4 ms·

Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only perso

Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only person with a gun. On one hand, if there a tons of guns in schools, perhaps kids would randomly shoot eachother during fights. On the other hand, there are mass shooters who see schools as easy targets. The shooter in FL apparently had lots of FBI data on him. He told kids about guns, he posted weird comments on youtube.

throwaway5752 9y ago
Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only person with a gun. I don't know. But Florida is notorious for having some of the loosest gun laws in the country and it didn't seem to affect the outcome here at all (or in the Orlando nightclub). The Texas army base shooting seems like a double whammy: extremely loose gun laws, and highly armed target. The recent church shooting happened in Texas, too. It is fascinating. It seems like the availability/nearyby availability of guns seems correlated with the occurrence of mass shootings, but has no correlation with prevention. I wonder if the CDC has been able to conduct any research on this subject using data that state level law enforcement collects?
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  It's a fairly common misconception that military bases are full of people running around with guns. Generally speaking, the Army loves soldiers, and loves guns, but hates soldiers with guns. Gate guards, MPs, and soldiers on an active firing range would (generally) be the only ones equipped to defend themselves.
- btgeekboy 9y ago
  Isn’t the CDC specifically prohibited from doing studies involving firearms?
  - egwynn 9y ago
    It's not quite that general, but is pretty close. The "Dickey Amendment" requires that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
- bargl 9y ago
  I found this article which talks about a few incidents of civilians stopping other shooters. It isn't often but it does happen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.9261d090b740 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- breakpointalpha 9y ago
  It's illegal in Florida to conceal carry in a bar or any establishment that derives more than 50% of it's revenue from the sale of alcohol. Also, it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying. There are a lot of people who have 2-3 guns (shotgun, rifle, pistol) at home, and never carry them unless specifically heading to a shooting range or hunting. Also, as others have pointed out, personal firearm carrying is highly restricted on active duty military bases. You'd probably find more guns in cars at a Texas Walmart than you would at a Texas military barracks.
  - throwaway5752 9y ago
    "it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying" ... seems like one is an obvious prerequisite to the other, so you'd at least expect some degree of correlation, correct? I'm certainly not suggesting there aren't responsible gun owners (in fact I believe they are a large majority). I personally know many people just like you describe (generally do not carry, otherwise stored unloaded in a safe). To go back a bit, why didn't a CCL bystander intervene, though, in the Orlando shooting even if nobody was armed in the club? I just think the asymmetry of active shooter situations renders an armed population basically useless most of the time, and people apt to grossly overestimate how effective they would be. My suspicion is that the risk from death (all cause and homicide only) from firearm is highly correlated with degree of gun ownership. And the real discussion is how much should people give away in the balance of their right to stay alive vs other peoples' liberty to own firearms. It think that is not a bad faith reduction. Firearm deaths will never be zero, and there are and must be restrictions on ownership of weapons (NBC weapons, artillery) at some level. I'm slightly guilty of bad faith with asking a bad faith question. I know the CDC is prevented by law from doing this sort of epidemiological study, so we are sort of left in a state arguing without facts (and that seems intentional).
- masonic 9y ago
  affect the outcome here at all The school is a "gun-free zone". (or in the Orlando nightclub). The club was a "gun-free zone". Texas army base A gun free zone: Servicemembers were disallowed from carrying guns on base from a Clinton-era Executive order. recent church shooting another posted gun-free zone (the church's choice). The correlation you seek is not "availability of guns" but the lack of proximate self-defense, guaranteeing a low risk hunting ground.

throwaway5752 9y ago

Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only person with a gun. I don't know. But Florida is notorious for having some of the loosest gun laws in the country and it didn't seem to affect the outcome here at all (or in the Orlando nightclub). The Texas army base shooting seems like a double whammy: extremely loose gun laws, and highly armed target. The recent church shooting happened in Texas, too. It is fascinating. It seems like the availability/nearyby availability of guns seems correlated with the occurrence of mass shootings, but has no correlation with prevention. I wonder if the CDC has been able to conduct any research on this subject using data that state level law enforcement collects?

AcerbicZero 9y ago
It's a fairly common misconception that military bases are full of people running around with guns. Generally speaking, the Army loves soldiers, and loves guns, but hates soldiers with guns. Gate guards, MPs, and soldiers on an active firing range would (generally) be the only ones equipped to defend themselves.
btgeekboy 9y ago
Isn’t the CDC specifically prohibited from doing studies involving firearms?
- egwynn 9y ago
  It's not quite that general, but is pretty close. The "Dickey Amendment" requires that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
bargl 9y ago
I found this article which talks about a few incidents of civilians stopping other shooters. It isn't often but it does happen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.9261d090b740 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
breakpointalpha 9y ago
It's illegal in Florida to conceal carry in a bar or any establishment that derives more than 50% of it's revenue from the sale of alcohol. Also, it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying. There are a lot of people who have 2-3 guns (shotgun, rifle, pistol) at home, and never carry them unless specifically heading to a shooting range or hunting. Also, as others have pointed out, personal firearm carrying is highly restricted on active duty military bases. You'd probably find more guns in cars at a Texas Walmart than you would at a Texas military barracks.
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  "it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying" ... seems like one is an obvious prerequisite to the other, so you'd at least expect some degree of correlation, correct? I'm certainly not suggesting there aren't responsible gun owners (in fact I believe they are a large majority). I personally know many people just like you describe (generally do not carry, otherwise stored unloaded in a safe). To go back a bit, why didn't a CCL bystander intervene, though, in the Orlando shooting even if nobody was armed in the club? I just think the asymmetry of active shooter situations renders an armed population basically useless most of the time, and people apt to grossly overestimate how effective they would be. My suspicion is that the risk from death (all cause and homicide only) from firearm is highly correlated with degree of gun ownership. And the real discussion is how much should people give away in the balance of their right to stay alive vs other peoples' liberty to own firearms. It think that is not a bad faith reduction. Firearm deaths will never be zero, and there are and must be restrictions on ownership of weapons (NBC weapons, artillery) at some level. I'm slightly guilty of bad faith with asking a bad faith question. I know the CDC is prevented by law from doing this sort of epidemiological study, so we are sort of left in a state arguing without facts (and that seems intentional).
masonic 9y ago
affect the outcome here at all The school is a "gun-free zone". (or in the Orlando nightclub). The club was a "gun-free zone". Texas army base A gun free zone: Servicemembers were disallowed from carrying guns on base from a Clinton-era Executive order. recent church shooting another posted gun-free zone (the church's choice). The correlation you seek is not "availability of guns" but the lack of proximate self-defense, guaranteeing a low risk hunting ground.