Santorum: Mass shooters pick 'soft targets'

[Victoria33]

Santorum: Mass shooters pick ‘soft targets’ - Washington Examiner

“And what you see from the shootings that take place, several of them this year, which is [where] law-abiding people actually come, not police, but other law-abiding people come and stop these things,” Santorum said. “Why? Because they have the right to own guns. So taking that right away from law-abiding people make it harder for law-abiding people to get guns, doesn’t do anything to reduce the amount of crime and can make things worse.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pointed to the lack of strict gun laws Texas, and said the gunman was apparently not concerned about anyone in the Walmart carrying a firearm.

“So they go to soft targets. That’s exactly right. So the whole point is when you restrict guns to law-abiding people, you make more soft targets,” Santorum replied.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even you, Santorum? I thought you were more sensible than that.

He argues that people who intend to commit murder will find a way to do it, therefore there is no point in trying to making it more difficult for them. I can just imagine that argument applied to one of Santorum’s main issues: “People who intend to get an abortion will find a way to do it, therefore there is no point in trying to make it more difficult for them to do it.”

His second argument is that what we need is more gun carrying, not less, so that a “good guy with a gun” will stop the bad guy before he does much damage. Does anyone remember the story about the old lady who swallowed a fly? Her remedy did not go so well with her either.

Much like the fly-swallowing lady, that argument fails to take into account the side effects of such a massive increase in gun ownership, which would kill far more people that it would save in stopping mass shootings.

 

[upant]

making every target a soft target is not going to make it difficult for anyone who wants to commit murder

you eliminate the semi and the perp can speed load a revolver.

in china they use the knife, in euorpe the auto, etc

the weapon changes, but the result doesn’t

take one tool away and another will replace it

 

[upant]

mass shootings are a tragedy, but we neglect the weekly tragedy from gang violence.

will the feelgood laws you want to pass on semi-autos do anything to stop the violence in chicago where 278 have been killed and 1364 people have been shot so far in 2019? are people serious about gun violence or just the black gun?

the second website is blurred because it is NSFW for wording

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50241/meanwhile-chicago-has-another-weekend-violence-hank-berrien

Spoiler

Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Criminal Infographics | HeyJackass! | Illustrating Chicago Values

 

[LeafByNiggle]

mass shootings are a tragedy, but we neglect the weekly tragedy from gang violence.

will the feelgood laws you want to pass on semi-autos do anything to stop the violence in chicago where 278 have been killed and 1364 people have been shot so far in 2019? are people serious about gun violence or just the black gun?

The point about the “feelgood” laws, as you call them, is not that they address the most serious problem. For you are correct. Many more die in daily one-on-one shootings that die in mass shootings. It’s all about cost-benefit ratio. Banning semi-automatic weapons may only have a small benefit, but it also has a small cost. Banning all weapons, including handguns, the biggest killer, might have a larger benefit, but it also has a huge cost because so many more people are invested into having those kinds of guns. So it is hard to say which action has the best return for the cost, but my guess is that the winner is banning the seldom used weapons.

 

[upant]

yet, none of the candidates or sitting politicians are doing much about trying to solve the violence that is doing the most harm.

the feel-good laws suggested to date would not have stopped any of the mass murders.

but hey, why worry about facts when we can score votes on emotions.