Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

booley

(3,855 posts)
75. comparing the two situations
Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:42 PM
Jan 2013

In one we have one guy, armed with a revolver going after a specific target surrounded by a group of people trained and on guard for just this sort of thing happening.

On the other we have one or two guys often armed with more powerful fire arms then a revolver and/or more then one weapon going after random targets. In the case of a school, there is generally only one teacher per classroom and unlike the Reagan shooting, school personal are spread out from the potential targets (indeed , they are among the potential targets). Also teachers are not going to be "on guard" like the secret service is as not only do they have other primary responsibilities (since their job is to teach, not be a body guard) but statistically such shootings are still rare. Unusually common compared to other countries but out of the 300 million of us, very few of us will ever be directly involved in a school shooting. The mind set of a secret service agent and a teacher is probably very different when at work.

So no these two things are not directly comparable. If anything it shows that the "arming the teacher's" crowd have an even weaker argument since if guns would have protected anyone, it would have been reagan. If you want to say that guns can protect from other guns, this situation was set up for that.

And still Reagan got shot. And it wasn't the fact that his body guards had guns that stopped Hinckly (who fired 6 shots in less then 2 seconds). The people who first responded didn't even have guns themselves. Hinckly was punched and tackled to the ground. (not to mention how the secret service firing at Hinckly would have meant also firing into a crowd)

So no the Reagan shooting and most mass shootings are not directly comparable since in the latter, there is even less reason to think a "good guy" holding a gun would help. (and indeed in cases where someone else did have a gun, they don't seem to have helped until after the shooting was already pretty much over) But the argument is valid.

In most cases of mass shootings (and shootings in general) there are fewer factors favoring the "good guys" taking out the bad guys and more against that happening.

Yes guns can be useful in some situations. The Secret Service does carry them for a reason. As does the police and soldiers. You wouldn't want to be unarmed in a war zone.

But guns have far less utility then those proposing more people being armed seem to want to admit. Most of us aren't in a war zone. Very few of us go through our day thinking they have to watch that strange person who just walked by in case he needs to be shot. In many situations guns are at best a safety blanket. At worst part of the problem.

Indeed, considering how easy it is already for potential shooters to acquire guns legally and stay under the radar until it's too late, making all sorts of guns even more accessible would seem counter productive.

Great point treestar Jan 2013 #1
They believe the "bad guys" are easily identified by the black masks and striped clothing Scootaloo Jan 2013 #3
Today, they're all wearing hoodies NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #56
Years ago we used to call them the "block-thinkers." People that thought in RW blocks and RKP5637 Jan 2013 #4
Except President Obama also has a Secret Service detail. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #50
No one said the Secret Service is useless demwing Jan 2013 #57
But they shouldnt be armed to the teeth, thats bad. darkangel218 Jan 2013 #61
And no magazines with more than 10 rounds Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #82
Lmao!! darkangel218 Jan 2013 #85
And apparently criminals have more of a right to my body and my possessions than I do. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #92
A President is different from a school room full of kids treestar Jan 2013 #118
They do much more than carry guns treestar Jan 2013 #117
A couple of these guys were carrying Uzis. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #2
Yeah, but Reagan himself didn't have a gun. onehandle Jan 2013 #5
Gufaw...Snort ! Dryclean Jan 2013 #34
when I think of safety... woodrob12 Jan 2013 #6
Amen to that. Welcome =) n/t KarenS Jan 2013 #7
Ask Pat Tillman kartski Jan 2013 #8
true, however WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #9
I'm sorry, but, speaking of "points" Mira Jan 2013 #10
well, an assasination attempt on a president WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #13
OK in theory. Does what you say explain this? Mira Jan 2013 #15
From that article... LAGC Jan 2013 #23
Wrong Lurks Often Jan 2013 #35
And i say waht should they be able to carry "that many rounds" in the first place. kmlisle Jan 2013 #32
But what if the gunman figured out where the armed person was and then started shooting at JDPriestly Jan 2013 #40
i never said it was a great idea WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #43
Of course the Reagan billh58 Jan 2013 #49
why do you assume it's MY talking point? WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #55
And I was just pointing billh58 Jan 2013 #67
again WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #109
I was called a gun nut, or something similar, once for attacking a poor argument, ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #70
Calling an inconvenient truth a "NRA talking point" is also a popular incantation... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #89
That may be, but now that the NRA has blamed video games for real-life violence, ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #95
LOL! It is, isn't it? And just as accurate as anything else claimed to be one... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #97
How are you going to take the AR from the bad guy, oldbanjo Jan 2013 #104
If I remember correctly jehop61 Jan 2013 #41
The mass murderer would attack the person with a gun first and then continue to do what he/she JDPriestly Jan 2013 #113
but the conditions are similar pasto76 Jan 2013 #12
yes, that's correct WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #14
Are you distinguishing between Newtown and "a mass shooting"? July Jan 2013 #37
no WooWooWoo Jan 2013 #38
No. You would just insure that the person carrying the gun would be shot if seen by the JDPriestly Jan 2013 #114
If you armed the custodians, you might increase the frequency with which armed custodians JDPriestly Jan 2013 #115
The main thing a mass murderer will get from arming teachers A Simple Game Jan 2013 #22
Before the armed teacher has a chance to rip off a shot into body armor AllyCat Jan 2013 #25
Then again if you are the shooter it's only logical to eliminate the biggest threat first, A Simple Game Jan 2013 #29
An armed teacher may have been able to keep the number of dead down, oldbanjo Jan 2013 #103
This message was self-deleted by its author hack89 Jan 2013 #11
Only one person was shot? NinetySix Jan 2013 #16
You are right my bad. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #18
I often see posts here which are corrected in response. NinetySix Jan 2013 #20
Thank you. nt hack89 Jan 2013 #21
And two of those wounded had guns. The idea is preposterous when it comes to protecting kids. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #42
according to the FBI booley Jan 2013 #66
Are you forgetting James Brady, Thomas Delahanty, and Thomas McCarthy? AngryOldDem Jan 2013 #17
You are right - my bad hack89 Jan 2013 #19
Where are the good guys? I don't get it? stultusporcos Jan 2013 #24
Touche! cantbeserious Jan 2013 #27
In juxtiposition all I can think JackInGreen Jan 2013 #26
Yes - In That The NRA Now Supports A Worst Set Of Possible Outcomes cantbeserious Jan 2013 #28
How do you lay waist? RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #47
Bad spelling at too early an hour? But otherwise...turn of phrase JackInGreen Jan 2013 #106
Just bringing it to your attention RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #108
Appreciated JackInGreen Jan 2013 #119
And yet armed guards still trail our president marshall Jan 2013 #30
The op has got me thinking, Soundman Jan 2013 #31
"And the two guys without a gun were shot" SHRED Jan 2013 #33
In RW world, you're in a theater or mall and half the people around you are wiggs Jan 2013 #36
Nice scenario - you must be a big fan of 'Reservoir Dogs'. Flatulo Jan 2013 #87
Excellent point. Professional secret service people with guns no less. geckosfeet Jan 2013 #39
Well 1337kr3w Jan 2013 #44
K, are you unarming.. one_voice Jan 2013 #45
That is completely unrealistic... Agschmid Jan 2013 #107
There is only one "good guy" there RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #46
Which one is that? whopis01 Jan 2013 #110
The one who RoccoR5955 Jan 2013 #112
Hinkley was quickly subdued. Literally in seconds. Lanza was able to fire, unopposed, until guys Flatulo Jan 2013 #48
Didn't major in logical reasoning, did you? Zoeisright Jan 2013 #91
I never said that arming teachers was the answer. If you're going to attack my post, Flatulo Jan 2013 #99
If you really believe this tripe... then let your actions speak louder than words. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #51
Agreed. This is truly one of the stupidest arguments I've seen. Flatulo Jan 2013 #53
"Who thinks up this stupid shit anyway?" ... I dunno man OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #58
Like i said before, maybe we should fight home intruders with flowers and smiles. darkangel218 Jan 2013 #59
This isn't about home intruders. OP's illustration refers to *armed teachers*. pacalo Jan 2013 #111
Whoosh. Robb Jan 2013 #63
"foster a society with fewer situations that garner armed response" darkangel218 Jan 2013 #68
I fail to see any alternative to most active shootings other than armed response. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #69
Do you believe the only way to fight terrorism Robb Jan 2013 #72
This message was self-deleted by its author OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #74
So you're saying that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #78
Addressing root cause is fine, but when someone is about to do bodily harm or murder, the best Flatulo Jan 2013 #90
they did protect him from the guy finishing him off paulkienitz Jan 2013 #52
But not with billh58 Jan 2013 #86
While this is perfectly true, it is actually a minor point. If Hinckley had been a few Flatulo Jan 2013 #94
One of my favorite scenes from West Wing lapfog_1 Jan 2013 #54
And the secret service and police are still armed. aikoaiko Jan 2013 #60
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #62
Welcome to DU! LAGC Jan 2013 #64
perfect example.... spanone Jan 2013 #65
Reagan got shot. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #71
ROFL!!!! darkangel218 Jan 2013 #73
Thanks. Compliments... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #76
You could email them, although i dont think they will reply. darkangel218 Jan 2013 #83
BTW... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #80
No, im not, hes a county down from me darkangel218 Jan 2013 #84
I just like the man's ability to express himself. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #96
comparing the two situations booley Jan 2013 #75
Now that is a good post. Clear headed and logical. nt Flatulo Jan 2013 #101
Agree. Eom GP6971 Jan 2013 #102
Still pro gun Publiuus Jan 2013 #77
Raygun was pro-gun, billh58 Jan 2013 #81
Re: peecmkr45's post above: billh58 Jan 2013 #79
Ah, anecdotal evidence... bobclark86 Jan 2013 #88
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #93
Those "Good Guys With Guns" got Reagan out of there alive JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #98
Those who lie to us about guns not being the problem are essentially the same ones who lie indepat Jan 2013 #100
Good guys with guns are not the answer leanforward Jan 2013 #105
Why can't we have some honest or sensible gun control arguments? cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #116
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why good guys with guns a...»Reply #75