121
WA Democrats move to ban open, concealed carry of a firearm at 5,300+ locations
(www.thecentersquare.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
121 points (98.4% liked)
Seattle
1602 readers
117 users here now
A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they are somehow immune from violent perpetrators, I would agree. For example, if the "public building" has armed security.
Otherwise, we're just creating unarmed victim zones.
From my perspective, it’s zones that are free of hammers looking for nails.
You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.
But in schools, being gun free zones, "civilians" are legally not allowed to be "armed."
There have been "mass shootings" or "active shooter incidents" stopped by armed civilians in places where guns are allowed like churches, parks, malls, etc, even when carrying there is a legal grey area (signs posted but the state doesn't prosecute carrying there).
But of course since guns aren't legally allowed in "schools" (like, federally, at all) you of course won't find any "armed civilians" at all, as the only ones willing to bring in a gun are the shooter themselves (because duh) or the cops (who are allowed by law to do so), not civilians (who are legally prohibited from doing so), for obvious reasons.
Are you suggesting that "school shootings" are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn't be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn't be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn't be stopped?
That muggings shouldn't be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You're 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Your last sentence is impossible to prove.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama's administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
Your phrasing is extremely biased. The CDC is prevented from engaging in a lot of research into gun crime period regardless of the potential results.
No politician wants actual evidence in that debate because it is far too profitable for them to leave questions unanswered.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don't think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.
No hypocrisy here. Im not taking biased positions on research.
I don't think your psychic powers are as strong as you think nor is your ability to determine my views on guns working at all.
Turns out I was wrong. Good day.
I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don't seem to be able to answer.
Correct. I specifically said that I couldn't answer it. Would you care to address any of the other points I presented?
One stat you'll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Proof?
Every school shooting?
You mean every school, then. And while school shootings top the list for death of children in the US, surprisingly, guns are the tool that school shootings are actually committed with.
You see, knives and explosive aren't allowed in schools either, and yet...
Wow, the point and proof you asked for sailed clear over your head. Guns aren't allowed in schools yet somehow they've still turned into unarmed victim zones, leading to the statistic you cited. Murder is illegal yet kids are getting killed with guns, in schools where neither are allowed.