Gun Control

[Dreamliner]

But I do agree with the people who are running around screaming, hands waving in the air. We do need to take swift action. And the first order of business is to confiscate guns from all the people who didn't do this!

[gatorman_07732]

But I do agree with the people who are running around screaming, hands waving in the air. We do need to take swift action. And the first order of business is to confiscate guns from all the people who didn't do this!

These are people with a political agenda anyway. Gun control in this specific incident is not the issue at all. The lady had firearms in the house that were accessible to a mentally screwed up person. This calls for commonsense control.

[zoltanuf]

Teachers carrying guns is a practice that wouldn't last long. I remember all the physical violence from my middle and HS days - wild out of control passion with teachers in the middle of it trying to stop it. It would get messy to say the least. Can you imagine how often a gun could get in the hands of someone out of control in these situations? Where before, these incidents ended in bruises/injuries, now some would end in death (from a teacher's gun). The resulting media frenzy? Hmmm.

[PIMking]

Actually I will pose a simple question that ought to be illustrative. Would you let a random CCW permit holder take your 8 year old child to the range and teach them how to shoot?

Whats funny is that they still allow their 8 year old to molded by idiots that teach them.

[Dreamliner]

Teachers carrying guns is a practice that wouldn't last long. I remember all the physical violence from my middle and HS days - wild out of control passion with teachers in the middle of it trying to stop it. It would get messy to say the least. Can you imagine how often a gun could get in the hands of someone out of control in these situations? Where before, these incidents ended in bruises/injuries, now some would end in death (from a teacher's gun). The resulting media frenzy? Hmmm.

I agree that schools should be Gun-Free Zones. And since guns wouldn't be permitted there, these things wouldn't happen.

[The_Graygator]

No. I don't need to. Either you get it or you don't.

I think we get it fine Minister.

You have summarily "noted and dismissed" our arguments because you can't refute them. :roll:

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Actually I will pose a simple question that ought to be illustrative. Would you let a random CCW permit holder take your 8 year old child to the range and teach them how to shoot?

Strawman, thy name is MOI.

[The_Graygator]

Actually I will pose a simple question that ought to be illustrative. Would you let a random CCW permit holder take your 8 year old child to the range and teach them how to shoot?


We're not talking about "random CCW permit holders" here Minister, we're talking about teachers who have recieved proper training in firearmd use and tactics. there's a big difference, no matter how much you try to word-play it.

Btw, I have been allowed by the parents of some of my friends to show their teens how to properly handle and fire a weapon. Those kids grew up to be responsible gun owners and CCW permit owners too.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Plus, for my guns-are-a-panacea friends, negligent discharges plus teacher v. teacher v. student v. student gun violence is an inevitable outcome of such a policy.


Strawman, they name is MOI, part duex.

Who said anything about gun wielding teachers being a "panacea?"

[zoltanuf]

I agree that schools should be Gun-Free Zones. And since guns wouldn't be permitted there, these things wouldn't happen. If by "these things" you mean the incidents I described in the post you quoted, then yes.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Teachers carrying guns is a practice that wouldn't last long. I remember all the physical violence from my middle and HS days - wild out of control passion with teachers in the middle of it trying to stop it. It would get messy to say the least. Can you imagine how often a gun could get in the hands of someone out of control in these situations? Where before, these incidents ended in bruises/injuries, now some would end in death (from a teacher's gun). The resulting media frenzy? Hmmm.

Yea, it happens all the time

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_IyUDR-0p-E/UMxVTMrZL3I/AAAAAAACNsI/NHn8ZtF3ioo/s1600/A-G8FP9CcAAV3zI.jpg

[The_Graygator]

Teachers carrying guns is a practice that wouldn't last long. I remember all the physical violence from my middle and HS days - wild out of control passion with teachers in the middle of it trying to stop it. It would get messy to say the least. Can you imagine how often a gun could get in the hands of someone out of control in these situations? Where before, these incidents ended in bruises/injuries, now some would end in death (from a teacher's gun). The resulting media frenzy? Hmmm.

:roll:

Any teacher who'd been properly trained by law enforcement would not bring a gun into a hallway fight situation. One of the major things you are taught in CCW and firearm-usage courses is how to prevent someone from taking your gun away from you or losing it in a situation like this.

Grasping for straws here folks...

Next....

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/315778_520233864668469_1736753295_n.jpg

[Dreamliner]

If by "these things" you mean the incidents I described in the post you quoted, then yes.

I agree. Just make schools Gun-Free Zones and these sorts of things won't happen.

Also, cops need to stop carry guns too. Can you imagine how easily angry spouses could swipe the gun and just use it to dispatch the other spouse ? People in authority with guns are NOT the answer!

[Dreamliner]

We need stringent gun-control laws, like the UK, so that gun violence will only increase 89% over the next decade.

[The_Graygator]

I agree. Just make schools Gun-Free Zones and these sorts of things won't happen.

Also, cops need to stop carry guns too. Can you imagine how easily angry spouses could swipe the gun and just use it to dispatch the other spouse ? People in authority with guns are NOT the answer!


What's really scary is something in your posted here Dream. Just imagine if it was ONLY the govt. (people in authority), that had the guns, which is want Obama and his progressive/socialist pals want anyway.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's pretty arrogant and typically liberal of you.

If you don't want to learn about something you're opposed to, then just say it up front and remain blissfully ignorant and don't waste my time.

Lacking common? I think lunatics shooting defensless, innocent children is lacking common sense.

Remember, this wasn't a responsible, trained, licensed, law-abiding gun owner who killed those kids... it was someone who stole the guns, killed their legal owner, and then used them to kill with in a place where guns weren't allowed.

Really Minister, if you're going to debate this, respond with something that isn't so weak as just accusing all gun-owners as nut-cases and "lacking common sense". :roll:

Actually, I happen to own a black rifle, a tactical shotgun, a sniper configured .308 with a collapsing bipod, several automatic handguns with greater than 10 round capacity, PVS7 Gen III+ NVG, and several thousand rounds of ammunition to go along with about 50 5.56 30 round magazines. I also happen to think that a well regulated militia is a necessary element of national security. And I manage to do all that without supposing that armed teachers will lead to fewer firearms deaths in schools. My congratulations on your prodigies of self deception. You see it isn't logically necessary to hold black and white views on guns. They are dangerous, and must be regulated. They are also inimical to tyranny. And while I mourn the innocent loss of life and favor commonsense proposals that might actually make a difference, at the end of the day give me liberty or give me death.

[LeafUF]

Yea, it happens all the time

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_IyUDR-0p-E/UMxVTMrZL3I/AAAAAAACNsI/NHn8ZtF3ioo/s1600/A-G8FP9CcAAV3zI.jpg

Like I said in the other thread, its hard to compare to what they do in Israel. That may or may not be a teacher, it could be a parent or an off duty member of the IDF. Either way, nearly the entire population in Israel serves for 2-3 years and then many remain as reserves up until age 45 I believe.

[Minister_of_Information]

Strawman, they name is MOI, part duex.

Who said anything about gun wielding teachers being a "panacea?"

MJW, how else would you describe the idea that all situations can be made safer with the introduction of CCW?

[zoltanuf]

Any teacher who'd been properly trained by law enforcement would not bring a gun into a hallway fight situation. One of the major things you are taught in CCW and firearm-usage courses is how to prevent someone from taking your gun away from you or losing it in a situation like this. Grasping for straws here folks... Next....
You're the one naively grasping at straws by vastly inflating the competence and abilities of the people who would be involved in such situations and dismissing the messy realities of how flawed and fallible ordinary people are. We're talking public school teachers here, not Jason Bourne.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Like I said in the other thread, its hard to compare to what they do in Israel. That may or may not be a teacher, it could be a parent or an off duty member of the IDF. Either way, nearly the entire population in Israel serves for 2-3 years and then many remain as reserves up until age 45 I believe.

In Israel, teachers have been allowed to carry weapons to school since 1974, when a school was attacked by armed terrorists.

This information is readily available on google.

[mdgator05]

LOL A "scientist"? :roll: Lets hear this from a real expert on weapons and their use and maybe I'll be impressed. A Navy Seal perhaps? :laugh:

My argument stands up fine, and I don't need a "scientist" most likely using his own agenda to tell me otherwise.

I don't care much for the link because I've seen it (and many like it), before. "Gun owners" or "gun shooters" are variable terms.

Accidental discharges and shootings are a signifigant part of those gun owners being shot too. A lot of those are people who are handling weapons and don't even know how to.

Another factor, and the largest btw, are outright criminals who have (or "own"), guns shooting and killing each other, and IMO, I don't even consider those who illegally possess firearms and use them against others as "gun owners".

And this is the problem with many Conservatives in this day and age. If a researcher with expertise on the subject (the author is a biostatistician that studies violence) tell them something they don't want to hear, that person must be wrong and worthy of mocking. They make this declaration without knowing anything about the research or even having the ability to evaluate their research. This is how you end up with situations like what happened with the Republicans burying their head in the sand on polling prior to the election.

As the author of the paper and I both stated, there are a variety of causal factors that need to be worked out on why the aggregate stats are that huge. I would be shocked if there wasn't some level of endogeneity. The author has started in on a research stream of the relationship between green space and violence, but I do hope he comes back to this research to develop the causal factors more thoroughly.

[Minister_of_Information]

We're not talking about "random CCW permit holders" here Minister, we're talking about teachers who have recieved proper training in firearmd use and tactics. there's a big difference, no matter how much you try to word-play it.

Btw, I have been allowed by the parents of some of my friends to show their teens how to properly handle and fire a weapon. Those kids grew up to be responsible gun owners and CCW permit owners too.

Teachers are never going to be, as a group, competent with firearms. Try to let that sink in.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

MJW, how else would you describe the idea that all situations can be made safer with the introduction of CCW?

I am not asserting that strawman either, MOI. But allow me to introduce an strawman of my own; I wonder if any of those slain teachers think they might have been better served have a weapon handy?

[Dreamliner]

Can you imagine all the classroom massacres, in Israel, that result from Israeli schoolchildren wrestling guns away from their teachers and killing all their classmates with them ?

[Minister_of_Information]

Strawman, thy name is MOI.

You should explain how a hypothetical question is a strawman.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Teachers are never going to be, as a group, competent with firearms. Try to let that sink in.

Mmmmm.....I have been a teacher. I am also competent with firearms.

Another unfounded assertion.

[Lawdog88]

Actually, I happen to own a black rifle, a tactical shotgun, a sniper configured .308 with a collapsing bipod, several automatic handguns with greater than 10 round capacity, PVS7 Gen III+ NVG, and several thousand rounds of ammunition to go along with about 50 5.56 30 round magazines. I also happen to think that a well regulated militia is a necessary element of national security. And I manage to do all that without supposing that armed teachers will lead to fewer firearms deaths in schools. My congratulations on your prodigies of self deception. You see it isn't logically necessary to hold black and white views on guns. They are dangerous, and must be regulated. They are also inimical to tyranny. And while I mourn the innocent loss of life and favor commonsense proposals that might actually make a difference, at the end of the day give me liberty or give me death.


Frickin' gun nut ! :laugh:

Like I said elsewhere, I prefer terrorist-trained, fully armed school resource officers to be posted at schools. And I am deadly serious.

Like in Israel, we would get used to it.

That is not a as much a concession to terrorism, as it is a realistic appraisal of the world we live in. Politically, we have helped it become that way, but that is a discussion for another thread.

[LeafUF]

In Israel, teachers have been allowed to carry weapons to school since 1974, when a school was attacked by armed terrorists.

This information is readily available on google.

I dont need Google, I went to school there. And when we left school for field trips we were accompanied by armed soldiers as well as our teachers, some of whom carried and others that did not. That was not the point of my post, it was that they are thoroughly trained where as most American educators are not.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You should explain how a hypothetical question is a strawman.

You are the one making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof lies with you.

[Dreamliner]

Teachers are never going to be, as a group, competent with firearms. Try to let that sink in.

It's true, like all other law-abiding gun owners, when a bad guy appears, they'll just freeze ... and the bad guy will simply wrest the gun away and kill all the children.

It's a dream scenario for people who want to shoot lots of children. They won't even have to bring guns to the sites to do it!

[Minister_of_Information]

I am not asserting that strawman either, MOI. But allow me to introduce an strawman of my own; I wonder if any of those slain teachers think they might have been better served have a weapon handy?

Quite naturally the problem lies in extrapolating that answer into a universal policy. As a number of events that are not random mass shootings can and do occur in the classroom with much more frequency, and many of them would not be improved with a firearm.

[LeafUF]

Can you imagine all the classroom massacres, in Israel, that result from Israeli schoolchildren wrestling guns away from their teachers and killing all their classmates with them ?

Dream, teachers at my school did not carry in the classrooms. Only when we left campus. But we also had a gate at the entrance to our school with an armed guard.

[Minister_of_Information]

Mmmmm.....I have been a teacher. I am also competent with firearms.

Another unfounded assertion.

While we're giving out logic lessons, that is called a red herring.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

... it was that they are thoroughly trained where as most American educators are not.

That is not what you first asserted. But no matter.

What could be done...hmmmm..maybe, oh I don't know, TRAIN the teachers that want to be trained to use weapons?

Nahhh....teachers are not capable of being trained to be competent with weapons. Just ask MOI.

[The_Graygator]

Actually, I happen to own a black rifle, a tactical shotgun, a sniper configured .308 with a collapsing bipod, several automatic handguns with greater than 10 round capacity, PVS7 Gen III+ NVG, and several thousand rounds of ammunition to go along with about 50 5.56 30 round magazines. I also happen to think that a well regulated militia is a necessary element of national security. And I manage to do all that without supposing that armed teachers will lead to fewer firearms deaths in schools. My congratulations on your prodigies of self deception. You see it isn't logically necessary to hold black and white views on guns. They are dangerous, and must be regulated. They are also inimical to tyranny. And while I mourn the innocent loss of life and favor commonsense proposals that might actually make a difference, at the end of the day give me liberty or give me death.


So you own all of these weapons, then using a broad broash and a very b&w view of your own classify anyone who owns weapons as "lacking common sense", then why do you think your opinion here is valid? :roll:

You're all over the place here Minister. You sound like Obama trying to say he thought Benghazi was a terror attack after telling everybody for two weeks it was caused by a video.

[Minister_of_Information]

It's true, like all other law-abiding gun owners, when a bad guy appears, they'll just freeze ... and the bad guy will simply wrest the gun away and kill all the children.

It's a dream scenario for people who want to shoot lots of children. They won't even have to bring guns to the sites to do it!

Dream, what about all the other non-mass shooting scenarios in the classroom, are they also going to be improved with guns? Do you favor warning shots for talking back for instance?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

While we're giving out logic lessons, that is called a red herring.

Not all all. You are the one that made the original assertion. It sounded to me that you extrapolated your assertion to include ALL teachers.

I gave you one example to contradicted your assertion.

Perfectly reasonable way of conducting a debate.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Quite naturally the problem lies in extrapolating that answer into a universal policy. As a number of events that are not random mass shootings can and do occur in the classroom with much more frequency, and many of them would not be improved with a firearm.

I do no make my assertion "universal." I merely suggest that teachers be given the opportunity to carry weapons to school. Like they do in Israel, and have since 1974. The ones that chose to avail themselves of that protection could, and probably should be required to take training. And of course be subject to all of the other safeguards in place for owning firearms.

[Minister_of_Information]

So you own all of these weapons, then using a broad broash and a very b&w view of your own classify anyone who owns weapons as "lacking common sense", then why do you think your opinion here is valid? :roll:

You're all over the place here Minister. You sound like Obama trying to say he thought Benghazi was a terror attack after telling everybody for two weeks it was caused by a video.

Gray, perhaps a quote and parsing might be in order. That's a nice way of saying that you appear to have had difficulty comprehending what I wrote.

[Dreamliner]

Dream, teachers at my school did not carry in the classrooms. Only when we left campus. But we also had a gate at the entrance to our school with an armed guard.

There you go. And how much would that set back a school to hire a fricking armed guard ? Of course then the guards would unionize and want cushy pensions.

Of course if a bad guy did come to the gate, the guard would just freeze, the bad guy would wrestle the gun away, kill the guard then, conveniently, will have acquired a firearm to do what he wanted to do - kill all the children.

[Minister_of_Information]

Not all all. You are the one that made the original assertion. It sounded to me that you extrapolated your assertion to include ALL teachers.

I gave you one example to contradicted your assertion.

Perfectly reasonable way of conducting a debate.

You should sound it out better. Teachers "as a group" does not mean "each individual."

[Dreamliner]

Dream, what about all the other non-mass shooting scenarios in the classroom, are they also going to be improved with guns? Do you favor warning shots for talking back for instance?

It's true, a law-abiding, gun-trained teacher would just take to firing off shots for no good reason. After all, if a law-abiding person who loves children has a gun strapped to them, their first impulse would be to use it on children, right ?

[GatrHeel]

There you go. And how much would that set back a school to hire a fricking armed guard ? Of course then the guards would unionize and want cushy pensions.

Of course if a bad guy did come to the gate, the guard would just freeze, the bad guy would wrestle the gun away, kill the guard then, conveniently, will have acquired a firearm to do what he wanted to do - kill all the children.

An answer was proposed in this thread:

Of course it would have been less likely / stopped sooner BUT your cure may be worse than the problem. There are about 130,000 public schools in the United States. Adding one armed guard to every school would cost $7.8 billion dollars (at $60k per guard).

At that rate the potential 20 lives saved would work out to $390,000,000 each.

Even if it worked, it is too expensive.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You should sound it out better. Teachers "as a group" does not mean "each individual."

You still need to prove your assertion.

[Minister_of_Information]

I do no make my assertion "universal." I merely suggest that teachers be given the opportunity to carry weapons to school. Like they do in Israel, and have since 1974. The ones that chose to avail themselves of that protection could, and probably should be required to take training. And of course be subject to all of the other safeguards in place for owning firearms.

The classroom is a potentially emotional, even confrontational environment. The teacher is frequently distracted not to mention severely outnumbered. Numerous acts of violence occur in class all the time. Teachers talents lie in empathy and caring not in security. It's just asking for trouble, and furthermore there is zero chance of it happening. It makes gun proponents sound stupid, which is unfortunate. I say, arm the administrators so the target is no longer soft. That will deter most of these incidents, and provide a means of dealing with those not deterred in a timely fashion.

[Minister_of_Information]

It's true, a law-abiding, gun-trained teacher would just take to firing off shots for no good reason. After all, if a law-abiding person who loves children has a gun strapped to them, their first impulse would be to use it on children, right ?

They would never sleep with their students either.

[Dreamliner]

An answer was proposed in this thread:

Seems like it would be less expensive to just disband the government school system. Trillions would be saved and our children would be smarter and safer. As of now, we dumb-down children at slaughter pins called 'Gun-Free Zones.'

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The classroom is a potentially emotional, even confrontational environment. The teacher is frequently distracted not to mention severely outnumbered. Numerous acts of violence occur in class all the time. Teachers talents lie in empathy and caring not in security. It's just asking for trouble, and furthermore there is zero chance of it happening. It makes gun proponents sound stupid, which is unfortunate. I say, arm the administrators so the target is no longer soft. That will deter most of these incidents, and provide a means of dealing with those not deterred in a timely fashion.

This sounds a lot like the reasoning that was used when Florida and other states went from "can issue" gun laws to "shall issue" gun laws. Carnage was predicted. Never happened. The overwhelming incidents of gun violence are not committed by people lawfully carrying a CCP or a lawfully purchased gun

You make what would probably prove to be be a similarly overwrought claim.

[Dreamliner]

They would never sleep with their students either.

Well, that's just ANOTHER reason to disband the government school system. That way, our children would be smarter, safer and remain chaste for longer.

[Minister_of_Information]

You still need to prove your assertion.

Just think back into your past. Can you really picture Ms. Fussypot with her beaded reading glasses and blue hair morphing into Dirty Harry at the first sign of trouble? The mentality of a teacher and the mentality of a security professional may intersect at times, but in all probability not in the majority of cases.

[gatordavisl]

Gray, your objections are noted. And dismissed.

It would help if the pro gun side didn't come across as nutballs lacking common sense, as well as powers of critical thinking.Bravo

[Minister_of_Information]

This sounds a lot like the reasoning that was used when Florida and other states went from "can issue" gun laws to "shall issue" gun laws. Carnage was predicted. Never happened. The overwhelming incidents of gun violence are not committed by people lawfully carrying a CCP or a lawfully purchased gun

You make what would probably prove to be be a similarly overwrought claim.

Except that we are discussing schools filled with minor children requiring adult supervision for their own safety, not the general public.

Say Mrs. Floyd the first grade teacher had a gun in her purse. Say she is distracted by some unruly kids and doesn't notice little Johnny going for her purse. Is that really so far fetched?

[mdgator05]

You still need to prove your assertion.

It has been proven that people with guns are more likely to be killed, even controlling for a variety of important social variables (although the causal relationship is still open). So why do you think that would reverse in a school?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Just think back into your past. Can you really picture Ms. Fussypot with her beaded reading glasses and blue hair morphing into Dirty Harry at the first sign of trouble? The mentality of a teacher and the mentality of a security professional may intersect at times, but in all probability not in the majority of cases.

Again, you make an anecdotal, emotional argument. And again, let me repeat my suggestion. If a teacher WANT to carry a firearm to school, allow them to do so. With the proper training and background checks, of course.

Some teachers will choose to do so. Some will not. Just like in the general population, some choose to own firearms and some do not..

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Except that we are discussing schools filled with minor children requiring adult supervision for their own safety, not the general public.

Say Mrs. Floyd the first grade teacher had a gun in her purse. Say she is distracted by some unruly kids and doesn't notice little Johnny going for her purse. Is that really so far fetched?

Why yes it does.

[Dreamliner]

It has been proven that people with guns are more likely to be killed, even controlling for a variety of important social variables (although the causal relationship is still open). So why do you think that would reverse in a school?

It's true. This is why cops and soldiers shouldn't carry guns. After all, when called to use them, they just freeze, their guns are then wrestled away from them and used to kill them. Criminals and armies don't even have to carry their own guns for these reasons!

[Minister_of_Information]

Again, you make an anecdotal, emotional argument. And again, let me repeat my suggestion. If a teacher WANT to carry a firearm to school, allow them to do so. With the proper training and background checks, of course.

Some teachers will choose to do so. Some will not. Just like in the general population, some choose to own firearms and some do not..

When I am in public I am not distracted by the need to continually supervise the behavior of everyone I meet.

[Minister_of_Information]

It's true. This is why cops and soldiers shouldn't carry guns. After all, when called to use them, they just freeze, their guns are then wrestled away from them and used to kill them. Criminals and armies don't even have to carry their own guns for these reasons!

Some percentage of the time the scenarios you describe will occur. Which from a strictly safety point of view will make gun mortality more likely in a setting that has guns than one that does not.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

When I am in public I am not distracted by the need to continually supervise the behavior of everyone I meet.

?????

How many times does Mrs. Smith have her purse rifled by students?

You make emotional, anecdotal arguments. Better known as strawmen arguments. You often argue better than that on most subjects. Why is this subject so emotional with you?

[mdgator05]

It's true. This is why cops and soldiers shouldn't carry guns. After all, when called to use them, they just freeze, their guns are then wrestled away from them and used to kill them. Criminals and armies don't even have to carry their own guns for these reasons!

If you were actually concerned with knowledge, you would know that there are a multitude of potential causal reasons beyond getting a gun wrestled away from them. For example, the existence of additional guns in arguments can often escalate what would have been previously non-fatal confrontations. But you aren't interested in actual science and knowledge on this issue are you?

[Minister_of_Information]

?????

How many times does Mrs. Smith have her purse rifled by students?

You make emotional, anecdotal arguments. Better known as strawmen arguments. You often argue better than that on most subjects. Why is this subject so emotional with you?

Actually no, I am describing events that are much more likely than mass shootings. You on the other hand are presuming that the introduction of guns into the classroom will never go awry. Which beggars the imagination of reasonable people.

[mdgator05]

?????

How many times does Mrs. Smith have her purse rifled by students?



Based on personal anecdotal experience (my mother was a teacher) once or twice a year. It would be nice to have non-anecdotal evidence for this, but unfortunately we only have non-anecdotal evidence that people with guns are more likely to be shot. Why do you want teachers to be more likely to be shot?

[PIMking]

well there was a shooting in St. Vincents hospital last night, one at the Mapco gas station early this am by my hotel, and just had a cop get shot in Birmingham about an hour ago.

I'm starting to think the Myans were right.

[Dreamliner]

If you were actually concerned with knowledge, you would know that there are a multitude of potential causal reasons beyond getting a gun wrestled away from them. For example, the existence of additional guns in arguments can often escalate what would have been previously non-fatal confrontations. But you aren't interested in actual science and knowledge on this issue are you?

I think you're actually just missing the point I'm trying to get across. It is NOT the case that law-abiding, gun-trained individuals routinely freeze, in their homes, and have their guns wrestled away and used against them. I'm simply ridiculing your caricature.

[GatrHeel]

?????

How many times does Mrs. Smith have her purse rifled by students?

You make emotional, anecdotal arguments. Better known as strawmen arguments. You often argue better than that on most subjects. Why is this subject so emotional with you?

I think he's stating his case fairly well.

Certainly better than the dude yesterday who claimed "sharp sticks" were actually more dangerous than guns.

[PIMking]

I remember when I had my kidney stone that when I went to the ER I had my gun on me and I walked in the door and handed it to the cop and then passed out.

[gatordavisl]

Really Minister, if you're going to debate this, respond with something that isn't so weak as just accusing all gun-owners as nut-cases and "lacking common sense". :roll: I'm fairly certain he was not aiming his comments at all gun owners. Mainly one. :wink:

If you seriously think having teachers tote guns in the classroom, there is no potential for reasoning with you. A MoI wrote, either you get it or you don't.

[Minister_of_Information]

I think you're actually just missing the point I'm trying to get across. It is NOT the case that law-abiding, gun-trained individuals routinely freeze, in their homes, and have their guns wrestled away and used against them. I'm simply ridiculing your caricature.

What you're missing is that violent arguments, negligent discharges, and general teacher incompetence are much more frequent occurrences than mass shootings.

[mdgator05]

I think you're actually just missing the point I'm trying to get across. It is NOT the case that law-abiding, gun-trained individuals routinely freeze, in their homes, and have their guns wrestled away and used against them. I'm simply ridiculing your caricature.

Okay and I never claimed it was the case, so I am not sure how it is my caricature. It has occurred for sure, but I stated that the causal reasons for the aggregate stats were still be worked out by the researchers. One causal string being somewhat rare however does not mean that this causal string does not exist or prevent other equally bad causal strings from existing.

[Lawdog88]

What you're missing is that violent arguments, negligent discharges, and general teacher incompetence are potentially much more frequent events than mass shootings.


Not to mention students undisciplined and out of control, which is the single biggest impediment to teachers teaching in the modern classroom.

[GatorAvatar]

John Lott's research has long since shown to be bogus. He includes "studies" that don't exist. Moc, you love to post things that agree with you, but you never seem to have a clue whether they're valid or not.

That's why America is messed up: people cite studies that support their views and trash those that do not support their views. Smart indeed...

[Dreamliner]

I remember when I had my kidney stone that when I went to the ER I had my gun on me and I walked in the door and handed it to the cop and then passed out.

When you came to did you then wrestle the gun away from the cop and shoot him with it ? That's what happens when you let someone have a gun. It almost invariably gets wrestled away from them and used against them. This is how home invasion deaths always occur. The home invaders don't even need to take guns with them.

[Minister_of_Information]

Okay and I never claimed it was the case, so I am not sure how it is my caricature. It has occurred for sure, but I stated that the causal reasons for the aggregate stats were still be worked out by the researchers. One causal string being somewhat rare however does not mean that this causal string does not exist or prevent other equally bad causal strings from existing.

Well said. Guns may improve a number of scenarios, but they do not improve all scenarios. The question then becomes one of probability when setting policy. And if teachers were armed en masse, the negative aspects of that arming would almost inevitably outweigh the potential from mass shootings -- which could be limited by less risky means, such as armed administrators.

[Dreamliner]

What you're missing is that violent arguments, negligent discharges, and general teacher incompetence are much more frequent occurrences than mass shootings.

That's one reason that I'm not panicking, on the heels of a thankfully rare mass-shooting, and clamoring to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it (or to keep guns away from people who might have prevented it).

[Dreamliner]

Here's why we need gun control, in a nutshell: if people have guns, they WILL use them to kill others. This is why, in a country with 310,000,000 guns, we have 310,000,000 murders a day.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's one reason that I'm not panicking, on the heels of a thankfully rare mass-shooting, and clamoring to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it (or to keep guns away from people who might have prevented it).

I don't think there's any opposition to keeping guns away from nutballs.

[novagator1]

John Lott's research has long since shown to be bogus. He includes "studies" that don't exist. Moc, you love to post things that agree with you, but you never seem to have a clue whether they're valid or not.


Prove it!!!

[GatorAvatar]

For those who believe tougher gun laws would've prevented the tragedy in Connecticut, here's food for thought. There was another mass attack on schoolkids in the news today:



Let's say you had a choice: either have your child in a class in Connecticut attacked by gunman with 3 guns (30 killed) or a class in China where gunman attacked children with knife (22 injured), what would you choose?

[Minister_of_Information]

Here's why we need gun control, in a nutshell: if people have guns, they WILL use them to kill others. This is why, in a country with 310,000,000 guns, we have 310,000,000 murders a day.

Insert "some" and lower your total homicides. The fact that guns are too dangerous to be passed out to schoolchildren as party favors doesn't mean that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security if a free state, the right if the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[DSRrg]

Do I really need to explain what might happen with a roomful of children and a single adult are combined with firearms?

Haha come on now. Do you really believe that a person trained in how to manipulate and fire a pistol would simply just put it in a drawer for anyone to get to? You are smarter than that. I am saying train teachers who want to be trained and have a safe in every room. They make all sorts of safes that are small and concealable. I'm not a freaking idiot here and I'm no stranger to guns.

This guy had two pistols. If ANYONE had a gun on site they could have taken care of him.

[gatordavisl]

You're the one naively grasping at straws by vastly inflating the competence and abilities of the people who would be involved in such situations and dismissing the messy realities of how flawed and fallible ordinary people are. We're talking public school teachers here, not Jason Bourne.True. Another issue is liability insurance. That alone would quash any nutzo guns-in-schools agenda.

[gatordavisl]

Mmmmm.....I have been a teacher. I am also competent with firearms.

Another unfounded assertion. You might be, but if you honestly considered the gun savvy of your colleagues, you would admit that most of them are not competent to the extent necessary to be toting a gun on campus.

[Minister_of_Information]

Haha come on now. Do you really believe that a person trained in how to manipulate and fire a pistol would simply just put it in a drawer for anyone to get to? You are smarter than that. I am saying train teachers who want to be trained and have a safe in every room. They make all sorts of safes that are small and concealable. I'm not a freaking idiot here and I'm no stranger to guns.

This guy had two pistols. If ANYONE had a gun on site they could have taken care of him.

Even if every teacher was a marine, they would possess variable amounts of competence and emotional stability. You're talking about solving an occasional problem with a massive influx of weapons into an everyday all day environment where security is the last thing on people's mind. Guards are going to be let down. Would you trust your babysitter to carry a .40S&W while watching your kids?

[DSRrg]

Actually, I happen to own a black rifle, a tactical shotgun, a sniper configured .308 with a collapsing bipod, several automatic handguns with greater than 10 round capacity, PVS7 Gen III+ NVG, and several thousand rounds of ammunition to go along with about 50 5.56 30 round magazines. I also happen to think that a well regulated militia is a necessary element of national security. And I manage to do all that without supposing that armed teachers will lead to fewer firearms deaths in schools. My congratulations on your prodigies of self deception. You see it isn't logically necessary to hold black and white views on guns. They are dangerous, and must be regulated. They are also inimical to tyranny. And while I mourn the innocent loss of life and favor commonsense proposals that might actually make a difference, at the end of the day give me liberty or give me death.

Pvs15 is where you need to direct your attention. Fairly light, not as large as the 7. Although having anything at all is good to go.

[Minister_of_Information]

If I could do it over, I'd go with a select alpha PVS 14.

[Dreamliner]

I don't think there's any opposition to keeping guns away from nutballs.

Nobody wants nutballs to have guns. Therefore, we should take the guns away from people who aren't nutballs.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Based on personal anecdotal experience (my mother was a teacher) once or twice a year. It would be nice to have non-anecdotal evidence for this, but unfortunately we only have non-anecdotal evidence that people with guns are more likely to be shot. Why do you want teachers to be more likely to be shot?

So, we deny the chance for teachers to protect themselves based on anecdotal, emotional arguments?

[Minister_of_Information]

Nobody wants nutballs to have guns. Therefore, we should take the guns away from people who aren't nutballs.

If that was the only relevant premise that would be logically valid.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Well said. Guns may improve a number of scenarios, but they do not improve all scenarios.

No one claimed this

The question then becomes one of probability when setting policy. And if teachers were armed en masse, the negative aspects of that arming would almost inevitably outweigh the potential from mass shootings --

You are going to need to prove this. Especially given that NO ONE IS SUGGESTING WE ARM TEACHERS EN MASSE

[Minister_of_Information]

So, we deny the chance for teachers to protect themselves based on anecdotal, emotional arguments?

No, I'm sure we could deny it using careful academic investigation if necessary. Especially since student safety is paramount.

[Dreamliner]

If that was the only relevant premise that would be logically valid.

Who said that ANY of the gun control arguments I see, on this thread, were logical ?

For that matter, how is government education actually logical ?

[GatorAvatar]

To those who want teachers to have guns in the classroom, what if the teacher is the nutcase?

[Minister_of_Information]

To those who want teachers to have guns in the classroom, what if the teacher is the nutcase?

Apparently that is an absurd suggestion.

[Dreamliner]

What are nutcases doing teaching our children anyway ? Isn't the larger issue the need for nutcase-control ?

[mdgator05]

So, we deny the chance for teachers to protect themselves based on anecdotal, emotional arguments?

Frankly, you aren't addressing the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is that people with guns are shot more than people without guns. So why would you want more people to have guns around children?

[Dreamliner]

Speaking of nutcases, how nutty is it to send our kids off to government indoctrination centers and expect them to be safe from drugs and sex (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha) and mass-shootings ?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No, I'm sure we could deny it using careful academic investigation if necessary.


Proceed, if you please.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

To those who want teachers to have guns in the classroom, what if the teacher is the nutcase?

What if indeed? Shoot, they might go out, buy a gun, and bring it back to their classroom, and kill a bunch of people, whether or not it was legal to do so!

Just like this could happen today.

The only difference? There might be another teacher able to defend himslef/herself and the students.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Frankly, you aren't addressing the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is that people with guns are shot more than people without guns. So why would you want more people to have guns around children?


Actually, most of that "evidence" is based on the killing of people with prior criminal records by people with criminal records.

People with legal weapons and legal permits rarely kill others.

The evidence to that is extraordinarily clear.

[mdgator05]

What if indeed? Shoot, they might go out, buy a gun, and bring it back to their classroom, and kill a bunch of people, whether or not it was legal to do so!

Just like this could happen today.

The only difference? There might be another teacher able to defend himslef/herself and the students.

Interestingly, you are now using hypothetical anecdotal evidence to support your position while putting other people down for using actual anecdotal evidence and completely ignoring the scientific evidence that people with guns are shot more often.

[mdgator05]

Actually, most of that "evidence" is based on the killing of people with prior criminal records by people with criminal records.

People with legal weapons and legal permits rarely kill others.

The evidence to that is extraordinarily clear.

So clear that you provide none of it. And you provide no evidence that those with legal permits are less likely to be killed.

[Minister_of_Information]

Proceed, if you please.

You do realize that the nature of this forum is inherently conjectural and speculative, right? If we had to confine the discussion to that which could immediately be vetted with peer reviewed provenance, precious little could be discussed, which is why 'the plausible' or at least 'the arguable' is the usual standard around here. That said, I'm satisfied that the statistics as well as ethical analyses would support the idea that asking teachers to provide physical security is a bridge too far both for them and for the parents. If some administrators were asked to include that as a specialty instead, it would probably have a similar deterrent effect without the massively increased risks.

[Itssaul]

People act as if a teacher with a gun can stop such a crazed lunatic.

Sure they get training, but when it comes to pull he trigger, against another human being, I don't think any of the teachers have the cojones, unless they are being cornered in which they would have already been dead.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Interestingly, you are now using hypothetical anecdotal evidence to support your position while putting other people down for using actual anecdotal evidence and completely ignoring the scientific evidence that people with guns are shot more often.

Indeed I am. One hypothetical begets another, does it not?

And I answered your other question later

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You do realize that the nature of this forum is inherently conjectural and speculative, right?

ergo, you cannot.

[gatordavisl]

Interestingly, you are now using hypothetical anecdotal evidence to support your position while putting other people down for using actual anecdotal evidence and completely ignoring the scientific evidence that people with guns are shot more often.You make way too much sense, of which there is very little in this thread. Mdgator, MoI, and others - I applaud you for your efforts. Good luck at having any rational, logical discussion with folks who think we need to have more guns in schools. The good news is that American schools simply will not allow teachers and administrators to pack heat on the job.

[dangolegators]

If someone were to tell me that my kid's teacher was carrying a gun in class, I'd be at said class 5 minutes later pulling my kid out of it.

[Minister_of_Information]

ergo, you cannot.

Of course I could.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So clear that you provide none of it. And you provide no evidence that those with legal permits are less likely to be killed.

My goodness man. That evidence is avialable to anyone with google experience.


Gun Control Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)


Policy Conclusions (Chapter 11) (http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html)

Despite substantial variation in gun control severity and gun ownership levels across U.S. cities, there is no evidence that these have any measurable impact on violence levels, although they do affect the frequency with which guns are used in some kinds of violence. On the other hand, the frequency with which guns are carried may have an impact on robbery which gun ownership levels do not, and gun ownership within special high-risk subsets of the population may have an impact on violence rates which general gun ownership levels do not.

Therefore, the significance of the few gun control measures found to be effective should not be overlooked. There is empirical support for some moderate gun controls. I favor a national "instant records check," which would screen for high-risk gun buyers similar to owner license and purchase permit systems, but without the delays and arbitrary administration which sometimes characterizes those controls. The system should cover nondealer transactions as well as dealer sales, and apply to rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns. Also, tighter licensing of gun dealers and increased enforcement of carry laws may be useful.

Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very minor significance as a cause of the problem. The U.S. has more violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its extraordinarily high gun ownership. Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. And just as gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless "get tough" proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives. All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart of the violence problem.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Of course I could.

Please proceed, if you wish.

[mdgator05]

Indeed I am. One hypothetical begets another, does it not?

And I answered your other question later

You should probably not be using the argument against real anecdotal evidence if you then engage in hypothetical anecdotal evidence.

As for the scientific evidence, here is some more evidence of greater violence in areas with higher gun availability. This is true not just in the US.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

So if gun availability in a home leads to a higher homicide rate, why would you want to increase gun availability in schools? To up the homicide rate?

[trigatrz]

For those who believe tougher gun laws would've prevented the tragedy in Connecticut, here's food for thought. There was another mass attack on schoolkids in the news today:



No one died in this attack in China.

[Minister_of_Information]

Please proceed, if you wish.

There are only a few questions needed to trigger the necessary critical thinking. First, how is it possible to test for and identify potential vocational aptitude (and its corollary, vocational inaptitude)? Second, what happens when you give a task to a worker that is already overloaded with multitasking that conflicts with the new task (i.e., individual attention to students being in opposition to perpetual overall situational awareness)? Third, would you hire a babysitter for your 5 year old if she was carrying a Glock?

[mdgator05]

My goodness man. That evidence is avialable to anyone with google experience.


Gun Control Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

I read through the over 20 year old speech you provided (much of which has been very heavily disputed by people using more updated statistical methods). I am using studies from the past 20 years while you are using a speech from 20 years ago based on studies from the 20 years prior to that, much of which use fairly archaic statistical methods.

As to the body of the speech, I did not find the section where it claims people with permits don't commit many violent acts as you claimed. I also did not find the evidence that the killing was primarily people with criminal records. Finally, I found lots of speculation on the risk of gun ownership on danger to the person who owns the guns or to others, but very limited empirical evidence. It seems like much of this speech was given from the perspective of hypothetical evidence.

Researchers have improved considerably since this speech was given in their capability of examining empirical evidence using statistics. Many of the things he claims have since been empirically demonstrated to be false. I have provided several such studies on this thread.

[mdgator05]

Economist Richard Florida has run some correlational studies on gun violence with some very interesting results.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/assets_c/2011/01/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT-thumb-600x600-40178.jpg

So a lot of the psychological issues that would suggest higher violence incidence do not appear to be correlated with higher violence (eg. stress, neuroticism, mental illness). The number of immigrants, if anything, actually appears to be negatively correlated with violence.

What does appear to be related to gun violence? The number of guns in a high school appears to be related to higher violence. In addition, trigger locks, assault weapons bans, and safe gun storage requirements all appear to be related to lower violence rates. Each of these laws would theoretically diminish the effectiveness of the gun as a defensive mechanism, and yet each of them are correlated with lower gun violence rates.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You should probably not be using the argument against real anecdotal evidence if you then engage in hypothetical anecdotal evidence.

As for the scientific evidence, here is some more evidence of greater violence in areas with higher gun availability. This is true not just in the US.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html





So if gun availability in a home leads to a higher homicide rate, why would you want to increase gun availability in schools? To up the homicide rate?

That is one study. There are others, as I have shared, that come to different conclusions.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

As to the body of the speech, I did not find the section where it claims people with permits don't commit many violent acts as you claimed. I also did not find the evidence that the killing was primarily people with criminal records. Finally, I found lots of speculation on the risk of gun ownership on danger to the person who owns the guns or to others, but very limited empirical evidence. It seems like much of this speech was given from the perspective of hypothetical evidence. .

I shared two web site

From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure

• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.[109]

and

In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states:


First, consider the facts as the legislature saw them when it adopted the District statute. As stated by the local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive goal of the District's handgun restriction is "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia." ...

... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home."[128]

* This committee report cites no source or evidence for this statistic.[129]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]



* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]

and

The following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."



* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:


1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]


2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is more interesting data


* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]


* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.png

and



* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]


* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]


http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.png

[jdrgator]

Not sure what you think each of those charts show, MJ. Care to elaborate?

[gatordavisl]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]


* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]


http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.png You mean the homicide rate jumped from approx. seven to 18 per one million? Without a p value for significance, this statistic is worthless. If controlling for increases worldwide, I would not be surprised if this increase is much less significant than increases in other nations. IOW - stick to your baseless hypothetical/anecdotal innuendo. You will appear less foolish.

[wargunfan]

How bizarre. By this logic, nuclear weapons are 100% safe too. And since nuclear weapons are 100% safe, only used by deranged people to kill other people, we shouldn't try to control who has access to them. In fact, if everyone had a nuclear weapon, we'd all be safer. This is bizarre gun nut logic taken to the extreme.

Now there is bizarre reasoning. And notice how he managed to work in "gun nut". That would be like me saying his reasoning is limp wristed liberal logic. :wave:

[GatorAvatar]

No one died in this attack in China.

That was so easy...

[rivergator]

That was so easy...

yeah it was. still, it's remarkable how many times conservatives have posted the China attack where no one died and said "see, it's just as bad with a knife ...."

[GatorAvatar]

yeah it was. still, it's remarkable how many times conservatives have posted the China attack where no one died and said "see, it's just as bad with a knife ...."

It baffles me.

[Dreamliner]

Seriously, there ought to be a law against mass-killing.

Of course, you'd have your work cut out for you getting the government to obey it.

[DSRrg]

If I could do it over, I'd go with a select alpha PVS 14.

No way!! Not a fan of monocles. Having one eye in green and the other in darkness was just too weird to get used to. Loved both eyes and if you went in light, just pull them up. Easy day!

[corpgator]

Are we going to have hearings on this? Only 4 people died in Benghazi, and we've had a lot of hearings on that. The administration must be held accountable.

[MichiGator2002]

Are we going to have hearings on this? Only 4 people died in Benghazi, and we've had a lot of hearings on that. The administration must be held accountable.

The federal government has the exclusive obligation to conduct, and therefore protect, the diplomatic mission. The federal government has no immediate interest in a mass homicide by one citizen of a state against other citizens of that same state.

I mean, what do you suggest they hold hearings about? Whether or not there was some prior overstepping of Congressional authority they could have taken to prevent one CT citizen from murdering other CT citizens with guns stolen from still another CT citizen whom he also murdered, very possibly to obtain said guns? What is the federal interest or oversight there? Hearings in Hartford may make sense.

[WESGATORS]

I think if valid and reliable statistics were applied to your contention, it would be proven false. If you claim cars kill more people, you would be correct, but you neglect to consider the amount of use.

It doesn't matter. If cars kill more people because they are used more frequently, then they should be a bigger concern. The outrage is completely off the mark. People should be much more outraged by auto deaths than by gun deaths. Cars are not supposed to kill people.

You don't say, "sure, Alabama is a better football team than Boise State, but they recruit so much better" - when you think of the better football team, you think of Alabama. That they recruit better doesn't change the fact that they are the bigger concern even if Boise State might get more out of their players relative to what they have to offer or what have you.

People are numb to auto-related deaths unless or until something happens in their area or to people they know. But everybody seems to react to gun-related deaths, I find that strange. If others don't, then so be it. Either way, I'm in favor of correcting both problems.

A more valid measure to address the argument would relate number of deaths to amount of usage. Which do you think are used more often: cars or guns? Another confounding variable in the equation is the notion of intent, which you may have addressed. I'm not sure.

Wait a minute, "gun control" addresses possession, not usage. The rate of deaths based on possession is still much higher for automobiles than for guns. That cars are used more speaks to the fact that we have more irresponsible users of cars than of guns.

Are you more likely to die from a car or from a gun? Again, usage makes the point, cars are used much more, so they should be of much greater concern...yet the focus is extremely lopsided when comparing guns to cars.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

WES, I respect your opinion as always.
But to respond to your rhetorical question, the answer is yes... Ban all guns and the chances of this happening dwindles drastically. Now, do I think that's the answer? No.
But murder rates of European countries and Asian countries with stricter gun control laws compared to the murder rates here are as different as night and day.
And only in the US is mass murders like this such a common occurence.
There has to be a median.

That's just it, though, if we ban all guns, there are other consequences, that most of us are not willing to accept. I'm still reading through this thread, but I fail to see where anybody has identified what laws need to be changed (short of what you have proposed) that would prevent this sort of thing from happening (as it pertains to "gun control").

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Yeah, I've read through most of it. Could it be that we simply don't need to make a significant policy/legislation change (related to "gun control") based on this being a low-probability event? It sucks, but can you really blame this on existing laws?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatordavisl]

It doesn't matter. If cars kill more people because they are used more frequently, then they should be a bigger concern. Wrong. Cars have a much more utilitarian use for the average human who uses them. Simple question: Which do you use more?
The outrage is completely off the mark. People should be much more outraged by auto deaths than by gun deaths. I have not demonstrated any outrage regarding guns. I have demonstrated outrage against ignorance. Under the circumstances of this outrageous tragedy, you should take zero stance against outrage.

You don't say, "sure, Alabama is a better football team than Boise State, but they recruit so much better" - when you think of the better football team, you think of Alabama. That they recruit better doesn't change the fact that they are the bigger concern even if Boise State might get more out of their players relative to what they have to offer or what have you. Wes, with all due respect: do not compare college football to this senseless tragedy. I have no idea what you are writing about and frankly don't give a rip. Your car argument is failed. Plain and simple. Get over it.

People are numb to auto-related deaths unless or until something happens in their area or to people they know. But everybody seems to react to gun-related deaths, I find that strange. If others don't, then so be it. Either way, I'm in favor of correcting both problems. Which could you more readily do without? Your car or your gun?
This is the bottom line of my argument. If a majority of Americans are more ready to give up their cars than their guns, I'll concede that you have a valid point. Otherwise, drop it.

Wait a minute, "gun control" addresses possession, not usage. The rate of deaths based on possession is still much higher for automobiles than for guns. A) Gun control has multiple facets. B) You are not quoting me, because I did not write about gun control. C) Rate of deaths should not be controlled for possession. It should be controlled for use. You brought zero evidence.

[WESGATORS]

I find it more interesting what you chose not to quote me on rather than what you chose to quote me on. Either way, I gather that you are more emotionally invested in this topic and are not interested in a genuine discussion. If I'm incorrect, let me know and I'll address your comments, but your tone seems pretty clear.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Minister_of_Information]

It would help if the pro gun side didn't come across as nutballs lacking common sense, as well as powers of critical thinking.

I would like to clarify this statement and expound upon it. My point was that the argument that arming teachers is a solution that is compatible with increased student safety is not only a losing argument, it is a self-discrediting argument that will result in the opinions of the Second Amendment proponents being ignored. As a proponent of the Second Amendment myself, this possibility is one that concerns me quite a bit given the current hysteria. It would be far better to recognize that a not insubstantial number of teachers can't even be trusted to keep their students' penises at a safe remove, yet these selfsame teachers are to be trusted to carry a firearm in the presence of minor children for 200+ days a year. If this was to happen you would hear continually about gun related incidents, injuries, and fatalities.

[mdgator05]

I shared two web site



and



and

You still didn't demonstrate your point. You found that a small percentage of people with concealed carry permits used their guns illegally. But you did not demonstrate what percentage of overall crime were accounted for by these people. In this case, in order to compare apples to oranges, you would have to find how many people were caught as having committed a crime versus how many people without a license were caught committing a crime (i.e. you can't say that 168 is this percentage of total murders because not all murderers or those that commit assault are caught whether their gun is legal or illegal).

As far as the second quote, you are comparing 1994 self-reported evidence with 2001 data on accidental discharges. Any sort of peer review process would reject this level of analysis because it assumes: 1. There is no change in the amount of danger between 1994-2001 (which is absurd considering the decline in danger over time) 2. There was no change in gun laws that could diminish gun accidents between 1994-2001 (which is absurd considering that gun control laws were being passed in the 1990s) and 3. That self-reported statistics are the best way of determining who had used a gun for self-defense. Using data from police departments would probably be much better because it would allow the researcher to standardize the events. It is likely that most people who force an intruder out of their home legally would still contact the police department.

As for the third quote, I have said that the causal reasons are still open for debate and that there is certainly a possibility of endogenous causation, although that is limited somewhat by the design of the study in which a variety of factors that determine risk of being a victim of violent crime are controlled for in the analysis. That is the difference between what I linked, which is peer-reviewed science, and what you are linking, which is essentially a cherry-picking of data by an advocate.

The idea in the third bullet point is completely ridiculous. It reeks of a misunderstanding of what statistics are and should certainly throw open the entire capability of the authors of that piece to accurately portray and analyze data. They criticize using statistical techniques while using more basic statistical analysis, which for some bizarre reason are better in their mind because "they let the data speak for itself," which is an absolutely absurd statement.

[rivergator]

Has one of these mass shootings ever been stopped by a regular citizen with a gun?

[PITBOSS]

...after reading only some of these - "pro gun" types have to bend over backwards to make a point and use extreme analogies - which then change the debate. And the 2-wrongs-make-a-right is the basis of their point; and those are a stretch. At some point the debate for guns has to stand up on its own.

[Minister_of_Information]

Has one of these mass shootings ever been stopped by a regular citizen with a gun?

I remember hearing about one at a law school but I think it is in dispute.

[GatorAvatar]

The car argument is dumb. Cars weren't made to kill people. Secondly, most car accidents are due to human error, drunk drivers etc. We should ban incompetent drivers from getting access to our roads.

[BengermanV]

The three arguments I hear the most from gun owners are:

1. It is unconstitutional

Do you think our founding fathers had assault rifles in mind? When the right to bear arms was put into place, it was based on the idea that we would be using these weapons to protect ourselves. Go look at the stats and tell me how often a firearm helped protect someone from death and compare that to the amount of times a firearm was used for murder. On top of that, add in the amount of times a firearm was mishandled/misused and resulted in a fatality. The ratio is not good. When a gun took a minute or two to reload, sure. You could only fire it once and that was the end of it. Now? Someone can wipe out an entire group in mere seconds.

2. Why should these psychos be able to infringe upon my freedoms?

If you find yourself asking this question, then ask yourself this. Do you propose that our countries drug laws be abandoned? After all, why should one druggy infringe upon your freedom to do as you like?

3. People will find ways to commit these mass murders anyway.

True. But it will happen at a much much less frequent rate. Look at the number of mass murders since assault weapons became available to the public compared to those before it. It's not even close!

[Minister_of_Information]

In response to 1., the Second Amendment is primarily concerned with the paramilitary use of arms in furtherance of national security. Personal self defense is a subordinated but conjoined issue.

[DaveFla]

In response to 1., the Second Amendment is primarily concerned with the paramilitary use of arms in furtherance of national security. Personal self defense is a subordinated but conjoined issue.

I believe that the US Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the second amendment.

[Minister_of_Information]

I believe that the US Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the second amendment.

A militia is, ipso facto, "paramilitary."

[DaveFla]

A militia is, ipso facto, "paramilitary."

Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)


It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%25LINKURL%25%3E&graphurl=%3C%25GRAPHURL%25%3E&court=US&case=/data/us/116/252.html

[DaveFla]

U.S. v. Miller (1939)


The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


http://www.guncite.com/miller.html

[DaveFla]

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)


" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%25LINKURL%25%3E&graphurl=%3C%25GRAPHURL%25%3E&court=US&case=/us/494/259.html

[DaveFla]

More recently (and much clearer),

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf

[Minister_of_Information]

Excuse me if I do not see that my remarks were contradicted. In fact they seem to have been confirmed.

The point of my earlier remarks is simply that the standard of what arms are apropos for civilian possession is defined by the paramilitary purpose first and foremost, and secondarily by other issues of self defense, public safety, and utility.

[gator7_5]

True. But it will happen at a much much less frequent rate.

FALSE

So if this kid only had 2 handguns he would have said, "Awe screw it."?

[WESGATORS]

The car argument is dumb.

It's funny, you say this, but then you make three statements supporting what I'm talking about:

Cars weren't made to kill people.

Looks like you're identifying a problem.

Secondly, most car accidents are due to human error, drunk drivers etc. We should ban incompetent drivers from getting access to our roads.

Lethal driving behavior is much easier to regulate/correct than behavior associated reckless gun use. It would also save many more lives!

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

The three arguments I hear the most from gun owners are:

1. It is unconstitutional

Do you think our founding fathers had assault rifles in mind? When the right to bear arms was put into place, it was based on the idea that we would be using these weapons to protect ourselves. Go look at the stats and tell me how often a firearm helped protect someone from death and compare that to the amount of times a firearm was used for murder. On top of that, add in the amount of times a firearm was mishandled/misused and resulted in a fatality. The ratio is not good. When a gun took a minute or two to reload, sure. You could only fire it once and that was the end of it. Now? Someone can wipe out an entire group in mere seconds.

2. Why should these psychos be able to infringe upon my freedoms?

If you find yourself asking this question, then ask yourself this. Do you propose that our countries drug laws be abandoned? After all, why should one druggy infringe upon your freedom to do as you like?

3. People will find ways to commit these mass murders anyway.

True. But it will happen at a much much less frequent rate. Look at the number of mass murders since assault weapons became available to the public compared to those before it. It's not even close!


Semi-auto weapons with large magazines have been available to the public ever since they were manufactured. So what.

After WWII, M1 Garands (8 round stripper clip), .30 cal. Carbines (15 & 30 round magazines), and in the 50's, civilian versions of the 7.62 M14's (20 round mag.) were made available to the public. No bizzarro mass murders occurred during those days, with freely available semi-auto arms and ammo. Oswald purchased his Italian surplus rifle from a mail order ad that also offered Military Garands and Carbines for sale.

Charles Whitman killed 14 people from a tower with a bolt action hunting rifle. You don't need so-called "assault rifles" - whatever those are - to kill many people in one event.

The Swiss - many of whom have automatic weapons in their households - do not use them to commit mass murders. Why not ?

[Minister_of_Information]

Actually, even the Swiss have had a mass shooting. Unfortunately. Just not as many. But you raise a number of salient points. Most particularly, until the 1950s the battle rifle of the US Army was available to the public with few if any restrictions. In fact when the Constitution was adopted civilians frequently carried significantly superior individual arms compared to the US Army, and this continued through the 1930s.

[MichiGator2002]

I think that if the mores and folkways and general moral norm expected socially -- not through the state, but just to be in polite society -- were now as they were then, you could probably still have a citizenry as well armed as the military without people feeling ill at ease.

[Lawdog88]

Actually, even the Swiss have had a mass shooting. Unfortunately. Just not as many. But you raise a number of salient points. Most particularly, until the 1950s the battle rifle of the US Army was available to the public with few if any restrictions. In fact when the Constitution was adopted civilians frequently carried significantly superior individual arms compared to the US Army, and this continued through the 1930s.

This, in 1963.

http://i47.tinypic.com/jq5p1x.jpg

[jdrgator]

Fact is most gun crime policies do little, if anything at all, to curb gun related crime--and any assault weapon ban will not change that fact.

However, it is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons. Just as folks do not have a right to any type of arms that they want, an assault weapons ban as it was back in the 90s would be constitutional.

On the other hand, folks shouldn't think that it will do anything to curb gun crimes because it won't.

[MichiGator2002]

Fact is most gun crime policies do little, if anything at all, to curb gun related crime--and any assault weapon ban will not change that fact.

However, it is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons. Just as folks do not have a right to any type of arms that they want, an assault weapons ban as it was back in the 90s would be constitutional.

On the other hand, folks shouldn't think that it will do anything to curb gun crimes because it won't.

Well, I still cringe at "assault weapons", because it is a political term of art that mostly means "scary looking firearms" and not anything of significance in the word of munitions. But, no, a restriction on some types of weapons must be ontologically constitutional for no other reason that every right protected by the Constitution is by definition limited by the other rights enjoyed by other citizens. But it is a different thing to say what that limit should be in the abstract. Semiautomatic handguns and rifles are perffectly legitimate for private use and ownership.

[Minister_of_Information]

Fact is most gun crime policies do little, if anything at all, to curb gun related crime--and any assault weapon ban will not change that fact.

However, it is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons. Just as folks do not have a right to any type of arms that they want, an assault weapons ban as it was back in the 90s would be constitutional.

On the other hand, folks shouldn't think that it will do anything to curb gun crimes because it won't.

I don't disagree, although limitations to the military utility of citizen owned arms do have some conceptual limitations, anyhow. But questions of magazine size are fairly plastic, within those limits.

[jdrgator]

I don't disagree, although limitations to the military utility of citizen owned arms do have some conceptual limitations, anyhow. But questions of magazine size are fairly plastic, within those limits.

Certainly there would be limitations. I also don't like the idea of trying to pass policy in the wake of a major event like this--since it often leads to bad policy (think: Patriot Act).

I was challenging the misguided belief that somehow regulating guns would be unconstitutional on its face--as it seems to me that some have argued (not necessarily here). Now of course, banning personal firearms would be unconstitutional and would take a change in an amendment, but laws designed to deal with a very public problem could be given serious consideration within constitutional boundaries.

Though we can't expect any of them actually be effective since short of eliminating private ownership of guns, and a change in culture in which folks find it appealing to use such weapons for crimes, we will continue to have these types of events from time to time.

[MichiGator2002]

That is the rub -- military utility is one of, if not the, explicitly stated purpose of civilians being recognized as having the right to own firearms in the first place. That has never changed, the technology has. Much like electronic and radio/broadcast media and the 1st Amendment. The question of relevance is, IMO, what would the people who wrote it have meant to be covered were they privy to how much has changed. And I am not sure they would have placed any limits on small arms and ordinance, but that is also because they were people who lived in a time where the judiciousness and decency of the ordinary citizen were orders of magnitude different than they are today.

To wit, if today's weapons were available then, I don't think they would have specified many, if any limits. But in the context of who and how the average person is today (relatively speaking, a rotten, nihilistic, relativistic bastard), who knows? Maybe we would have gotten the law that modern liberals pretend we did, the fictitious notion of everything being in a public armory or whatever.

[rivergator]

Has one of these mass shootings ever been stopped by a regular citizen with a gun?

anyone?

[MichiGator2002]

anyone?

It would be more instructive to first ask how many armed civilians have ever even been on scene to make the attempt, how many of the crimes were in places that expressly forbade it. Because only after we control for mass shootings at which there were armed civilians present who weren't violating law or the property owner's rules, would it be interesting to ask how they performed.

Also, you can redirect your "anyone" back to the prior pending question about fundamentally transforming things you actually like :)

[rivergator]

It would be more instructive to first ask how many armed civilians have ever even been on scene to make the attempt, how many of the crimes were in places that expressly forbade it. Because only after we control for mass shootings at which there were armed civilians present who weren't violating law or the property owner's rules, would it be interesting to ask how they performed.

Also, you can redirect your "anyone" back to the prior pending question about fundamentally transforming things you actually like :)

probably a little difficult to assess everyone who's been on the scene in every mass shooting. my guess is that news accounts would record someone with a gun who stopped it rather than listing what everyone else had in his pocket.
I'm guessing there's never been a private citizen stop one with a gun ....

[Minister_of_Information]

That is the rub -- military utility is one of, if not the, explicitly stated purpose of civilians being recognized as having the right to own firearms in the first place. That has never changed, the technology has. Much like electronic and radio/broadcast media and the 1st Amendment. The question of relevance is, IMO, what would the people who wrote it have meant to be covered were they privy to how much has changed. And I am not sure they would have placed any limits on small arms and ordinance, but that is also because they were people who lived in a time where the judiciousness and decency of the ordinary citizen were orders of magnitude different than they are today.

To wit, if today's weapons were available then, I don't think they would have specified many, if any limits. But in the context of who and how the average person is today (relatively speaking, a rotten, nihilistic, relativistic bastard), who knows? Maybe we would have gotten the law that modern liberals pretend we did, the fictitious notion of everything being in a public armory or whatever.

Consider the M1 Garand for instance. It would not be considered an assault-type weapon along the lines of the 1994 ban or even very close to one, yet its military utility as a militia weapon is arguably superior to the typical black rifle.

[MichiGator2002]

probably a little difficult to assess everyone who's been on the scene in every mass shooting. my guess is that news accounts would record someone with a gun who stopped it rather than listing what everyone else had in his pocket.
I'm guessing there's never been a private citizen stop one with a gun ....

Then you are left with a pretty useless factual ultimatum without that information. I mean, if zero out of zero possible shootings were stopped by a lawfully armed civilian, so what? What point have you made in that case?

[Minister_of_Information]

What was it, Appalacian law school? Can't remember.

[jdrgator]

That is the rub -- military utility is one of, if not the, explicitly stated purpose of civilians being recognized as having the right to own firearms in the first place. That has never changed, the technology has. Much like electronic and radio/broadcast media and the 1st Amendment. The question of relevance is, IMO, what would the people who wrote it have meant to be covered were they privy to how much has changed. And I am not sure they would have placed any limits on small arms and ordinance, but that is also because they were people who lived in a time where the judiciousness and decency of the ordinary citizen were orders of magnitude different than they are today.

To wit, if today's weapons were available then, I don't think they would have specified many, if any limits. But in the context of who and how the average person is today (relatively speaking, a rotten, nihilistic, relativistic bastard), who knows? Maybe we would have gotten the law that modern liberals pretend we did, the fictitious notion of everything being in a public armory or whatever.

Well, they may or may not have. We don't live in the 1700s and we have a much more organized and professionalized defense and policing systems. I don't know what benchmark one would use as a comparison especially since we have a more mature democratic republic now. Besides, you shouldn't be glorifying the past if you are going to claim liberals do. And look, I am not against the right to bear arms even if I don't currently own one myself (though I visit our a range once in awhile), but I think there is a much firmer middle ground since both sides seemed to have staked out pretty extreme positions.

[rivergator]

Then you are left with a pretty useless factual ultimatum without that information. I mean, if zero out of zero possible shootings were stopped by a lawfully armed civilian, so what? What point have you made in that case?

that no one private citizen with a gun has ever stopped a mass shooting. doesn't seem complicated.

[novagator1]

Has one of these mass shootings ever been stopped by a regular citizen with a gun?

Yes the mall shooting last week and the law school in the Virginia.

It happens all the time you don't hear about because doesn't fit the media narrative.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[MichiGator2002]

that no one private citizen with a gun has ever stopped a mass shooting. doesn't seem complicated.

So a meaningless talking point that illuminates nothing of substance. There were also no astronauts killed in a single moon landing in the past 25 years. Not a single one of the Edsels produced in Detroit this year have broken down.

[rivergator]

So a meaningless talking point that illuminates nothing of substance. There were also no astronauts killed in a single moon landing in the past 25 years. Not a single one of the Edsels produced in Detroit this year have broken down.

You've got a bunch of threads talking about how we need more armed citizens to prevent mass shootings. No one's saying we need more Edsels.

[wiene2003]

that no one private citizen with a gun has ever stopped a mass shooting. doesn't seem complicated.

Well it wouldn't exactly be a mass shooting if it was stopped by someone with a gun, would it? I imagine a mass shooting that was prevented because of someone with a gun wouldn't gather near the media attention a mass shooting that wasn't prevented would and therefor it would be very hard to determine if it has ever happened. Also, I'm having a very hard time thinking of a place where a mass shooting has occurred that allowed guns, can you think of one? Off the top of my head, columbine, va tech, aurora co, a few mall shootings, go overseas to that guy in the Netherlands that killed dozens of people..... All of those places have laws or rules against carrying a weapon, which law abiding gun owners would typically follow, meaning, like Michi pointed out, that there wouldn't be any private citizens with guns to stop them.

And let's say you're right, is preventing mass shootings the only reason a private citizen should have a gun? What about preventing 1 or 2 lives from being taken, is that not enough?

[WESGATORS]

What we need are laws against stealing so that way people won't take guns from others to use for mass murders.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wiene2003]

What we need are laws against stealing so that way people won't take guns from others to use for mass murders.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Or we could make laws that make mass murders illegal. That would solve it.

[MichiGator2002]

You've got a bunch of threads talking about how we need more armed citizens to prevent mass shootings. No one's saying we need more Edsels.

You may have missed the point -- the reason there were no Edsel breakdowns, is because there were no Edsels. I could be like you, and treat that second fact as irrelevant and make a big deal about the low breakdown rate, but that would be intellectual fraud.

Which is to say, if doesn't mean anything useful, relevant, or intelligent to declare that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings if you are completely indifferent to how many, if any, occasions there have ever been for one to try.

[rivergator]

You may have missed the point -- the reason there were no Edsel breakdowns, is because there were no Edsels. I could be like you, and treat that second fact as irrelevant and make a big deal about the low breakdown rate, but that would be intellectual fraud.

Which is to say, if doesn't mean anything useful, relevant, or intelligent to declare that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings if you are completely indifferent to how many, if any, occasions there have ever been for one to try.

We've had more than 60 mass killings with firearms in the US since 1982. I guess I'm just surprised that this super-solution of armed citizens stopping them hasn't happened once.

[phatGator]

I think a better comparison to guns is not automobiles but alcohol. Alcohol causes death, injury, pain and suffering, and destruction of property. For example, on I-71 in Kentucky a drunk driver collided head on with a church bus. Twenty-seven passengers on the bus were killed by the collision or the fire. Forty other passengers were injured. That's mass murder. No one called for banning alcohol or even making it more difficult to get. But it's not just drunk drivers. How much domestic violence has alcohol at the root? What is the healthcare cost to society?

Why is alcohol legal? It doesn't make society safer. It's not required to live. Why? Because people enjoy it. That's all. For some people's pleasure we endure death and destruction.

Now, I'm not a teetotaler. I'm just pointing out that the arguments about restricting guns can be made even more forcefully for alcohol.

Also, debating whether it is better to be attacked by a gun or a knife seems very near-sighted to me. The Rwandan genocide, in which 800,000 people were slaughtered, was carried out with machetes made in China.

The more important issue, pointed out by someone else in the early pages of this thread but pretty much ignored, is why is our society turning out people who will do these heinous crimes? Guns are an easy and PC target. Real life is much more complex.

[Lawdog88]

Yes the mall shooting last week and the law school in the Virginia.

It happens all the time you don't hear about because doesn't fit the media narrative.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry


Thanks for the examples.

In other words, it could have been much worse without the citizen's intervention.

[MichiGator2002]

We've had more than 60 mass killings with firearms in the US since 1982. I guess I'm just surprised that this super-solution of armed citizens stopping them hasn't happened once.

And, again, unless an armed civilian were actually permitted to be at and actually were at the scene of any of these, you are still trying to divide by zero. I don't know if you don't get it, or just don't care that without that data your point is an intellectual nullity, but I honestly don't care.

There have been 60 of these in 30 years... but we have had the guns capable of carrying them off for a lot longer than that. Sounds like it is the people that changed.

[rivergator]

Yes the mall shooting last week and the law school in the Virginia.

It happens all the time you don't hear about because doesn't fit the media narrative.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

I'd be happy to read those details. The stories I read about the Newport Beach mall, for example, didn't mention a citizen with a gun. Or the Oregone mall shooting.
thanks

[Matthanuf06]

What's the logic for wanting to ban guns yet not drugs and alcohol. In fact the left wants to legalize drugs! It seems logically inconsistent, especially given that drugs and alcohol cause far more deaths.

If you want to "protect" kids then you'd want to ban drugs and alcohol.

[GatorAvatar]

I'd be happy to read those details. The stories I read about the Newport Beach mall, for example, didn't mention a citizen with a gun. Or the Oregone mall shooting.
thanks

Me too. Would be grateful for links and details of these two incidents.

[Lawdog88]

An example from Nevada:

On Sunday May 25, 2008 at approximately 2:30 a.m. the Winnemucca Police Department was dispatched to the Players Bar and Grill .... There were approximately 300 patrons in and around the bar....

The officers on scene discovered three adult males who had died from obvious gunshot wounds. Two additional gunshot victims were also located[, treated, and released from the hospital]....

The ... investigation lead detectives to believe that [Ernesto Fuentes] Villagomez entered the bar and at some point began firing multiple rounds. At least two of these rounds struck and killed the other two decedents, Jose Torres age, 20 and his brother Margarito Torres, age 19 both of Winnemucca. At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his high capacity handgun and began shooting again.

It was at this point that ... [a 48-year-old Reno man] produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.... [T]he shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was [concluded to be] a justifiable homicide ....

The investigation is currently pursuing a lead that indicates that this event may have been the result of a long standing feud between several families.... http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/24657-armed-citizen-stops-mass-shooting-winnemucca-nevada.htmlPearl, Mississippi High School shooting (from Wiki):

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat, he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."

Minutes before he started the shooting, he gave the following message to a friend:

I am not insane, I am angry. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. ... All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. ... It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet.

Another link to a Richmond, VA story, where an armed man shot a robber who had shot a store clerk and shot at patrons:

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2009/07/20/ignatius-piazza-armed-citizens-make-dead-criminals/

I saw a report that the Oregon mall shooting ended when an armed citizen confronted the shooter, who then ran away and killed himself. But I am not going to do the google. It's out there if you want to find it.

I guess the idea is that, some attempted mass shootings that don't quite make it to the completed mass shooting stage - by whatever definition that is - have been prevented by armed citizens.

[PITBOSS]

it seems the assault weapons are used for many of these. Would a ban of them be a solution?

[Spurffelbow833]

Gun violence is a problem, but it's not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. Banning guns is like wearing a poultice to keep warts away.

[Tebowism0823]

Gun violence is a problem, but it's not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. Banning guns is like wearing a poultice to keep warts away.

I thought husbands who came home early was the problem?

[jdrgator]

Gun violence is a problem, but it's not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. Banning guns is like wearing a poultice to keep warts away.

Actually gun violence is both the problem and a symptom of other problems. Much like cancer is a problem and a symptom of someones body not working right such that it produces cancerous cells.

Although I would not call for banning all guns since I support the right to own, banning guns would actually decrease gun violence and it would help to decrease other related crime more generally since having a gun can actually make it more likely that the person with the gun will commit such an act compared to those who might only have access to say, knives. It wouldn't eliminate serious violent crime though.

[Spurffelbow833]

Seriously, the problem is the loss of community. If people conducted their daily lives under manageable duress as Victoria Soto conducted the last moments of hers under unimaginable duress, there would be a lot less of what happened Friday in Newtown. We are all our brother's keepers.

[Tebowism0823]

Actually gun violence is both the problem and a symptom of other problems. Much like cancer is a problem and a symptom of someones body not working right such that it produces cancerous cells.

Although I would not call for banning all guns since I support the right to own, banning guns would actually decrease gun violence and it would help to decrease other related crime more generally since having a gun can actually make it more likely that the person with the gun will commit such an act compared to those who might only have access to say, knives. It wouldn't eliminate serious violent crime though.

I disagree. There's gun control now and they can't control it. What's going to change by taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens and only allowing thugs to carry?

[jdrgator]

I disagree. There's gun control now and they can't control it. What's going to change by taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens and only allowing thugs to carry?

In one of my earlier comments, I made the argument about how gun control laws don't work, for the most part (some do, in targeted instances, but that's a longer, more complicated argument). But I was writing to a complete ban rather than simply control--though to be clear, I do not support a ban.

A complete ban on guns would not eliminate gun crimes entirely but would likely make a substantial dent. But who is to really say what a responsible citizen is? The young guy who just killed in Newtown was a "responsible citizen" up until the point he slaughtered those kids. And it's not as if crimes committed with legal guns don't exist; they account for b/t 15-20% of all gun related crimes. The primary reason that we have gun crimes in the first place is because guns are so widely available, coupled with a culture and structural arrangement which makes the illegal use of guns more likely. There is also some evidence to suggest that gun availability mkaes the engagement in some crimes such as robbery more likely to occur, but this is not as well documented empirically as other gun crime research.

[Minister_of_Information]

jdrgator is correct, although as he's already conceded it's largely a moot point. And it is also inarguable that the perpetrator's access to high capacity firearms is a factor in both the possibility and the appeal of these massacres. Though that is not to say that these massacres justify broad spectrum restrictive policies.

[jdrgator]

I like making moot points. I've gotten pretty good at it, haha :)

[Minister_of_Information]

I like making moot points. I've gotten pretty good at it, haha :)

Intellectual integrity is its own reward, as you quite clearly know. And moot points can have important implications and corollaries.

[phatGator]

Pearl, Mississippi High School shooting (from Wiki):

Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."


We've created a narcissistic society. People think life is all about them. It's incomprehensible that reality television is so popular. Nothing more than watching the banal actions of self-absorbed idiots.

We've created people who feel that their pain is the center of the universe. Everyone needs to respond to their pain. Any pain they themselves cause is to them inconsequential.

Throw in constant depictions of violence all around in movies, television, music, and video games. Those same media also preach instant gratification. But we've removed all teaching of morality and ethics from schools for fear it might sound like religion.

Is it really any surprise we get people who feel they have been wronged snapping and making others to "pay the price" for their pain?

[Minister_of_Information]

We've created a narcissistic society. People think life is all about them. It's incomprehensible that reality television is so popular. Nothing more than watching the banal actions of self-absorbed idiots.

We've created people who feel that their pain is the center of the universe. Everyone needs to respond to their pain. Any pain they themselves cause is to them inconsequential.

Throw in constant depictions of violence all around in movies, television, music, and video games. Those same media also preach instant gratification. But we've removed all teaching of morality and ethics from schools for fear it might sound like religion.

Is it really any surprise we get people who feel they have been wronged snapping and making others to "pay the price" for their pain?

Great post can I steal it?

[GatorAvatar]

We've created a narcissistic society. People think life is all about them. It's incomprehensible that reality television is so popular. Nothing more than watching the banal actions of self-absorbed idiots.

We've created people who feel that their pain is the center of the universe. Everyone needs to respond to their pain. Any pain they themselves cause is to them inconsequential.

Throw in constant depictions of violence all around in movies, television, music, and video games. Those same media also preach instant gratification. But we've removed all teaching of morality and ethics from schools for fear it might sound like religion.

Is it really any surprise we get people who feel they have been wronged snapping and making others to "pay the price" for their pain?

Ummm you seem to have forgotten your history. Slavery, wars, Hiroshima, etc. Yes there's more violence on TV today, but in the past there was more violence in real life. World war 1 and 2, Nazis and gas chambers, Selma, genocide etc. People died by the thousands on a weekly basis.

You talk about the banning of morality in schools. What's more moral than teaching kids that we are all equal under the law, no matter who you love? It's you guys who are saying women ought to be paid less than men, its you guys who want to profile people based on whether they are Muslims or Mexicans...and you talk about morals.

[GatorAvatar]

Seriously, the problem is the loss of community. If people conducted their daily lives under manageable duress as Victoria Soto conducted the last moments of hers under unimaginable duress, there would be a lot less of what happened Friday in Newtown. We are all our brother's keepers.

Maybe the dead teacher should have secured her arsenal so that her deranged kid would not access then. Why not start with that? If she did that Victoria Soto would be in class this morning teaching her students.

[g8trjax]

And when the ban is implemented, men with guns, will come to take yours away.

[gator0254]

Oregon Mall - did not shoot over fear of hitting others in the background


http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Doesn't specify that he stopped it but other places/links claim the shooter left and shot himself after seeing the civilian with the weapon

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer

[phatGator]

Great post can I steal it?

I'd be honored.

[phatGator]

Ummm you seem to have forgotten your history. Slavery, wars, Hiroshima, etc. Yes there's more violence on TV today, but in the past there was more violence in real life. World war 1 and 2, Nazis and gas chambers, Selma, genocide etc. People died by the thousands on a weekly basis.

You talk about the banning of morality in schools. What's more moral than teaching kids that we are all equal under the law, no matter who you love? It's you guys who are saying women ought to be paid less than men, its you guys who want to profile people based on whether they are Muslims or Mexicans...and you talk about morals.

The violence of real life was not created for entertainment.

I have no clue why you assign those ideas to me, since I've never posted anything on either subject.

[Lawdog88]

The violence of real life was not created for entertainment.

I have no clue why you assign those ideas to me, since I've never posted anything on either subject.


Apparently because he doesn't know what in the world he is talking about, or what incoherent point he is trying to make.

[philnotfil]

Someone help me find the consistency of thought here:
We shouldn't have gun control because when a drunk driver kills someone we don't take away everyone else's cars.

Because a terrorist had a bomb in their shoes, everyone has to take their shoes off when they get on an airplane.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Oregon Mall - did not shoot over fear of hitting others in the background


http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Doesn't specify that he stopped it but other places/links claim the shooter left and shot himself after seeing the civilian with the weapon

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer

Yep. Don't hear much about this

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Someone help me find the consistency of thought here:
We shouldn't have gun control because when a drunk driver kills someone we don't take away everyone else's cars.

Because a terrorist had a bomb in their shoes, everyone has to take their shoes off when they get on an airplane.

We should not have gun control becasue it doesn't work.

Consider this; (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#)

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter......


With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is an example where experiences have been contrary to some of the opinion expressed in this thread;

Texas school where teachers carry guns prepared to protect students

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486271/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

[Dreamliner]

Well, we can't just sit here yammering about it on the internet, we need to panic! We need to run around in circles, waving our hands and doing things because:

*Mass-shootings are happening more and more every day.

*Because Connecticut doesn't already have stringent gun laws.

*Because we need to take the guns away from people who didn't do this.

*Because 26 killed in a mass-shooting is worse than 26 individual murder cases.

*Because it's worse when it happens at a school than at a post office.

*Because the lives of children are more valuable than the lives of adults.

*Because while it's "Sad, but oh well" to kill brown people (including little brown people) overseas, it's an outrage to see little Americans killed.

*Because, since virtually all mass-shootings in recent history have occurred in Gun-Free Zones, we have a shortage of Gun-Free Zones.

*And finally, because you're more dead when killed by a semi-automatic weapon than when killed by another type of weapon.

[nawlinsgator]

dead is dead, people died using guns or being shot by guns and people died by cars. Doesn't matter because they're dead./rant

I see your point. I hop on my glock to get to work everyday.

[Dreamliner]

I see your point. I hop on my glock to get to work everyday.

If we all took glocks to work I suspect a lot of lives would be saved over driving nearly two-ton vehicles at high speed.

[mocgator]

I think all liberals should put this sign in front of their homes or on the doors of their apartments today..

"There are no guns or weapons at this premises"


Good luck to you all...

[Dreamliner]

Gun-control whackos are all closet gun-nuts. Remember America's former, most vehement gun-control advocate, columnist Carl Rowen ? He resigned in shame after shooting a home invader, then following him outside his home and shooting the guy again. I'll bet police found a Confederate flag on the premises and elected not to report it.

[Lawdog88]

I noticed during the early broadcasts from the event, that ABC kept showing editorial "talking point" overlays / factoid thingys, stating things like, "3/4 of all firearm homicides are committed by legally purchased firearms," or words to that effect.

It's like the media had its agenda ready to roll out, just looking for the opportunity.

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

No one calling for "reasonable gun control measures" has the stones to admit that what they really want is a ban on private firearms ownership.

That is the only thing that might have prevented this tragedy.

[mdgator05]

No one calling for "reasonable gun control measures" has the stones to admit that what they really want is a ban on private firearms ownership.

That is the only thing that might have prevented this tragedy.

I personally think that we should have very stringent psychological tests to purchase a gun, that should have to be repeated once a year. And I think that we should have very stringent storage requirements (for example a safe requirement) backed by either criminal or heavy civil penalties towards people who don't follow the requirements and get their guns stolen and used. And people should be banned from allowing anybody but the licensee from using their guns for any purpose. If you want another person to be able to use the gun, they should have to pass the psychological screening as well.

[Dreamliner]

I personally think that we should have very stringent psychological tests to purchase a gun, that should have to be repeated once a year. And I think that we should have very stringent storage requirements (for example a safe requirement) backed by either criminal or heavy civil penalties towards people who don't follow the requirements and get their guns stolen and used. And people should be banned from allowing anybody but the licensee from using their guns for any purpose. If you want another person to be able to use the gun, they should have to pass the psychological screening as well.

And if found 'mentally ill', since the vast majority of Americans could potentially be described as 'mentally ill', what aside from denial of gun ownership would you empower the state to do ?

[phatGator]

Someone help me find the consistency of thought here:
We shouldn't have gun control because when a drunk driver kills someone we don't take away everyone else's cars.

Because a terrorist had a bomb in their shoes, everyone has to take their shoes off when they get on an airplane.

The consistency would be to take away everyone's alcohol. Then no one dies from drunk drivers. Then no guy comes home drunk and beats his wife or girl friend. Deprive millions of their freedom to enjoy responsibly because of the irresponsible actions of a few. That's the parallel to guns.

I was actually thinking yesterday on your second point and how it might be relevant to guns. I do accept a restriction of my freedom in travel to make it safer, due to the actions of a few. A difference is I still get to keep my shoes.

[mdgator05]

And if found 'mentally ill', since the vast majority of Americans could potentially be described as 'mentally ill', what aside from denial of gun ownership would you empower the state to do ?

I doubt most Americans could be described as "mentally ill." But mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.

[Dreamliner]

I doubt most Americans could be described as "mentally ill." But mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.

Do you feel 'a little blue' sometimes ? If so, you could be borderline. Do you own any guns ?

[mdgator05]

Do you feel 'a little blue' sometimes ? If so, you could be borderline. Do you own any guns ?

Actually, being depressed is different than being borderline. And being sad is different than being depressed.

[Dreamliner]

Actually, being depressed is different than being borderline. And being sad is different than being depressed.

Well, all you've really just done here is to open up a philosophical can of worms. I'm not interested in any of that. All I want to know is: (A) do you feel a little blue at times and (B) do you own any guns ?

[mdgator05]

Well, all you've really just done here is to open up a philosophical can of worms. I'm not interested in any of that. All I want to know is: (A) do you feel a little blue at times and (B) do you own any guns ?

Its nice that you aren't interested in psychological facts while trying to discuss facts. You would much rather talk about me than talking about definitions. As for your questions about me, yes and no. But what does that matter?

[phatGator]

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.



In that case they were standing in the parking lot. He could easily have run over all of them with his car.

[Dreamliner]

Its nice that you aren't interested in psychological facts while trying to discuss facts. You would much rather talk about me than talking about definitions. As for your questions about me, yes and no. But what does that matter?

It's not that I'm not interested in 'psychological facts', wait, what are they ? it's just that that the diagnoses are typically little more than waste basket terms for clusters of behaviors that we witness, well, in you.

To your question, based on your examination result, needless to say I'm glad to don't own any guns. Er, how about relatives ? Do they have guns we might need to confiscate ?

[Welshgator]

The consistency would be to take away everyone's alcohol. Then no one dies from drunk drivers. Then no guy comes home drunk and beats his wife or girl friend. Deprive millions of their freedom to enjoy responsibly because of the irresponsible actions of a few. That's the parallel to guns.

Guess you could try prohibition again, that worked well the first time.

[phatGator]

I personally think that we should have very stringent psychological tests to purchase a gun, that should have to be repeated once a year. And I think that we should have very stringent storage requirements (for example a safe requirement) backed by either criminal or heavy civil penalties towards people who don't follow the requirements and get their guns stolen and used. And people should be banned from allowing anybody but the licensee from using their guns for any purpose. If you want another person to be able to use the gun, they should have to pass the psychological screening as well.

How about this:

We should have very stringent psychological tests to purchase alcohol, that should have to be repeated once a year. We should have very stringent storage requirements (for example a safe requirement) backed by either criminal or heavy civil penalties towards people who don't follow the requirements and get their alcohol stolen and used by someone else. And people should be banned from allowing anybody but the licensee from using their alcohol for any purpose. If you want another person to share your alcohol, they should have to pass the psychological screening as well.

[mdgator05]

It's not that I'm not interested in 'psychological facts', wait, what are they ? it's just that that the diagnoses are typically little more than waste basket terms for clusters of behaviors that we witness, well, in you.

To your question, based on your examination result, needless to say I'm glad to don't own any guns. Er, how about relatives ? Do they have guns we might need to confiscate ?

Again, your inability to understand basic facts is not an indication that they do not exist. And I have very few living relatives, as I have lost almost all of my family in the past few years (which by the way is why "I feel a little blue."). But the few members of my family that are still alive don't have any. And frankly, at times that has probably a good thing as many of us (including myself) have dealt with varying levels of Depression. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Dreamliner]

Would anyone here really be confident you'd pass 'psychological screening' ?

Are you sure ?

[Dreamliner]

Again, your inability to understand basic facts is not an indication that they do not exist. And I have very few living relatives, as I have lost almost all of my family in the past few years (which by the way is why "I feel a little blue."). But the few members of my family that are still alive don't have any. And frankly, at times that has probably a good thing as many of us (including myself) have dealt with varying levels of Depression. Thanks for bringing it up.

I'm getting the impression that you are less interested in hashing about facts as you are about just using the word.

[mocgator]

In '95, Holder called for anti-gun info campaign: 'Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way'

http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-has-called-for-anti-gun-campaign-by-media-cultural-figures/article/2516161#.UM9v-XeqGup

[Lawdog88]

How about this:

We should have very stringent psychological tests to purchase alcohol, that should have to be repeated once a year. We should have very stringent storage requirements (for example a safe requirement) backed by either criminal or heavy civil penalties towards people who don't follow the requirements and get their alcohol stolen and used by someone else. And people should be banned from allowing anybody but the licensee from using their alcohol for any purpose. If you want another person to share your alcohol, they should have to pass the psychological screening as well.


Actually, the ATF "hotline" could be modified to handle requests for authorization to drink. Bars, restaurants, stadiums, food trucks, and private homes could be retrofitted, and for a small annual fee and fee per request, the information could be made available for those with a need to know.

Assuming the proper information about the proposed drinker is entered correctly, if the request for authorization to drink comes back negative, a code could then be silently entered to dispatch the local gendarmes to your residence (or wherever) to pick up the degenerate. If he / she falsified the application to drink, that could constitute a Federal crime of making a false statement. Lots of opportunity for expansion of all kinds of government institutions and services in that one.

You know, kind of like gun dealers do.

[mdgator05]

Would anyone here really be confident you'd pass 'psychological screening' ?

Are you sure ?

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

[mdgator05]

I'm getting the impression that you are less interested in hashing about facts as you are about just using the word.

People dealing with major mood disorders or with cluster A, B, or serious cluster C personality disorders should not have guns.

[MastaG8r]

Let's say you had a choice: either have your child in a class in Connecticut attacked by gunman with 3 guns (30 killed) or a class in China where gunman attacked children with knife (22 injured), what would you choose?Well that's a no-brainer. I'd rather have my kids going to school in Connecticut than in China. Who wouldn't?

[MastaG8r]

People dealing with major mood disorders or with cluster A, B, or serious cluster C personality disorders should not have guns.Maybe not but unfortunately a lot of them already do. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

It's too late. That is the unavoidable fact that no one seems to willing to confront. This isn't like England where they outlawed handguns then went around and collected all 162,000 of them. 162,000? Ha!

This ain't England. We've got the highest gun ownership rate in the world, by far. Considering the extent to which people prefer to keep such matters private I suspect the real number is higher than any survey results would indicate, but estimates are that there are more than 270 million privately-owned guns in America.

So that's we have do deal with when we talk about gun "control." The truth is, it's simply too late to control it. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

[philnotfil]

For those who don't want restrictions on Americans having guns, but do want restrictions on Iran having nuclear weapons, what is the difference?

[PIMking]

Yaah lets add more laws that take more tax money to enforce that only hinder us who obey the laws in the first place.

the douche killed his mom and stole her weapons, he didn't buy them, he stole them.

I'm sorry the biggest gun related shooting massacre will be if the government aka Obama and company try to take weapons from those who legally own a weapon.

[MastaG8r]

For those who don't want restrictions on Americans having guns, but do want restrictions on Iran having nuclear weapons, what is the difference?Seriously?

I thought you might give it a rest with the bad analogies after you compared the concept of gun control to having to take your shoes off at the airport. As someone else pointed out in response to that one, the TSA doesn't keep your shoes.

[mdgator05]

Maybe not but unfortunately a lot of them already do. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

It's too late. That is the unavoidable fact that no one seems to willing to confront. This isn't like England where they outlawed handguns then went around and collected all 162,000 of them. 162,000? Ha!

This ain't England. We've got the highest gun ownership rate in the world, by far. Considering the extent to which people prefer to keep such matters private I suspect the real number is higher than any survey results would indicate, but estimates are that there are more than 270 million privately-owned guns in America.

So that's we have do deal with when we talk about gun "control." The truth is, it's simply too late to control it. That being the case, why would anyone suggest that I should turn in mine?

I disagree with making everybody turn their guns in involuntarily. I think we should have programs where people can give them up voluntarily with no questions asked (as many local communities do). I also think we need to majorly revamp the registration system which would involve psychological screenings. People with legal guns need to go through the process of getting a new license and demonstrating that they are psychologically capable of continuing to own the gun. During this process, they should also be informed of new requirements for storage of guns and that they will be held responsible if their gun is stolen if proper storage methods to ensure that their gun is not stolen are not undertaken (ie. no leaving your gun in a drawer).

Black market gun trade needs to also be more closely monitored. If we can lower the number of guns floating around, the free market will naturally lower the number of legal guns as well. In turn, this will further lower the number of guns available for incidents like this (where the person stole legal guns to commit a crime).

[MastaG8r]

I disagree with making everybody turn their guns in involuntarily. I think we should have programs where people can give them up voluntarily with no questions asked (as many local communities do). I also think we need to majorly revamp the registration system which would involve psychological screenings. People with legal guns need to go through the process of getting a new license and demonstrating that they are psychologically capable of continuing to own the gun. During this process, they should also be informed of new requirements for storage of guns and that they will be held responsible if their gun is stolen if proper storage methods to ensure that their gun is not stolen are not undertaken (ie. no leaving your gun in a drawer).

Black market gun trade needs to also be more closely monitored. If we can lower the number of guns floating around, the free market will naturally lower the number of legal guns as well. In turn, this will further lower the number of guns available for incidents like this (where the person stole legal guns to commit a crime).lol. Like our friend Dave likes to say...what color is the sky in your world?

[philnotfil]

Seriously?

I thought you might give it a rest with the bad analogies after you compared the concept of gun control to having to take your shoes off at the airport. As someone else pointed out in response to that one, the TSA doesn't keep your shoes.

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

[mdgator05]

lol. Like our friend Dave likes to say...what color is the sky in your world?

Grey today. How about yours? BTW, mockery without substance lowers you, as it does him. And frankly, with you, that is difficult.

[wgbgator]

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

I've brought this up before. If more guns = less crime, then why doesnt that apply to nuclear arms & militarization? Why is the world more dangerous when other countries engage in arms races?

[MastaG8r]

Seriously.

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?First of all, I don't think the policies of the Iranian government represent the "collective will" of all individuals in Iran, do you?

More to your point, such as it is, the Iranian government has openly threatened to obliterate Israel, and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. If I openly threatened to kill you and was consequently prosecuted and convicted for it - in the same way that Iran has been prosecuted, "convicted" and sanctioned by the United Nations and other multinational entities - then I wouldn't be legally allowed to buy a gun in most U.S. states, if not all.

[PIMking]

I've brought this up before. If more guns = less crime, then why doesnt that apply to nuclear arms & militarization? Why is the world more dangerous when other countries engage in arms races?

Weird since we never had a nuclear war between us and the soviets...

[WESGATORS]

I think the common question is, "why don't we take cars away from everyone else when a drunk driver kills someone?" The response intending to make people realize that the problem isn't the tool used to kill, but the person doing the killing. Or am I getting the wrong message out of that question?

I think the idea is that it's not the fault of the vehicle, it's the fault of the driver. You can't legislate a way to keep drunks out of vehicles. It has to be a process of reasonable alternatives and education. Still, it's much easier to identify unsafe behavior of whether or not someone is able to get behind the wheel...that makes it much less excusable for lethal accidents to occur. Why isn't our society more focused on reducing the number of dangerous drivers as opposed to the number of dangerous gun-toters? It's very clearly a more solvable problem.

On a side note, I recently asked an ASO to check my BAC to see if I was sufficient to drive, and they refused saying that they would only check me if they had pulled me over. Strange.

Back to Iran, if we as individuals have the right to defend ourselves, why do countries, being the collective will of individuals, not have that right?

Different level of defense; your question is a valid one, just not sure how it relates to the idea of "gun control."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[DeanMeadGator]

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

The gun control issue is a distraction from the real problem, which no one seems to address.

What is happening in our society that precipates such violent, horrific and evil acts? When I was a kid, such violence simply did not exist. The Charles Manson slayings (which took place when I was in college) caused outright horror in America because nothing like it had happened before.

What has changed since I was a child?

[philnotfil]

First of all, I don't think the policies of the Iranian government represent the "collective will" of all individuals in Iran, do you?

No. Which is why I didn't say that it did :)

More to your point, such as it is, the Iranian government has openly threatened to obliterate Israel, and now they are seeking nuclear weapons. If I openly threatened to kill you and was consequently prosecuted and convicted for it - in the same way that Iran has been prosecuted, "convicted" and sanctioned by the United Nations and other multinational entities - then I wouldn't be legally allowed to buy a gun in most U.S. states, if not all.

Excellent response.

[philnotfil]

I think the idea is that it's not the fault of the vehicle, it's the fault of the driver.

That's what I thought it was too.

You can't legislate a way to keep drunks out of vehicles. It has to be a process of reasonable alternatives and education. Still, it's much easier to identify unsafe behavior of whether or not someone is able to get behind the wheel...that makes it much less excusable for lethal accidents to occur. Why isn't our society more focused on reducing the number of dangerous drivers as opposed to the number of dangerous gun-toters? It's very clearly a more solvable problem.

Breathalyzer lockouts are a good start, but yes.

Different level of defense; your question is a valid one, just not sure how it relates to the idea of "gun control."

Me neither, but this seemed those most appropriate thread.

[Dreamliner]

I am pretty sure I wouldn't have (at least not the type of one I would advocate for gun ownership) at points. I would now. While I know for a fact that I was not a danger to either myself or others, I also recognize the fact that somebody who is could easily have displayed similar psychological issues to what I went through. And I would rather not have them have guns, even with the possibility of a false positive.

And frankly, despite your attempts to keep the focus on me, I will not be ashamed about any of this.

Why not keep the focus on you ? Between the two of us, I'm not the one who wants to pry into people's foibles and grab their guns. You're the one who bears watching.

[mdgator05]

Why not keep the focus on you ? Between the two of us, I'm not the one who wants to pry into people's foibles and grab their guns. You're the one who bears watching.

And you are the one who wants mentally ill people armed to the teeth. Maybe you bear watching too.