Three people reportedly shot in Six Flags Great America parking lot

Vater:

The blue row was Columbine, which did involve an "assault weapon", but during the period the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect. Of note, in addition to an "assault weapon", the perps had a double barreled sawed-off shotgun (felony), 99 explosives, and 4 knives (and other guns)

But it's the ONLY one on the list that happened during the assault weapons ban. 12 of the 30 happened after the ban was allowed to sunset.

Similarly, the pink row was in California where high-capacity magazines were banned. The shooter had 7 of those on hand.

California borders states that do not have that same ban. Criminals and contraband do travel across state lines. More that half of the guns used in crime committed in Illinois come from other states, largely from Indiana.

No "assault weapons" were used in almost half (14) of the 30 deadliest mass shootings in the US.

But they were in 8 of the top 10.

Jeff:

I don't think anyone here is calling you the village idiot

I didn’t mean to imply anyone here was calling me that. I and other pro-gun people who have made those suggestions have been treated as such by anti-gun folks in past discussions.

Jeff:
but more guns to address guns is a strange thing to suggest

And there’s the disconnect, and I’m not quite sure how I could have possibly been unclear: I don’t think guns is the thing that needs to be addressed.

OK, so if it isn't the lack of guns in other countries that result in less gun violence, what is it? People go to the guns because it's the most obvious difference.

Vater:

Fine, lets ban that stuff then and see what happens.

I'm not saying we should ban all the things, I just don't understand the righteous zealousness with which some are against banning anything based on the argument that it wouldn't "solve everything". Restricting access to ArmaLite-type guns and 30 round magazines (etc.) won't stop every mass shooting, but an imperfect solution can be better than no solution whatsoever. It's also notable that many of the groups who are proposing armed security in schools or the patently insane idea of arming teachers are often the same groups who are to thank for the fact that already-stressed public school teachers have to beg parents for markers and boxes of tissues, but I digress.

Should it really be so easy for an 18 year old child to purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, several high capacity magazines, and thousand rounds of ammo, all within a couple weeks? Restricting that sort of thing wouldn't have stopped every mass shooting, but there possibly would be 19 3rd and 4th grader children still alive today, which may not be "significant" to some, but certainly would to their families.

And significant to the aforementioned public school teachers. The moment they arm teachers in my state is the moment I leave the profession. The ex-marine that teaches down the hall from me has said the same thing.

“They” won’t arm teachers, and it isn’t what I’m suggesting. Although making schools “gun free” zones isn’t the right answer either and in my view is just as patently insane.

Making schools gun free zone might not be THE answer, but it's got to help, even in a small way. Are you pro-taking-guns-to-school? I mean, at least put up a sign and make a law that tells people that if they caught bringing a gun to school, they are breaking the law. That might not deter all gun crimes in schools, but it shows people that there is awareness of the problem. And if a potential school shooter is not very smart, he will think twice about it.

My peers always tell me that when they were in school, they brought their hunting rifles to school for show and tell all the time. They say that's a good reason that we should allow kids to pack guns in their backpacks these days. They probably heard someone from the NRA making that argument. But we live in different times now. School shootings were not an issue back when I was a kid.

Getting back in here for at least a moment, and thanks again for this thread. It's quite thoughtful. Among other things, I'm surprised at the number of people here who are gun advocates (I want to be neutral about that generalization). My venn diagram of roller coaster fans and gun advocates wouldn't have overlapped that much.

One of the things that worries me is that old study that says 88% of drivers think they are above average (basically, Dunning-Kruger). I would have to assume gun owners' self perception is pretty similar. So a teacher (or shopper at the mall, or whatever scenario you want to choose) believes they can handle their firearm safely, in a moment of extreme stress that they have little or no training for - and let's hope, no practical experience - but I see no reason they are going to be able to do that at the minimum level of not killing a bystander, let alone actually taking out a genuine threat. Sure, we could require teachers to be trained, etc., etc., but given the number of times in my life I've read about highly(?) trained police shooting people for taking out their keys, or their wallet, or being mentally disturbed and in need of help and not being killed - well, I don't have any faith that the training we require of teachers will be better. Also, that's not the job.

In general, our solutions to the problem of gun violence in this country remind me of the old Bloom County cartoon where Opus is trying to lose weight (this was one of a series):

And to go back to my original question about why one would feel the need to carry a gun on the way to or from an amusement park, thanks Paisley for your answer. I confess I hadn't thought about making that trip as a single woman - which is my own myopia. I get the reasoning, thank you. Not to say I think it's a good idea or that it greatly increases your safety, but I understand better feeling the need to have some protection.

Sorry for the bunch of thoughts jumbled here, it's been a week when I can't post much.

LostKause:

Making schools gun free zone might not be THE answer, but it's got to help, even in a small way

No. Gun free zones are open invitations for people with bad intentions to rack up as many casualties as they can with no resistance. And no, I'm not suggesting kids can bring guns to school. Anyone with half a brain knows guns shouldn't be allowed at school, but posting a "gun-free zone" sign makes it clear that no one on the premises can defend themselves from someone with a gun. Do you actually think a potential shooter, regardless of their intelligence, is going to give two ****s about a sign? Put trained, armed security in schools and remove the stupid sign. I don't understand why we have no issue protecting our public "servants" with AR-15s, but we can't protect "the children" with anything but locked classrooms and pencils.

Jeff:
And I don't know about you, but if we need to have armed people standing on every corner, we're failing as a species.

We've already failed in so, so many ways...the fact that school shootings exist is evidence enough.

Honestly, I've stood on both sides of the fence at times with regards to whether to ban "assault weapons" and their attachments. I don't think it will reduce gun crimes, nor do I think the increased frequency of mass shootings are because "assault weapons" are legal. I had hoped my point in showing all the mass shootings carried out by pistols pretty much shows that. Another thing to point out is that if sorted by year, such a weapon was used in only 4 of the 30 deadliest mass shootings prior to 2009 (one of which occurred during the ban). They were only banned for a decade, yet mass shootings have become damn near common in the last few years. Only one third of the 30 cited occurred before this century, and of the ones that occurred in this century, 40% didn't involve "assault weapons". That to me says it's more than a gun problem...even less so a gun type problem.

This is not the rabbit hole I wanted this discussion to go down, to be honest. It started with hambone's and Jeff's incredulity that anyone would consider carrying a gun. I find it odd that given this country's history, anyone would question that. I'm not suggesting anyone and everyone should carry; in fact I think most people shouldn't.

Schools are not "gun free" even if they're labeled as such. Every single one that I'm aware of has a school resource officer, with a gun.

Vater:

We've already failed in so, so many ways...the fact that school shootings exist is evidence enough.

Call me naive, but that's not a good reason to throw your hands up and say we can't be better. Humanity is capable of some pretty great things when we're not killing each other.

I find it odd that given this country's history, anyone would question that.

Now we're getting somewhere. I would argue that history is precisely the reason we should question it. Not just our history, but world history. Everyone knows the old saying about how ignoring history means we're doomed to repeat it. Well, look around, we've been doing that for hundreds of years. We're still fighting racism, we're still ignoring the environment and we're still pretending that we're a snowflake that can arm everyone and have a better outcome than every other democracy. Self-awareness has never been an American standard.

I don't have a lot to add but I do have an anecdote to share about good guys with guns.

A friend of mine was stopped at a red light when a police officer from an average sized city fired three shots at a someone holding a knife. One of said shots pierced his windshield and missed his face by a few inches. That's from a trained officer who has over five years of experience...

“A friend of mine was stopped at a red light when a police officer from an average sized city fired three shots at a someone holding a knife. One of said shots pierced his windshield and missed his face by a few inches. That's from a trained officer who has over five years of experience...”

I’m sorry you friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I am thankful that the officer was there to take out the bad guy.

im pro gun, but I think there are faaaar too many weapons manufactured and out on the streets. They should limit the amount of guns that are created. And no way in hell does any normal citizen ‘need’ an assault weapon.

^^Sick tats! Not really on track... but this past Saturday I woke up in the middle of the night to 2 gunshots. They were very close and VERY loud. I hear them in my new (Chicago) neighborhood frequently, but these were very close; 2nd time I've heard them this close to home. They sounded as if they were in our front yard. I want to move.

The next day, we passed SF Great America on the way to and from the Wisconsin State Fair (no Zipper this year; the Zipper lady passed away, but the fried cheese curds were awesome. I can't believe I rode a Gravitron for the first time in decades; all rides were about $7 each).

On the way home, we heard the Great America news. I can't say too much about gun laws, but this stuff gets scary the closer it gets to home.

eightdotthree:

I do have an anecdote to share

That's a close call. A friend and I were driving when we inadvertently came up on the end of a police chase and nearly got crushed by a rolling SUV, then what seemed like the entire DC police force surrounded it (and us), exited their vehicles with their guns drawn and aimed at the SUV while the suspects were yanked out of the sunroof. Not a shot was fired.

Lawful gun owners are rarely the problem, but let's keep focusing on that.

You guys keep arguing that guns are the problem. I see it as a lot larger than that; it's societal. And while "gun culture" might be a tiny part of those societal issues, I think there's way more to it.

Jeff:

Humanity is capable of some pretty great things when we're not killing each other.

Absolutely, and my argument is that we can be humanitarian whether we have guns or not, but not having guns presents a glaring disadvantage for the humanitarian among us. We keep debating the efficacy of reducing mass shootings by banning weapons with better accuracy and bullet capacity (which as I've said I don't think would matter much at all), but again, mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of all gun crimes. Yet you're not just arguing that, you're questioning anyone's need to carry a firearm, period, which implies that you think no one should...except police and military, I guess? Government, too, maybe? I know part of the argument is that we have to "do something", but again, the "something" shouldn't be gun-focused. Perhaps part of the problem is that these incidents are called "gun crimes" or "shootings" instead of just "murders" or "mass murders" or "attacks by bat**** crazy a-holes." It's always the tool that becomes the "problem" instead of the person carrying it. Murdering a human is already illegal, so banning the tool used (gun, knife, bat, hammer, poison, fists) just doesn't compute.

Jeff:
Schools are not "gun free" even if they're labeled as such. Every single one that I'm aware of has a school resource officer, with a gun.

The last school my wife worked at didn't, and judging from the active shooter drill she participated in Monday, I doubt her current school has one. I know there's a lot of talk around increasing the presence of armed security in schools, but it's a very recent thing from what I can tell (and admittedly I haven't looked into it much).

The_Orient_of_Express:

However, I am thankful that the officer was there to take out the bad guy.

The "bad guy" was the one who called 911 for help.

Problem definition:

1. Too much AR15 mass shooting gun violence
2. Too much semi-automatic mass shooting gun violence
3. Too much mass shooting gun violence
4. Too much gun violence
5. Too much violence

I think the disconnect here is in the disagreement over which is the correct problem definition. As you ascend, each one is a subset of the one below. Jeff has it at #4, while Vater has it at #5. I agree that we as a species should want to do better, but I also feel like focusing on #5 is more aspirational, not less.

Edit: Vater came in before me, so this ended up being a copy of what he just said.

The_Orient_of_Express:

They should limit the amount of guns that are created.

So only the wealthiest people can afford to arm themselves? Not a super great idea.

Vater:

You guys keep arguing that guns are the problem. I see it as a lot larger than that; it's societal. And while "gun culture" might be a tiny part of those societal issues, I think there's way more to it.

It's not binary, so no singular "the problem". There are problems, one of which is societal. But does that mean we also can't simultaneously address the other problems, one of which is pretty extreme access to wild amounts of armaments? A lawful gun owner can still amass weapons and ammunition while not making it trivially easy for a disgruntled person to go out and arm themselves with several weapons and hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo all within a week or whatever.

...which as I've said I don't think would matter much at all...

So any imperfect or partial solution or solutions should be dismissed because they don't singularly solve "the problem"? Imagine if we applied that mentality to vehicle safety, medicine, etc. It's completely illogical.

Vater:

...mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of all gun crimes. Yet you're not just arguing that, you're questioning anyone's need to carry a firearm, period, which implies that you think no one should...except police and military, I guess?

Not sure I follow. Does the volume of mass shootings matter? Is there an acceptable number? Why don't they happen with such frequency throughout the world? I'm not arguing it because I don't think it's relevant.

Yes, I think that outside of hunting, no one needs guns except police and people going to war. I know people love to make slippery slope arguments and what not, but I don't see Japan having this problem. Well regulated licensing policies, like those in Norway, also have few problems.

Do you think single women living alone don’t need guns? Actually, “needing” a gun is maybe the wrong way to say it. Do you think it reasonable for a single woman living alone to want a gun, if nowhere else than on her nightstand, for self defense?

If those with the opposite opinion of mine are going to suggest that being a victim of school violence is unlikely, then I would make the same argument for home intrusion. And having breasts has nothing to do with it. If a person believes they need that, cool, but there are scarcely 100 home intrusion murders per year (or something like that, I can't find the stat).