If you would like to open a new discussion on this topic in a separate thread, feel free to do so. You attempted to make a point in this thread by alluding to the War for Independence. Several of your facts were in error.
You are not getting much traction on this point. As I noted, the rifle did provide some advantage in some battles. It was not, however, decisive. It is interesting that you cite Freeman’s Farm in connection with rifles and guerrilla tactics. Freeman’s Farm was fought in the European mode, with each side attempting to cross the open field and being beaten back by the amassed fire power of their opponents. It was in no way a guerrilla skirmish. It is also true that one of the three British columns suffered the loss of all but one of their officers, but the other two columns suffered no similar losses. As to the surrender of Burgoyne’s army, it followed the loss at Bennington, August 16, fought in the “normal” manner, the stalemate at Freeman’s Farm, September 19, plus the taking of the British redoubts on October 7 in open battle, again with no guerrilla tactics involved. It should be noted that there were guerrilla tactics involved in the events surrounding Saratoga, but they included as many attacks by Loyalists and their Iroquois allies as by the forces in rebellion.
Of the ten theaters listed in that article, the only one that was posted was the one that the murderer chose.
There are no facts in the story to show that the perpetrator did or did not choose the theater due to it being a gun free zone, only one writers opinion of what may have happened.
Not much of an argument, just another opinion. Ironic indeed.
The truth is that none of us will likely ever know why that perpetrator chose that theater, but we do know that he planned the attack out carefully, choosing a place with the right layout and he may or may not have taking into account that the place he chose to attack the innocent people was also a place where those same people could not defend themselves.
Actually, Colonel Morgan led a group of riflemen against the columns of British in the first battle at Freemans Farm, the riflemen stood in the woods surrounding the British “gobbling” like turkeys, picking off the British.
According to reports (and that is all we have to go on) the riflemen killed nearly all, if not all, of the English officers and began picking off the non commissioned soldiers while hiding in the woods and using weapons that were superior in accuracy and distance (the “Kentucky” rifle) all the while making gobbling noises.
A much smaller (reportedly less that one company) was able to stop the advance and force the rest of Burgoyne’s army to join in the fight to protect their own.
The riflemen then retreated back to the rest of Morgans army.
That was the first skirmish. Sounds like the riflemen played a big role, and also used what I would call guerilla tactics - your mileage may vary but I don’t call those facts thin.
So the only guns that matter in this equation are the guns that stopped the shooters? The shooters’ guns are irrelevant because “Hooray!” some guy had a gun and he saved the day? For some of the people involved at least.
I just can’t believe this is the best answer we have available to combat gun violence. There are many examples of people without guns stopping spree shooters as well. Perhaps you should consider researching that.
As a physician, you appear to be in the unfortunate minority position of opposing the policies of your own professional association. The AMA contends that “uncontrolled ownership and use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious threat to the public’s health” (National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse, Policy Compedium, April 2008). This is also supported by the American College of Surgeons, and specialty medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics have taken even stronger positions.
The shooters’ guns are irrelevant if those aren’t the ones affected by your policies. How much overlap do you imagine there is between “people willing to commit a spree killing” and “people unwilling to carry a gun into a gun-free zone”?
Wikipedia has nine examples of people charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Of these, the closest the law has come to being useful is in United States v. Smith, where someone spotted Smith in a car illegally parked outside a synagogue holding a rifle, who then tailed him until he went to a cop. There is no indication that the witness knew that it was a gun-free zone, there were other contributing factors to the witness’s suspicion, and Smith basically forced the witness to go to the cops about the incident by tailing him, but a planned spree shooting was stopped by something vaguely resembling the gun-free zone. Success!
Can you describe thse other methods. I suspect these other methods might be something as stupid as just counting the number of justified homicides in a given year.
Are you familiar with how the Department of Justice arrives at its numbers in the National Crime Victimization Survey?
Are you saying that the Department of Justice survey respondents are doing this or are you applying a criticism of the least credible surveys to all the surveys?
I’m sorry, I don’t think I’ve adequately stated my intent. Those are not my policies, I’m not defending gun-free zones, nor am I suggesting they are effective in ending gun violence. I’m suggesting that we should not be glad the doctor cited in this case was armed, we should instead be incensed that the mentally unbalanced man was also armed. I would call for policies far more stringent than those already in place. That’s what I meant by “the shooters’ guns are irrelevant” in my earlier post.
You’d have to define mentally ill first. Is there a specific disorder from the DSM that you are referring to?
Second, sometimes a person is just an asshole - that doesn’t mean they suffer from mental illness, though the two are not mutually exclusive.
I’m probably one of the biggest gun rights advocates on this board - and I would say the intent of your arguments have not been to persuade, nor to inform. The main problem with your statement is that you worded it in terms of absolutes - and rather than back off of that assertion you’ve doubled down repeatedly.
No one would argue that some individuals who have suffered from mental illness have gone on to commit mass murder - perhaps even as a result of their illness. If you backed off your original statement perhaps a real discussion could have been had instead of this less interesting hijack.
[QUOTE=mqqn]
someone who is willing to take multiple lives, many time of complete strangers
[/QUOTE]
This^^^ Sane people do this?
Yes genius, there are criteria:
Diagnostic criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.
It’s pretty hard to diagnose a hypothetical. Do you have a particular mass murderer whose sanity you’d care to defend?
By sane, do you mean legally, or in the lay sense of not having a psychotic disorder? Either way, yes. There is a multiple victim shooting nearly every day in the US. Most offenders are neither legally insane nor psychotic.
Aw, thanks! I mean, this is literally true, but people usually don’t formally acknowledge it. In the future, you really don’t have to say it out loud. I’ll know how you feel.
Nice C&P! Also not needed - I’m intimately familiar with them. I know most of the people who wrote them as well.
It’s impossible to diagnose anyone at a distance, so why are you illustrating my point for me?
Not true. When they have analyzed most shooters committing multiple murders, the triggering (pun intended) factor was not mental illness but anger. Terrorists too.
I prefer to live in a society that does not carry guns, and that has laws regarding the purchase of guns for appropriate purposes. We have a lower incidence of violence, especially gun violence, than countries who do carry concealed.
If someone pulls out a gun in a mall, I prefer the security guard to be the one to shoot back. He is trained to react under pressure. That way I have less chance of being hit by a stray bullet from someone who thinks he/she knows how to shoot.
It does worry me somewhat when we visit the United States.
I’m impressed with the security guards in your country. You’d think a place with significant restrictions upon gun ownership and carry would not need such highly trained super security guards. Here in the US, most Mall Cops are not armed with anything more than a radio, and that’s only if they are the supervisor. The only pressure they are trained to deal with is the crowds on Black Friday. YMMV.