that the chance of a situation like this turning deadly would be much lower.

You can see a proof of concept with Japan, for instance. Yes, in theory it's still possible for a determined criminal to get his hands on a gun there, and if he does, there's almost no chance of one of his potential victims having a gun to defend herself. But it turns out that still leaves the Japanese with VASTLY lower murder rates.

Really, that shouldn't be surprising. Guns are wonderful for offense and garbage for defense. The advantage goes to whoever fires first, who in scenarios like this is going to be the crook. Thus, you get EXTREMELY few genuine cases of someone saving lives by gunning down a shooter... probably fewer people saved that way than there are lives lost to stray bullets intended to be defensive, or deadly shootings by those who misidentify something as a threat when it isn't (e.g., the guy who guns down his own daughter when she lets herself into the house late at night, because he thought she was a burglar).
 
Mina said:
In countries with lower gun saturation, though, the chance of the shooter having had a firearm with him would have been much lower, so that the chance of a situation like this turning deadly would be much lower.

You can see a proof of concept with Japan, for instance. Yes, in theory it's still possible for a determined criminal to get his hands on a gun there, and if he does, there's almost no chance of one of his potential victims having a gun to defend herself. But it turns out that still leaves the Japanese with VASTLY lower murder rates.

Really, that shouldn't be surprising. Guns are wonderful for offense and garbage for defense. The advantage goes to whoever fires first, who in scenarios like this is going to be the crook. Thus, you get EXTREMELY few genuine cases of someone saving lives by gunning down a shooter... probably fewer people saved that way than there are lives lost to stray bullets intended to be defensive, or deadly shootings by those who misidentify something as a threat when it isn't (e.g., the guy who guns down his own daughter when she lets herself into the house late at night, because he thought she was a burglar).
Click to expand...

haven't almost all of the mass shooting happened in places where gun possession was either totally illegal or at least limited?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
haven't almost all of the mass shooting happened in places where gun possession was either totally illegal or at least limited?.......
Click to expand...

No. Most of them have happened in the US, where there are unusually few limits on gun possession. In places like Japan, where gun possession is either totally illegal or at least extremely limited, such shootings are almost unheard of.

Also worth pointing out is that few of those killed by guns are killed in mass shootings. They're killed in ones and twos. So, even if we could magically eliminate mass shootings by greatly boosting gun prevalence, the likely result would still be a big increase in shooting deaths, as we multiplied those ones-and-twos incidents.
 
Mina said:
No. Most of them have happened in the US, where there are unusually few limits on gun possession. In places like Japan, where gun possession is either totally illegal or at least extremely limited, such shootings are almost unheard of.

Also worth pointing out is that few of those killed by guns are killed in mass shootings. They're killed in ones and twos. So, even if we could magically eliminate mass shootings by greatly boosting gun prevalence, the likely result would still be a big increase in shooting deaths, as we multiplied those ones-and-twos incidents.
Click to expand...

No blacks in Japan

Send 4 million blacks to Japan murder rate goes way up


Black males are just 6% of the population in USA yet commit over 50% of the murders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top