Courthouse Shooting

[EagleFan]

2 women, gunman killed in Delaware courthouse shooting - CNN.com

Seems like the guy shot his wife and another woman was also killed (wrong place at the wrong time maybe?). Not sure about the entire back story but am surprised that he got a gun into a courthouse lobby. Most that I have seen have metal detectors right at the door.

[molson]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Seems like the guy shot his wife and another woman was also killed (wrong place at the wrong time maybe?). Not sure about the entire back story but am surprised that he got a gun into a courthouse lobby. Most that I have seen have metal detectors right at the door.

I think that's how the security people got involved, they confronted him at the metal detectors, and he shot everybody right from there.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that's how the security people got involved, they confronted him at the metal detectors, and he shot everybody right from there.

But the NRA tells me that if there are good guys with guns (security guards) that they will stop the bad guys with guns?

I'm confused.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But the NRA tells me that if there are good guys with guns (security guards) that they will stop the bad guys with guns?

I'm confused.

You really don't think security guards with guns would deter/stop bad guys with guns? I realize you are certain that your viewpoint on gun control is the correct one but your statement is just dense. Of course good guys with guns deter and stop bad guys with guns.

[RainMaker]

Just not today.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by panerd

You really don't think security guards with guns would deter/stop bad guys with guns? I realize you are certain that your viewpoint on gun control is the correct one but your statement is just dense. Of course good guys with guns deter and stop bad guys with guns.

So good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns who open fire when confronted.

Problem solved, with just a few dead good guys. Guns sold, money made, nothing really done to try preventing anything. Got it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just not today.

Sure, even people with guns can't stop all the assholes. But it is pretty dumb (and takes away from their overall argument) when the gun control side acts like an armed security guard being a deterrant to a shooter and more casualties is a debatable issue.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But the NRA tells me that if there are good guys with guns (security guards) that they will stop the bad guys with guns?

I'm confused.

That's he same comment I wanted to make about the guy that got killed at the gun range last week...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sure, even people with guns can't stop all the assholes. But it is pretty dumb (and takes away from their overall argument) when the gun control side acts like an armed security guard being a deterrant to a shooter and more casualties is a debatable issue.

the NRA wants us to believe they would be a deterrant

[panerd]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

So good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns who open fire when confronted.

Problem solved, with just a few dead good guys. Guns sold, money made, nothing really done to try preventing anything. Got it.

You are banging your head? You don't understand the purpose of armed guards and police officers? I realize in the internet world it has to be all one way or the other but the gun control crowd really looks dumb when they use isolated incidents and act like armed guards and police officers aren't a deterrent to criminals.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

the NRA wants us to believe they would be a deterrant

Sounds like the police killed the gunman, so yes the armed police probably saved lives.

[Glengoyne]

The police killed the gunman right? Why is this even a question. It seems like he is pretty darned deterred.

edit: Darn it Panerd. Beat me to the punch.

[molson]

Wait, so people are against armed guards at courthouses now?

I mean ya, how dare they got involved. People should be able to kill whoever they want at a courhouse, and then if the government wants to get involved, they can send them a summons in the mail later or something.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are banging your head? You don't understand the purpose of armed guards and police officers? I realize in the internet world it has to be all one way or the other but the gun control crowd really looks dumb when they use isolated incidents and act like armed guards and police officers aren't a deterrent to criminals.

These kind of incidents aren't becoming isolated incidents, they are becoming the norm.

I think we all know guards, etc...are deterrents against more crime, but the NRA, at least my interpretation, would have up believe that arming everyone would solve gun violence and they continue to be proved wrong.

[spleen1015]

This is an argument over point of view and what you think deterred means.

The armed guards didn't deter the guy from walking into the courthouse and killing people. They just deterred him from killing more than 3 people.

[DanGarion]

de·ter·rent
/diˈtərənt/
Noun
A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from some act.
Adjective
Able or intended to deter.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

This is an argument over point of view and what you think deterred means.

The armed guards didn't deter the guy from walking into the courthouse and killing people. They just deterred him from killing more than 3 people.

So, because they didn't do their job very effectively at the start, that means we should not give them guns and let the guy kill more than three?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

This is an argument over point of view and what you think deterred means.

The armed guards didn't deter the guy from walking into the courthouse and killing people. They just deterred him from killing more than 3 people.

Yeah well I don't really have a "side" on this issue. I just think it was stupid to use the "the NRA says armed guards are a deterrent?" argument just like somebody saying the police killing the guy with 2 other fatalities is the way things should work would be equally stupid. This seemed to be a bad case to make the "The NRA is dumb" debate point.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, because they didn't do their job very effectively at the start, that means we should not give them guns and let the guy kill more than three?

I don't have an answer. I was just pointing out that there are a couple different POVs in this thread on what deter means.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

These kind of incidents aren't becoming isolated incidents, they are becoming the norm.
.

I don't think that is true. They are being reported more with the internet and 24 hour news but I would guess the FBI crime statistics would show you are wrong.

[molson]

If you want to measure deterence you can't only consider the individauls who were not deterred, you also have to try to take account of those who were deterred (even though the latter number is harder to measure). I'm guessing that since a courhouse is a place where criminals are sentenced and divorce and custody matters are litigated, there'd be quite a bit more weapons brought in if not for the presence of security. So ya, maybe it makes me a gun nut in modern times, but I'm pro-armed security at courthouses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think that is true. They are being reported more with the internet and 24 hour news but I would guess the FBI crime statistics would show you are wrong.

The stats do show that, but facts are rarely a part of this discussion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't have an answer. I was just pointing out that there are a couple different POVs in this thread on what deter means.

Ah ha, sorry if I was transferring an opinion to you there, when you're just pointing out the changing definition of deter.

[Glengoyne]

On the definition of deterred... I think Dangarion's is a bit cherry picked. Cause in my mind, and according to dictionary.com, if you prevent an action you have deterred it. This guy was deterred from killing more people.

Also, crazy and suidical can't be deterred, using Dangarion's sense of the word, by guns in the hands of guards, police or private citizens.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On the definition of deterred... I think Dangarion's is a bit cherry picked. Cause in my mind, and according to dictionary.com, if you prevent an action you have deterred it. This guy was deterred from killing more people.

Also, crazy and suidical can't be deterred, using Dangarion's sense of the word, by guns in the hands of guards, police or private citizens.

I typed in the word deterrent on Google, and that is the definition that is given. It's not cherry picked.



And just so you know where I'm coming from, I think that people with guns typically deter gun violence (I think that CC should be allowed).
But sometimes you can't stop crazy, or people that are doing acts of passion...

[molson]

I agree that they didn't deter this guy from going to court with a gun and killing his wife and others. I don't agree with the apparent leap from there that this "proves" that armed security never deters anyone. Or that the deterence rate has to be 100% in order for armed guards to be worthwhile. If this proves armed guards aren't a deterence, then there shouldn't be armed guards, right? That's the necessary conclusion here. I didn't think the gun control debate extended to law enforcement, but here we are.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This guy was deterred from killing more people.

I see what you did there.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I typed in the word deterrent on Google, and that is the definition that is given. It's not cherry picked.



And just so you know where I'm coming from, I think that people with guns typically deter gun violence (I think that CC should be allowed).
But sometimes you can't stop crazy, or people that are doing acts of passion...

Oh, okay, well, if Google says it...



(tongue firmly in cheek, I am not stating an opinion, just poking a little fun at Dangarion)

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Oh, okay, well, if Google says it...



(tongue firmly in cheek, I am not stating an opinion, just poking a little fun at Dangarion)

I'm just stating I didn't selecting cherry pick an answer. I'm not saying Google is the all inclusive resource of all information... My response was to a specific statement, suck it.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm just stating I didn't selecting cherry pick an answer. I'm not saying Google is the all inclusive resource of all information... My response was to a specific statement, suck it.

Heh heh...

Really, my joke was aimed at the societal reliance on all things Google.

Kinda like wikipedia, the source for all knowledge (and, yes, I am a liberal user of both...)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are banging your head? You don't understand the purpose of armed guards and police officers? I realize in the internet world it has to be all one way or the other but the gun control crowd really looks dumb when they use isolated incidents and act like armed guards and police officers aren't a deterrent to criminals.

I am banging my head because there is the notion that having more guns in the hands of more people will somehow make bad people stop killing people. Time and again it is proven to not be much of a deterrent, let alone a solution. So what does the other side propose? The same tepid measures that don't do much either (yet the pro-gun people act like any measure of gun control, no matter how slight, is the equivalent of Kristallnacht.)

I bang my head because politics will prevail and people will continue to die because of it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that they didn't deter this guy from going to court with a gun and killing his wife and others. I don't agree with the apparent leap from there that this "proves" that armed security never deters anyone. Or that the deterence rate has to be 100% in order for armed guards to be worthwhile. If this proves armed guards aren't a deterence, then there shouldn't be armed guards, right? That's the necessary conclusion here. I didn't think the gun control debate extended to law enforcement, but here we are.

Where did anyone ever say there shouldn't be armed guards at a courthouse?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Where did anyone ever say there shouldn't be armed guards at a courthouse?

So what's your point then? Why do you want armed guards that don't deter anything? People are describing this as evidence or proof of something or other, I think it's that armed guards at courthouses are pointless, though I'm not exactly sure, which is why I'm asking. Edit: Nobody's argued that an armed guard at a courthouse guarantees with 100% certainty that nobody will ever charge the security checkpoint and shoot at people. There really aren't many certainties you can draw, certainly, I've never heard of the proposed gun control regulation that guarantees with 100% certainty that nobody will ever get murdered.

[Lathum]

The point is that the NRAs stance that more guns would prevent gun crimes is absurd. These were trained and armed guards at a courthouse and 3 people are dead, are we to believe armed school teachers would be a deterent?

[EagleFan]

Can't stop crazy with a gun. True. But take the gun out of crazy's hand and this is a different result today.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can't stop crazy with a gun. True. But take the gun out of crazy's hand and this is a different result today.

Head chopping katana attack?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can't stop crazy with a gun. True. But take the gun out of crazy's hand and this is a different result today.

This. 1,000 times this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can't stop crazy with a gun. True. But take the gun out of crazy's hand and this is a different result today.

Unless he's never been institutionalized before or otherwise "declared crazy" by a court. If that's the case, then by the reasoning of some in this thread, that would prove that gun regulations are useless because they wouldn't have worked here.

If every single murder proves that there should be more gun regulations, doesn't every murder also prove that existing regulations are pointless? And doesn't every murder that wouldn't have been prevented by any proposed gun law prove that those proposed gun laws are pointless? It's just a silly way to analyze an issue.

[JPhillips]

Before we do something cray with gun control we should arm the judges. If that doesn't work we should arm the court reporters. If that doesn't work we should arm the clerks. If that doesn't work we should arm the interns.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Before we do something cray with gun control we should arm the judges. If that doesn't work we should arm the court reporters. If that doesn't work we should arm the clerks. If that doesn't work we should arm the interns.

Or, just arm law enforcement officers at the front of the courthouse

[molson]

I think I figured out the riddles you guys are talking in. You're refusing to debate with moderates and instead will only take on the position of hypothetical NRA guy who believes that everyone should be armed, that this will guarantee 0 murders. That guy probably exists. But only opposing THAT viewpoint would be like me ONLY responding to some hypothetical view that all guns should be banned, and all existing weapons should be taken from existing houses, and that THAT will guarantee 0 murders. There are a few people that actually hold that view, and I bet I could make all kinds of smarmy posts opposing the views of those people, wherever they are. Seems pointless though. I think there are reasonable arguments for reasonable gun control, people are just afraid to make them though for some reason - they only want to take on extreme Joe NRA. Maybe just because its easier, and it's true, almost everything that ever happens in real life can be construed as an argument against the most extreme views, whatever they are.

[JPhillips]

I don't have a problem with armed guards, though I think a lot of schools couldn't afford them and the liability insurance that comes with them. I don't, though, think there's no room for any other measure to make things more safe. We already balance access to certain weapons and the needs/desires of sportsmen and hunters. Moving that line a little isn't tyranny.

But, the 'we'll just keep arming more people' really is the line of the NRA.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'm sure other countries with strict gun control measures in place look at us with envy.

[Suicane75]

There is no such thing as moderate anymore because nobody thinks about anything deeper than can fit in a quip or a tweet or a fb post. The easiest position to take is always the easiest position to take and the easiest position to refute is always the most ridiculous.

In the end it doesn't matter. Humans will do what humans will do and those who wield the power will be the ones doing it. And we, by and large, aren't the ones who wield the power.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Before we do something cray with gun control we should arm the judges. If that doesn't work we should arm the court reporters. If that doesn't work we should arm the clerks. If that doesn't work we should arm the interns.

and if that not work, maybe gun control not for you

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can't stop crazy with a gun. True. But take the gun out of crazy's hand and this is a different result today.

This works for me. Let's get a white list for gun ownership. Apply, pay for a background check on yourself, interview. Allow people with Concealed Carry permits or even existing gun permits to be grandfathered in, and you have a proverbial line in the sand. Some of the crazies looking to get their hands on guns would be culled. Those who already have access...already have access.

Do all of that, and still some guy without a criminal background who at least appears to be stable will lose his wife or job, and use the handgun he legally obtained to kill some folks. We'll end up right back here where we started.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I'm sure other countries with strict gun control measures in place look at us with envy.

If they are law abiding citizens who want to own a gun.


Or


If they are criminals, looking for an edge.