Wyrmalla wrote: You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.
While I agree that some Americans seem idolatrously invested in the Constitution, I disagree that a general prohibition on warrantless searches is no longer timely.
I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution. Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.
And on the matter of random searches, I'll reiterate my point.
"You have military hardware in your house, yeah I think we should have a look at that..."
Kanluwen wrote: That is not "disregarding the Constitution".
That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.
I believe most legal scholars - and sitting judges - would agree that allowing random "inspections" of a home to check for criminal activity without a warrant or probable cause, or the threat of imminent danger or evidence destruction, or the chance of a suspect escaping would be considered to be disregarding the Constitution.
Sitting judges and legal scholars are there to interpret the Constitution, not to add to it.
Kanluwen wrote: In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?
Depends on where you live. Not a lot, in my case. I have to renew the permit every five years, but that just involves sending in the form again.
Which is one of those things which I feel is absolutely, unequivocally stupid.
What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".
And every argument in favor of free speech seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I have freedom of speech because the 1st Amendment says I do!"
It's almost like that's what the Bill of Rights was designed for, laying down a certain set of rights that required no further proof of legitimacy.
And yet, "free speech" has its limitations.
So why the hell does the right to bear arms not have the same?
Wyrmalla wrote: Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.
As I posted before, what is really tiresome is seeing folks outside of the US using this incident and similar ones to have a go at what they obviously feel is our cultural inferiority. We value our rights and the legal system that protects them. If you feel otherwise regarding your own place of residence, that's okay. But devaluing your own rights provides no justification for judging us wrong to value ours.
Kanluwen wrote: Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.
BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.
You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them. The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment. For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.
Kanluwen wrote: Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...
Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>
Wyrmalla wrote: Really, pose a point other than that, because it gets a little old.
As I posted before, what is really tiresome is seeing folks outside of the US using this incident and similar ones to have a go at what they obviously feel is our cultural inferiority. We value our rights and the legal system that protects them. If you feel otherwise regarding your own place of residence, that's okay. But devaluing your own rights provides no justification for judging us wrong to value ours.
Again, I make the point that it seems that your only argument is that its as part of your rights. The rights of a country's people are subject to change, so quit refering to them as though they're written in stone. Posters here seem to think that they're 100% correct, and yet if that's the case then why're people argueing against them? Yes, North Americans really do give off the impression that you follow your mantra unoquivically, not as a whole of course but merely those that're argueing for those rights layed out in it. You may not agree with this, but its how you come across. =/
Kanluwen wrote: Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.
BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.
You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them.
And yet, those liabilities go a long way towards preventing abuses of illegal searches.
The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment.
Enactment is the first step for a law to "be effective". In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.
For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling
down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.
Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.
Kanluwen wrote: Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...
Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>
Snazzy uniforms are awesome. Let's face facts here.
Historically, gun control in America has been aimed at preventing African-Americans and Native Americans from getting their hands on weapons, so I've always been uneasy at talk of more gun control.
As for screening for mental health problems, that sounds unworkable as well. Besides, how do you stop the following: A normal guy, no criminal record, decent family guy, etc etc comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man and shoots them both. No screening in the world is going to stop that. Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.
Why is America unique in this instance? Other countries like Canada, Finland and the Swiss, have loads of guns as well. Sorry If I sound like Michael Moore, but other countries have the same violent films/games etc
Is it the US military to blame? The USA is drone attacking people abroad and in recent years has invaded various countries. Due to its frequency, America seems to have become numb to gun violence. Are school shootings the logical conclusion to these things?
Is it because of American mythology - wild west, civil war, revolution?
Earlier I posted an article that asked why school shootings have increased since the 1980s? What has happened in American culture since the 1980s?
I'm not supporting one view or another, nor am I having a go at Americans on this site or the USA in general. Many of my points probably have flawed logic, but I'm including them to keep the debate going. You have to ask questions, even if they turn out to be wrong.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.
The fact sheet that KalashnikovMarine posted earlier stated that 94% of firearm homicides in the US are drug-related. Yeah, I'd say yours is a safe bet.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Also, as I type this, there are probably people getting killed in the USA due to gang/drug related violence. No screening in the world will stop that either.
The fact sheet that KalashnikovMarine posted earlier stated that 94% of firearm homicides in the US are drug-related. Yeah, I'd say yours is a safe bet.
I don't like to see anybody killed, especially over something that they should be legally allowed to buy IMO.
It's always the law-abiding majority that gets it in the neck though.
In the UK, because some people can't handle alcohol or drink themselves to death, there is a presumption that nobody can handle alcohol and so the government tries to crack down on it year year out. . Sometimes, the gun debate reminds me of this.
Wyrmalla wrote: Well Crime Blitzes are ever so effective mind...
But really, it does come across as pretty lax that your government doesn't even bother to check up on the condition of the weapons carried by its citizens. Admitedly though enforcing it'd be a tad difficult considering that everyone and they're mother has the damn things, and that your rather touchy about the supposed infringment of your rights.
Meh, I guess countries have different idealologies which aren't compatible with one another. I mean how many people on this thread outside of the US are actually adovacating their current handling of gun laws? =P
We call those searches. We killed a whole lot of Brits to insure those searches had minimal requirements of legality. Your mileage may vary.
=P The laws in the UK over alcohol, at least in Scotland, are there because we have the higest alcohol related crimes in the whole of Europe. Yes, it may be that the majority of those that commit the crimes may be of the demographic that are partial to criminal activities, and that making the availability of the substance isn't going to phase them from its use, but that's not to say that we shouldn't try and do something about it. If we make a substance readily available to everyone then somehow that's going to lower the crime rates? I'd think rather that that'd increase them. Instead you put in laws to make it more controlled, it doesn't matter that the criminals will find ways to get the stuff in the end, its that its harder. Your average Joe'll be dettered too, unless they've got convictions, thus there's less of the flippant criminality too.
Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.
Wyrmalla wrote: Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.
So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.
Wyrmalla wrote: Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.
So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.
Uh, yeah? Question answered?
I'm in a college class where the majority don't drink, or those that do seem to get horrendously drunk. Scotland's got a major alcohol abuse problem, you think I'm at all bothered if it gets fixed with prohibition of it?
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.
I tend to be confrontational with anyone that stands between me and coffee/chocolate. I'm pretty confrontational with the local chicken hawk which suddenly reappeared. He and I may have fisticuffs if he gets near the house again. TBone will not tolerate raptors trying to fly away with him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: =P And like I said, your Constitution makes it awfully hard to change your mindset. You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.
Thats kind of the point.
It'd be nice if someone actually got around to updating it for the 21st centuary, instead of youknow, using laws written out how many hundreds of years ago to define your current society. Not to say that every other country doesn't use decrees from x amout of years ago for this either. An issue would be say that you're abusing the right to defend yourself against foreign invasion from the British to allow everyone to go about toting military hardware...
Why. I like being free to speak my mind, attend the church I wish to (or not) and not have British troops quartered in my house. Not sure what needs updating.
Kanluwen wrote: And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.
Weird.
Would you consider, "The Fourth Amendment doesn't just disappear because you think it would be a good idea," to be an illogical argument?
Would you consider "What constitutes an unreasonable search?" to be an illogical response?
In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?
What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.
Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.
If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.
Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.
Again, guns are not required for atrocity. A Ukrainian judge and his entire family were found beheaded in their home over the weekend at some point. The heads are still missing.
=P You live in a country where firearms are so readily available that its the case that the people think that they need to take them up to defend themselves. There's been a few breakins around where I live lately, not one has involved a firearm, hell none of the guys were even armed. I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.
Wyrmalla wrote: =P You live in a country where firearms are so readily available that its the case that the people think that they need to take them up to defend themselves. There's been a few breakins around where I live lately, not one has involved a firearm, hell none of the guys were even armed. I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.
if guns are as prolific in our country as you say they are (and they very well may be), I would like at least a fighting chance before my family get's murdered for a tv and my xbox...
Wyrmalla wrote: I suppose few of these in the Uk actually involve guns though. I mean at least in my case where the criminals did encounter the home owners they just turned around and walked out actually. In the US I suppose the same situation would have wound up like a mexican standoff instead.
According to BBC this morning, it may end in the entire family being decapitated in countries where guns are uncommon. I think I'll stick to guns.
I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.
Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.
If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.
Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.
Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the US is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...
And forgive me if I'm somewhat glad not to be living somewhere that dangerous...
I'm more refering to the arguments posted in this thread. Here it comes across that whenever someone poses an argument against something it always comes down to North Americans running back to the constitution.
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on. It's no mistake that the second thing they could all agree on after 'we can all say and think what we like' was that the citizens of the United States had the right to defend themselves. From criminals. From invaders. From their own government, if need be.
Make no mistake, they envisioned an army. They already had police. These were not things they could not imagine. Instead, these were things they realized the limitations of.
If not for my right to bare arms, I'd be dead. Now that I'm back in Pennsylvania, home invaders around here are not random schmucks with ballbats. They carry shotguns and illegal weapons. The police are, on a good day, a 30 min drive away.
Considering the number of times we've had to defend ourselves out here, thank god the founding fathers were so forward thinking.
Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the US is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...
And forgive me if I'm somewhat glad not to be living somewhere that dangerous...
It ain't that dangerous here... o.O
EDIT: By some measures, the UK is extremely violent...
I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.
He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P
Kanluwen wrote: Police or ATF agents acting under the umbrella of "gun inspections" are restricted to the "plain sight" mandate and firearms related offenses.
BAM. Your argument. It is refuted.
You have refuted nothing. Your hypothetical regulation would only create liability for abuses of the illegal searches you are proposing -- it would certainly not prevent them. The existence of the fourth amendment and its importance in our jurisprudence might have alerted you to that ... But this is indicative of your rather naive view of authority: that a law is effective merely by enactment. For people with this viewpoint, the notion of "gun control" is very appealing. What everyone can see this actually boiling down to, at least in the case of your arguments here, is a limitless appeal to authority.
Kanluwen wrote: Man, I wish I would have such a snazzy uniform...
Oh I know you do. I can tell from your other posts ITT>
You have to give him credit for the use of BAM! though. I though I was on a cooking show. BAM! now we have Pizza!
Kanluwen wrote: In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.
I think that is more revealing than you intended: starting with a solution (gun control) and looking for a problem (too many people have guns) to justify it.
Kanluwen wrote: Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.
Don't even try that one on me, Kan. I read them alright and I appraise them as poor at best not to mention more than a touch loony.
Ouch... it sounds as if you're halfway towards a state of armed siege there! I assume you're unable to move somewhere safer for economic reasons? And why hasn't the government (i.e. the police force) done something about this? It sounds like the UA is halfway towards being a failed state if this is true...
Nothing has been done because of 'budget cuts' cutting back police and fire. Used to be there was a police station only five miles away. Now it's closer to 50. And, yes, there's a certain siege feel to it. We can't all leave the place at once, one of us is always on guard. They got driven off the one try they made. My neighbors have not been so lucky.
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Again, I make the point that it seems that your only argument is that its as part of your rights.
Yes indeedy. We're quite fond of them and fought a few wars about it.
The rights of a country's people are subject to change,
No. They can't
so quit refering to them as though they're written in stone.
Written on dead animal skin actually.
Posters here seem to think that they're 100% correct, and yet if that's the case then why're people argueing against them?
Its the internet, plus you're still arguing too, about US rights, without being a US citizen...
Yes, North Americans really do give off the impression that you follow your mantra unoquivically, not as a whole of course but merely those that're argueing for those rights layed out in it. You may not agree with this, but its how you come across. =/
Whats amazing is how little we care. We fought two wars with you to insure we don't have to care. Fought another war to make sure an entire subject people would have those same rights.
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
You guys are weird...
Except the statistics and studies have all shown (from sources like the CDC, not just Bubba and Jimbo) that it WOULDN'T make the country safer.
Have you actually bothered to read the thread? Or are you just here to make snarky remarks?
Wyrmalla wrote: I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.
He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P
That's the choice your South African friend made and he will live with that. That's okay. There are plenty of people who do not own guns here in the US and they rely on police, baseball bats, burglar alarms, or whatever if they are ever threatened. Some people decide that they would like the choice to defend themselves with a gun and it is a decision that every citizen of the United States has to make at some point in their lives. Do I want a gun? If I do, what do I want it for?
You seem to be very colonial in your attitudes towards other countries. We must not be civilized enough.
Wyrmalla wrote: Really I don't care much about the price rises for alchohol. If it leads to less kids drunk on the streets at night then I don't give a damn for the methods.
So you're for a ban on alcohol, then? After all, that would surely lead to the least amount of kids drunk on streets at night, and you do not care about the methods.
This is awesome. Now we can run Jim Beam in through Ireland like the Brits ran whisky through Canada. Prohibition laws+ inelastic demand = PROFIT!
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.
Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.
If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.
Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.
I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.
Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.
If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.
Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.
I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.
Agree on all points
I still don't think it's a good idea... but, hypothetically speaking... I would only train/arm only a handful of staff (not all Admin/teachers).
But, if someone is willing to kill... I see you're point about the open carry painting a large target.
Wyrmalla wrote: I have a South African friend who was faced with armed criminals every day of his life. He said he'd have his hous broken into by kids with pistols. Did he use a gun to defend himself, nope. Most of all he hates the Ak47 (he works in an art gallery that was featuring them and chewed out any kids who said "ooh cool" at it). The guys breaking into your home are either so out of their heads on drugs that you fighting back's only going to incite them, or if you fight back then they'll see you as a threat and kill you instead of just robbing you. Oh you'll say, "they could just shoot him anyway because he was unarmed", they could have, but him not fighting back gave him a higher chance of living when it came to the sane criminals.
He's not a pacifist, he's just lost too many friends to shoot outs with twelve year olds over a few rand. If you come across a road block stationed with cracked out kids you do what they say or drive the hell out of there, shooting back's not going to make a difference when you've got your kids in the back seat. He's living in Scotland as a museum attendant now. Why? Well for one he merrits his chances more against a guy with a knife, but no, its that the country's civilised enough that the threat of being mugged at gun point isn't something that crosses anyone mind. =P
Sorry, we're not all willing to be victims like your friend. I saw enough of that myself in places liek Honduras, and am not interested in being that guy. My home was built in the 1820's to withstand artillery fire at close range. (and it has)
Your friends plan was to be so non-threatening to be not worth the bullet. Mine is to be so threatening, even the most coked up guy thinks twice (they know when they enter my part of the terrain. There are skulls in every tree along the boundary to this property). The difference? I keep my stuff, and I don't have to move, they do. I refuse to be victemized,
Because the Constitution isn't just a set of laws. It's set of ideals that the United States was founded on.
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
You guys are weird...
Yup... at least the Patriot Act is voted on to continue. We'll revert back to normal (ish) when it isn't continued.
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
Something tell em the second one would be much more effective.
Neither, for the same reason that I don't open carry.
If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first. Having armed and trained staff is much more effective when nobody knows about them. If a bad guy comes in to rob the place and does the classical "hand in pocket/I have a gun" or is pointing the gun around without shooting anybody, then the armed staff can surprise the burglar. If he knows they will go for their guns and shoot him, he will simply neutralize them first.
Same as with open carry for me. Lots of people like open carry because they argue that "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows better than to start something and leaves". I think that open carry just paints a target on me and my argument is "if a bad guy walks into a store and he sees my gun on my hip, he knows that he should take me out first". The element of surprise is important to me and if you practice you can draw just as fast from a concealed holster than an outside holster.
I'm not against open carry laws and I am glad we passed ours, it's just not something I would do.
Agree on all points
I still don't think it's a good idea... but, hypothetically speaking... I would only train/arm only a handful of staff (not all Admin/teachers).
But, if someone is willing to kill... I see you're point about the open carry painting a large target.
We have had a few places reach a sort of middle ground. Some of our more "family" places have posted signs that open carry is not permitted. Mostly because other patrons have complained about it, they are places with lots of children, and other reasons that made people uncomfortable with guns around. But they still allow concealed carry, since people were just getting uncomfortable when they were seeing a gun.
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Please point to me what rights were stripped away?
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Please point to me what rights were stripped away?
The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
whembly wrote:Whoa...
The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
It sounds like a great idea on the surface. It's not. Cops have a much better chance of using a gun and look how well trained they are. Now add firearms and training to the education budget that already isn't enough. It's just a big no. Take down the gun free zone sign, subsidize local PD to train the teachers with thier own guns and ammo once a quarter. It's still not a great solution but until education in the UsA is well funded and US students are no1 I'm against anything that takes money out of teaching.
The rights of a country's people are subject to change,
No. They can't
Insofar as he's talking about the Bill of Rights, I suppose they could be amended away. They are positive rights posited by the sovereign people. The important point is that just because a right is posited by a people in their government rather than established by God or otherwise inherent to nature does not render it meaningless. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The rights of a country's people are subject to change,
No. They can't
Insofar as he's talking about the Bill of Rights, I suppose they could be amended away. They are positive rights posited by the sovereign people. The important point is that just because a right is posited by a people in their government rather than established by God or otherwise inherent to nature does not render it meaningless. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I think Frazz is right he just didn't say enough. Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
whembly wrote:Whoa...
The St. Louis Police Chief is bringing a proposal to have some Teachers/Administrators trained and armed.
If that's the case, which signs would be more effective?
So who is going to stop the teachers/administrators if they decide to start shooting?
You're presenting a great point as to why this is such a problem. The majority of the individuals doing these shootings are not criminals. They are obtaining these guns legally.
This most recent shooting would not have been prevented if there were some kind of "no mental illness" law for guns, because the guns did not belong to the shooter. They belonged to the mother.
And for that matter, many schools have school resource officers--who are active duty law enforcement, armed on campus. If an armed and trained individual is not going to make a difference, do you really think throwing MORE armed people into the mix is going to do it?
Manchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote: In order for reform to begin, you need a problem to start with.
I think that is more revealing than you intended: starting with a solution (gun control) and looking for a problem (too many people have guns) to justify it.
Not really.
The problem is the wide availability of legally obtainable firearms and the relatively lax control on said firearms making their way into the hands of individuals who continually use legally obtained firearms in mass killings.
A subproblem is the attention granted to spree killers by the media.
Another subproblem is, barring hindsight, how to prevent such instances from occurring again.
There is no framework within the Second Amendment to work from. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights is not the end all, be all for this argument.
Gun violence is a problem that is going to continue getting worse before it gets better. And that's not even looking at instances of illegally obtained firearms used in crimes related to narcotic and gang violence.
Kanluwen wrote: Only if you don't actually read my posts maybe.
Don't even try that one on me, Kan. I read them alright and I appraise them as poor at best not to mention more than a touch loony.
The fact that you refer to it as "loony" tells me all I need to know, Manchu.
Why in the hell is it "loony" to say that there needs to be a step towards more government involvement in the ownership of firearms? The fact that people cry that ANY kind of government restrictions on firearms is infringing on their rights is absurd.
AustonT wrote: Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.
That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.
AustonT wrote: Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.
That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.
And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.
This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Please point to me what rights were stripped away?
The right to not get groped at the airport? This seems to be the right to not get groped anywhere. Other than that, not sure what.
Kanluwen wrote: The problem is the wide availability of legally obtainable firearms and the relatively lax control on said firearms making their way into the hands of individuals who continually use legally obtained firearms in mass killings.
No, the problem is that there are individuals committing mass killings. Your argument is a sleight of hand. Mind, I'm not necessarily accusing you of being disingenuous. I think a lot of people say things like this without understanding why they're wrong.
Kanluwen wrote: Why in the hell is it "loony" to say that there needs to be a step towards more government involvement in the ownership of firearms? The fact that people cry that ANY kind of government restrictions on firearms is infringing on their rights is absurd.
What is absurd is your mischaracterization of the real world to fit your blatantly false preconceived notions. There are many standing restrictions on firearm ownership and many proponents of private firearm ownership see nothing to complain about regarding these restrictions. You present a cost/benefit analysis about random inspections by completely disregard the costs (despite them being well established in our jurisprudence) and assuming the benefit (for which there is no evidence). This is a loony argument.
AustonT wrote: Any attempt to amend away any of the Bill of Right, especially the 1,4,5, would be met with open hostility by citizens and politicians of every stripe.
That's what we hope. But in any case, threats to the Bill of Rights have never presented themselves as threats directly to the text of the Constitution. Proponents of gun control aren't even talking about reading the second amendment in a novel way much less amending the document. They'd prefer not to read it at all. (Just look at Kan's arguments, jumping from disregarding one amendment to another.) The threat does come from a misunderstanding of positivism in law. The same weird result is happening with regard to marriage as we speak.
And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.
This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
Kanluwen wrote: And the threat also comes from a refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time
Please clarify. What exactly does the threat of "refusal to acknowledge that the amendments were written in a much different time" threaten? I think we are talking about different things. The fact that the Constitution was written over two centuries ago has nothing to do with its legal validity. Just because you are not familiar with jurisprudence does not mean that judges and legislators are similarly ignorant.
Kanluwen wrote: and the Second Amendment no longer can be interpreted in a meaningful way.
That's just a declarative statement but it seems like you think it's an argument.
GUTHRIE — A 3-year-old boy who accidentally shot and killed himself with a gun has been identified as the nephew of a state trooper — and the weapon belonged to the lawman — authorities said.
Ryder Rozier, 3, died of an accidental gunshot wound to the head, said Amy Elliott, spokeswoman for the state medical examiner's office.
The boy was at the home of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper on Saturday when the accidental shooting took place, Logan County Sheriff's Capt. Richard Stephens said.
Rozier is a nephew of the trooper, Stephens said. Stephens did not release the name of the trooper. The boy shot himself with one of the trooper's personal guns, Stephens said. It was not a state-issued gun.
Ryder was at the trooper's home in the 1500 block of Derby Lane, about four miles southeast of Guthrie. He found a loaded handgun in a bedroom.
Stephens said the sheriff's office took a call about the shooting just after noon Saturday.
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it.
There are three basic requirements.
1. The item must be within the officer's sight;
2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.
There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Please point to me what rights were stripped away?
Kanluwen wrote: This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.
And yet Americans cheered on as a vast majority of those rights were stripped away when some planes crashed into some buildings a few years ago, but giving up the "right" that would actually make your country safer is a taboo subject!
Please point to me what rights were stripped away?
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it.
There are three basic requirements.
1. The item must be within the officer's sight;
2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.
There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).
YUet you've said they can open closets, which is violative of the plain view doctrine. Plus the plain view doctrine does not give you permission to enter a residence and exert your "plain view." You still need a warrant to enter a person's residence. Thats simple law back to the freaking British common law.
Kanluwen wrote: This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.
Kanluwen wrote: This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.
Well at least we can agree on that.
In opposition to a lot of the beliefs that some in this thread might have, I really do not want to just have a flat ban on firearms. I want to see something done to ensure that access to firearms and continued usage is done in such a way that it is both responsible and sensible.
Do I agree with everything in this article? Not at all, but here are some decent portions.
That campaign should be led from outside the political system, by people who have suffered loss and grief from gun violence. Only that way can the campaign avoid being held hostage by the usual conflict of parties -- Democrats who fear that gun control will lose them rural congressional districts; Republicans who exaggerate for partisan gain exactly what gun control would mean.
Gun control should no more mean the abolition of guns than Mothers Against Drunk Driving abolished the car. Guns are part of the cherished American culture of the outdoors. In many parts of the country, a deer rifle literally puts meat on the table.
In other parts, a revolver in the bedroom dresser drawer is the frightened spouse's last defense against an abusive partner, or the gay urban homesteader's final protection against violent bigots. Guns can be souvenirs of heroic moments on faraway battlefields, mementoes of national history, or art objects of great beauty.
It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.
Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it.
There are three basic requirements.
1. The item must be within the officer's sight;
2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.
There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).
YUet you've said they can open closets, which is violative of the plain view doctrine. Plus the plain view doctrine does not give you permission to enter a residence and exert your "plain view." You still need a warrant to enter a person's residence. Thats simple law back to the freaking British common law.
I did not ever once say that they could open the closets. I made a point of insinuating that a responsible, law abiding citizen gun owner would have no qualms with consenting to a search.
Kanluwen wrote: This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.
No no no. You need .22LRs for zombies.
You don't need anything for zombies because they are not real.
Kanluwen wrote: This is not a wild frontier, where daily raids happen requiring citizens to turn out with rifles at the walls.
I will certainly agree with you here. We MUST stop pretending it is or is soon going to be zombie apocalypse time. A lot of people in this country are living in a fantasy land where the moon landing is fake, President Bush ordered the Twin Towers destroyed, and the Mayans correctly foresaw that health care reform would destroy the world (i.e., the Yoo-knighted States Uvahmurka). But let's please don't answer the delusions of the right with delusions from the left, about gun control or whatever else.
First of all:
The moon landings were faked.
Bush the Elder was behind 9/11
Law abiding citizens don't have to consent to a search, nor should they feel bad about refusing to consent to one "if they have nothing to hide".
It appears the constitutional laws against warrant-less searches were not written to protect people with something to hide, but for law abiding citizens to use.
Do I agree with everything in this article? Not at all, but here are some decent portions.
That campaign should be led from outside the political system, by people who have suffered loss and grief from gun violence. Only that way can the campaign avoid being held hostage by the usual conflict of parties -- Democrats who fear that gun control will lose them rural congressional districts; Republicans who exaggerate for partisan gain exactly what gun control would mean.
Gun control should no more mean the abolition of guns than Mothers Against Drunk Driving abolished the car. Guns are part of the cherished American culture of the outdoors. In many parts of the country, a deer rifle literally puts meat on the table.
In other parts, a revolver in the bedroom dresser drawer is the frightened spouse's last defense against an abusive partner, or the gay urban homesteader's final protection against violent bigots. Guns can be souvenirs of heroic moments on faraway battlefields, mementoes of national history, or art objects of great beauty.
It's harder to imagine why any civilian would need a semiautomatic weapon. Still, it's a free country, and gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a right to their guns. The challenge for the grass-roots gun-safety movement of the future is to focus on the danger posed by irresponsible owners. The goal should be less to ban particular classes of weapons -- such a goal puts the law in a race against technology, a race the law will likely lose -- and more to change the rules defining who may keep a gun.
Prospective gun owners should be required to take serious training and pass a safety exam before qualifying for a license. They should be screened for mental illness and histories of violence, very much including domestic violence. They should be required to buy insurance against the harm done by wrongful use of their weapons, and if that insurance proves expensive -- well, too bad. People apprehended in possession of an unlicensed weapon should face severe sanctions.
Couple good points, but it is worth noting that misdemeanor domestic violence crimes and higher are listed on the ATF transfer form and do show up as a flag for an NICS check.
That whole last paragraph after the last sentence is just bollocks however to borrow a term from our British associates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Law abiding citizens don't have to consent to a search, nor should they feel bad about refusing to consent to one "if they have nothing to hide".
It appears the constitutional laws against warrant-less searches were not written to protect people with something to hide, but for law abiding citizens to use.
d-usa wrote: It appears the constitutional laws against warrant-less searches were not written to protect people with something to hide, but for law abiding citizens to use.
I already offered a slogan for your New Order but here's another "THE GUILTY ARE NOT CITIZENS."
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it. There are three basic requirements. 1. The item must be within the officer's sight; 2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and 3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.
There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).
YUet you've said they can open closets, which is violative of the plain view doctrine. Plus the plain view doctrine does not give you permission to enter a residence and exert your "plain view." You still need a warrant to enter a person's residence. Thats simple law back to the freaking British common law.
I did not ever once say that they could open the closets. I made a point of insinuating that a responsible, law abiding citizen gun owner would have no qualms with consenting to a search.
I would want to know why I was being picked for Random Gun Inspection before I let them into my house. If you don't give me a good reason, you're going to get a solid wooden door closed politely on your face with me peeping through the mail slot telling you to return with a warrant and I will gladly let you inspect my house.
I was just curious about the plain view thing, you did clarify it, but the cops wouldn't be allowed into my premises without reasonable cause. "Random Gun Inspection" (or w/e you want to call it) is not a reasonable cause.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
That is not really true.
Look at Syria for an example. The "government fears the people" there, for the time being, and as it stands the people are on the losing side.
Alfndrate wrote:I would want to know why I was being picked for Random Gun Inspection before I let them into my house. If you don't give me a good reason, you're going to get a solid wooden door closed politely on your face with me peeping through the mail slot telling you to return with a warrant and I will gladly let you inspect my house.
I was just curious about the plain view thing, you did clarify it, but the cops wouldn't be allowed into my premises without reasonable cause. "Random Gun Inspection" (or w/e you want to call it) is not a reasonable cause.
You're right; at this point in time.
If a measure was added that required individuals to be subject to "random gun inspections", there could easily be provisions written within it putting restrictions on what the police/ATF could do in the process of executing a "random gun inspection".
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.
I tend to be confrontational with anyone that stands between me and coffee/chocolate. I'm pretty confrontational with the local chicken hawk which suddenly reappeared. He and I may have fisticuffs if he gets near the house again. TBone will not tolerate raptors trying to fly away with him.
Unwanted, unannounced inspection by a government agency is itself the main problem with ... involuntary, unannounced government inspection. No matter how thick the reg book, it's still bad. It's like saying, "don't worry, there will be limits on what the police can do during the randomized body cavity search." Ugh.
Kilkrazy wrote: My impression is that a significant number of Americans would object to a scheduled police inspection of their weapon security cabinet.
In the UK and Japan, this is a feature of the licensing system, designed to prevent people from leaving guns and ammo lying around the house.
Scheduled is different than random gun inspections . I would agree to such schedule inspections for licensing reasons... Though I wouldn't be a gun owner lol, like I said earlier in the thread don't need a license to own my gun, just gotta not be crazy. It does help that I have FBI and BCI criminal background checks done, thanks to my student teaching.
If the police are allowed to enter my home for a random gun inspection, and I place my rifle in my closet and shut the door, do the police or ATF have cause or reason to enter my closet?
Considering the whole theoretical situation is to ensure that responsible gun owners continue to be responsible gun owners, what reason do you have to not allow them entry to your closet?
I should have quoted you,but several posts had occurred between when you said it, and when I posted my question. It was more for the post you made about things needing to be in plain sight. If my gun is in my closet and the door is shut, what reason would the police have to search something that is not in plain sight. I could see if it was leaning up against my door, but in a closed closet?
I wouldn't allow them entrance to my closet based on the fact that entrance into my closet would violate the policy of plain sight (at least as I understand your words a few pages ago about it)
Plain view is complex but I'll try to simplify it.
There are three basic requirements.
1. The item must be within the officer's sight;
2. The officer must legally be in the place from which the item is seen; and
3. It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure.
There used to be a fourth requirement, "Inadvertence"(the accidental finding by an officer of the item rather than prior knowledge that the item is in a particular place) which was removed by Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128 [1990]).
YUet you've said they can open closets, which is violative of the plain view doctrine. Plus the plain view doctrine does not give you permission to enter a residence and exert your "plain view." You still need a warrant to enter a person's residence. Thats simple law back to the freaking British common law.
I did not ever once say that they could open the closets. I made a point of insinuating that a responsible, law abiding citizen gun owner would have no qualms with consenting to a search.
I would want to know why I was being picked for Random Gun Inspection before I let them into my house. If you don't give me a good reason, you're going to get a solid wooden door closed politely on your face with me peeping through the mail slot telling you to return with a warrant and I will gladly let you inspect my house.
I was just curious about the plain view thing, you did clarify it, but the cops wouldn't be allowed into my premises without reasonable cause. "Random Gun Inspection" (or w/e you want to call it) is not a reasonable cause.
Random gun inspection is not a legal search. Sorry, if you kick in my door for that I just made lots of money. THANKS FOR THE RETIREMENT FUND!
Kilkrazy wrote: My impression is that a significant number of Americans would object to a scheduled police inspection of their weapon security cabinet.
Your impression is correct, at least as far as I am concerned. And I hasten to add that I am not nor do I have any plans to become in the foreseeable future a gun owner.
If a measure was added that required individuals to be subject to "random gun inspections", there could easily be provisions written within it putting restrictions on what the police/ATF could do in the process of executing a "random gun inspection".
At least until the first random inspection was challenged in court and thrown out for "being so goddamn unconstitutional I should slap you so hard that your mom's face burns" - Antonin Scalia.
Having to deal with the occasional inspection: It's a pain to set aside an entire day to show idiots your toys. The last one was hilarious: 'You sure do have a lot of guns laying around.' No, really, I would never have noticed. If I hadn't pointed it out, he probably wouldn't have noticed the tank gun at all.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.
I tend to be confrontational with anyone that stands between me and coffee/chocolate. I'm pretty confrontational with the local chicken hawk which suddenly reappeared. He and I may have fisticuffs if he gets near the house again. TBone will not tolerate raptors trying to fly away with him.
Kilkrazy wrote: My impression is that a significant number of Americans would object to a scheduled police inspection of their weapon security cabinet.
In the UK and Japan, this is a feature of the licensing system, designed to prevent people from leaving guns and ammo lying around the house.
Scheduled is different than random gun inspections . I would agree to such schedule inspections for licensing reasons... Though I wouldn't be a gun owner lol, like I said earlier in the thread don't need a license to own my gun, just gotta not be crazy. It does help that I have FBI and BCI criminal background checks done, thanks to my student teaching.
Random drug testing is allowable for employment in many areas.
Why would this be any different? The caveat is that it has be truly random or applied in such a way that it is not prejudicial.
Kilkrazy wrote: My impression is that a significant number of Americans would object to a scheduled police inspection of their weapon security cabinet.
In the UK and Japan, this is a feature of the licensing system, designed to prevent people from leaving guns and ammo lying around the house.
Scheduled is different than random gun inspections . I would agree to such schedule inspections for licensing reasons... Though I wouldn't be a gun owner lol, like I said earlier in the thread don't need a license to own my gun, just gotta not be crazy. It does help that I have FBI and BCI criminal background checks done, thanks to my student teaching.
Random drug testing is allowable for employment in many areas.
Why would this be any different? The caveat is that it has be truly random or applied in such a way that it is not prejudicial.
Because my employer is asking me pee in a cup so that I may continue working for them. The police are not asking me to see my guns so that I may continue being a civilian of the government they represent?
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
...
The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision , one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Alfndrate wrote: [Random drug testing is allowable for employment in many areas.
Why would this be any different? The caveat is that it has be truly random or applied in such a way that it is not prejudicial.
YET THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENTER PEOPLE"S HOUSE"S AND FORCE RANDOM DRUG TESTS ON PEOPLE.
That utter nonsense. Corporations are not state actors. Corporations can also call you on the telephone. Does that mean the police have the right to enter your house and strip search everyone in the house? You're not making sense at this point.
If I sound angry its because you've made statements about being in law enforcement or wanting to be. This lack of knowledge of basic constitutional law concepts is scary.
Kanluwen wrote: Random drug testing is allowable for employment in many areas.
Why would this be any different? The caveat is that it has be truly random or applied in such a way that it is not prejudicial.
YET THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENTER PEOPLE"S HOUSE"S AND FORCE RANDOM DRUG TESTS ON PEOPLE.
That utter nonsense. Corporations are not state actors. Corporations can also call you on the telephone. Does that mean the police have the right to enter your house and strip search everyone in the house? You're not making sense at this point.
Your point is nonsensical. The Chewbacca Defense lives strong in this one.
Frazzled wrote:If I sound angry its because you've made statements about being in law enforcement or wanting to be. This lack of knowledge of basic constitutional law concepts is scary.
I'm quite aware of basic conlaw concepts, thank you very much.
What I'm also aware of is the way conlaw gets twisted to suit any toolbag who wraps themselves in the flag to justify their action.
Do you think the framers of the Constitution intended for organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church to justify their garbage with "freedom of speech"?
Whembly wrote:There's no comparison there dude...
Actually there is.
The fact that you refuse to see it does not negate it.
No no don't worry im not going all conspiracy guy its not the whole speech just one part people should be aware of 1:41 to 2:37
This isn't so much about gun control as much as it is about been very weary about calling for this and that controlled or banned by the government. Because there will be people in power who look to such tragic events to gain even greater control over peoples freedoms or advance their own political agendas. This movement for change must not be shaped by haste or fear, to jump to the first government official promising you safety and security if you sign this form or that. It must be well thought out and worked on by people from every part of the system including the common person, it should be fair and logical. A system built on ideas from not just the government by the people themselves. A total reworking of gun law that works for everybody, perhaps instead of going to the extremes, just increase things like gun ownership ages, more screening time, making sure guns are properly secured within a home before been given the stamp of approval for ownership.
after reading up on the things the airport check people have done to people, like making a person with a broken leg stand on it, fracturing it again or forcing a child to drink from its bottle because it might have been liquid explosives (yeah great going testing it on a child instead of safely) or stopping a 5 year old from flying because its name was on a terror list. So yeah people have got to keep level heads during such times as these.
Your point is nonsensical. The Chewbacca Defense lives strong in this one.
No, he's right, the government can't just force drug testing on you without reason. Employers do random drug tests, but even taht is starting to be challenged in some places. (5th amendment)
Your point is nonsensical. The Chewbacca Defense lives strong in this one.
No, he's right, the government can't just force drug testing on you without reason. Employers do random drug tests, but even that is starting to be challenged in some places. (5th amendment)
If it were being challenged, it would be under the 4th amendment not the 5th.
"Random drug tests" do not fall under self-incrimination, they fall under protection from unreasonable search and seizures.
If it were being challenged, it would be under the 4th amendment not the 5th.
"Random drug tests" do not fall under self-incrimination, they fall under protection from unreasonable search and seizures.
Most court cases thus far have addressed it as a fourth amendment issue (Marchwinski v. Howard), however a paper by CRS recently raised the question of if the samples thus taken constitute a part of 'self' and if the 5th might also be applicable. It hasn't gone before a judge yet, so it's all pie in the sky theory atm, so you're correct, the cases brought thus far have focused on 4th amendment rights.
And Random Drug Tests aren't all that random. Some industries can and do have truly "random" drug tests, and most places tell you have the right to test you. I mean my place at least has to have reasonable suspicion that you're on some form of substance...
And Random Drug Tests aren't all that random. Some industries can and do have truly "random" drug tests, and most places tell you have the right to test you. I mean my place at least has to have reasonable suspicion that you're on some form of substance...
At least in Missouri (a Right to Work and At Will State)... the only time I've heard is the drug test taken right before employment... AND, whenever there's an accident on the job (which I believe it's more driven on the insurance side).
Hmm, would I rather have officers conducting easily defeated "plain sight" searches, or would I prefer them out on the street? As someone with criminal intents, I would certainly prefer the former, as a law-abiding citizen I'll take the latter.
And Random Drug Tests aren't all that random. Some industries can and do have truly "random" drug tests, and most places tell you have the right to test you. I mean my place at least has to have reasonable suspicion that you're on some form of substance...
Of course they are not "all that random". But, as I mentioned, they have to be conducted in such a way that individuals cannot claim they were being unfairly targeted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: Hmm, would I rather have officers conducting easily defeated "plain sight" searches, or would I prefer them out on the street? As someone with criminal intents, I would certainly prefer the former, as a law-abiding citizen I'll take the latter.
Officers "being out on the street" does not stop crimes from happening.
If it were being challenged, it would be under the 4th amendment not the 5th.
"Random drug tests" do not fall under self-incrimination, they fall under protection from unreasonable search and seizures.
Most court cases thus far have addressed it as a fourth amendment issue (Marchwinski v. Howard), however a paper by CRS recently raised the question of if the samples thus taken constitute a part of 'self' and if the 5th might also be applicable. It hasn't gone before a judge yet, so it's all pie in the sky theory atm, so you're correct, the cases brought thus far have focused on 4th amendment rights.
If you advertise that the staff will shoot you, then anybody with bad intentions will just go in shooting first.
The bad intentions we are discussing, specifically, are someone going into a school with the intent of shooting it up, though.
So simply shoot the teacher first, then proceed with the murder of children, switching to shooting anybody over 4 feet tall as needed.
It's not as effective of a solution as people make it out to be.
Not when you phrase it like that, no, it wouldn't seem so.
But instead of over-simplifying and dismissing the idea, I think you can see the logic behind making a school a harder target than it is currently.
Which just means that individuals intending acts like this would move their targets to elsewhere.
The goal that these shooters have are twofold:
1) Cause as much damage and as many casualties as possible. They want their acts to "shock the conscience".
2) Gain as much attention from media outlets as possible.
Most of them have a third goal, which is to kill themselves by their own hand or by the hand of law enforcement officials on the scene.
Schools are convenient targets for these individuals because there is a stigma against harming children in Western culture, fulfilling the "shock the conscience" aspect for these shooters. Add to it that the individuals know there is no real defensive measures on the premise--and it's a perfect target.
Add armed individuals to schools in the form of teachers with guns or a larger police presence, and the shift will be made towards other gathering places where parents and their children are relatively vulnerable.
Then we have another location to start moving in the direction of target hardening, and the cycle begins anew.
A shorter version of that article I mentioned earlier. I don't agree with everything, but it raises some good points about a very complicated issue.
Also, BBC news is saying that 2 democratic congressmen (both NRA members) are calling for assault rifle ban. Couldn't catch their names.
Anyway, here's the article in the Daily Telegraph UK. I'm off to the pub!
There is one question that the pious critics of America's so-called gun culture cannot answer. If mass school shootings like that in Connecticut really are a product of the apparently mad Second Amendment, of the fact that guns are widely available in the US, then why did such shootings only take off in the late 1970s and early 1980s? Guns have been available in the US for more than two centuries, but multiple-victim shootings in schools, of the sort that rocked Connecticut and Columbine before it, are a very modern phenomenon. It cannot be simply the availability of guns that leads people to massacre children or their fellow students, or else there would have been horrors like this throughout American history.
If you look at this long and comprehensive list of shootings in American schools, one thing becomes clear very quickly: between the 1760s and the late 1970s, with a few exceptions, most shootings in schools were just a continuation of criminal activity in general. They involved the killing of one or two or maybe three persons, as gang clashes spilled into the classroom, or spurned teenage lovers exacted revenge on the object of their affection, or students lashed out at teachers they hated. It isn't until the 1960s, and then much more notably in the 1980s and 90s, that the phenomenon of *mass* school shootings emerges, where the aim is to kill as many young people as possible for no obvious, discernible or even old-fashioned criminal reason. There must be some modern culture shaping these outrages, something far newer than the Second Amendment or America's longstanding "gun culture".
The critics of America's gun culture casually point the finger of blame at the more backward elements in American society, particularly at rifle-toting rednecks. As one East Coast commentator puts it, the gun has become "America's Moloch", its pagan god that devours innocent children, and it is all the fault of those communities that are given to "religious fundamentalism" and which are known to "deny global warming or evolution". These gun worshippers apparently revere "the great god gun", and their capacity for logic and reason has been destroyed as a result. We know who he means: Southerners, the ill-educated, the sort who support the NRA, who speak in a drawl and probably chew tobacco, whose insane gun love is now apparently poisoning all of America.
But look at the photo of Adam Lanza. Or better still watch the videos and manifestos made by the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech shooter and other recent school shooters. Do you really see Southern-style gun culture in these videos and words and images, or do you see a different, more modern culture at work? I see youngsters raised to consider themselves little gods, who see their self-esteem as king and who believe their angst must always be taken seriously. I see youth brought up in a world where we are increasingly encouraged to cultivate a persona, preferably a dangerous, edgy one, through media like YouTube and Twitter. I see young people so imbued with the narcissistic creed of the politics of identity, where how you feel and what you want must take precedence over any social or communal considerations, that they have been absolutely wrenched from both their own communities and from even basic moral codes.
I see the culture of narcissism, taken to its extreme, not the culture of gun worship. Which rather suggests that the supposedly liberal politicians currently wringing their hands over the availability of guns in the US might want to shine the spotlight on themselves instead, and on the dislocated, atomised, self-regarding modern world they have had a hand in creating.
Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
Alfndrate wrote: Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
he Cinemark theater chain has a "gun-free zone" policy.
Alfndrate wrote: Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
he Cinemark theater chain has a "gun-free zone" policy.
Huh, I will look at that when I go see the Hobbit... cause the local Cleveland ones don't (I don't think, I could be wrong, and have no problem being so).
Alfndrate wrote: Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
And yet in many of these cases, ordinary citizens with CCW probably would not change anything except the body count--which could go both ways.
Alfndrate wrote: Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
And yet in many of these cases, ordinary citizens with CCW probably would not change anything except the body count--which could go both ways.
I'm not arguing that I was simply making a statement based on something I heard, but look at it this way. If you, god forbid, decided to shoot up a school, movie theater, or mall or some other place. Would you want the least number of threats possible?
Kanluwen wrote: And yet in many of these cases, ordinary citizens with CCW probably would not change anything except the body count--which could go both ways.
History proves you wrong on that one.
In all cases I'm aware of where a mass shooter was confronted by a CCW carrier, and there are more than a couple, the spree ended, then and there.
If your argument to that is, "Well, fewer people die, so what," I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that I think you're just trolling.
* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower
Spoiler:
* Not counting the observable anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Spoiler:
* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect
Spoiler:
* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower
Spoiler:
* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.
Spoiler:
* Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.
Spoiler:
* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.
Spoiler:
* In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet in many of these cases, ordinary citizens with CCW probably would not change anything except the body count--which could go both ways.
History proves you wrong on that one.
Not really. The psychology of these individuals supports my statement.
In all cases I'm aware of where a mass shooter was confronted by a CCW carrier, and there are more than a couple, the spree ended, then and there.
If your argument to that is, "Well, fewer people die, so what," I'm not sure what to tell you beyond that I think you're just trolling.
The fact that I have said it four or five times in this thread and yet you do not seem to grasp it boggles my freaking mind.
These people DO NOT CARE if someone is armed.
Their goal is to cause as much mayhem as possible before they go out.
I believe it was you who had mentioned an incident where a CCW carrier had taken cover behind a pillar, which (supposedly) led to the shooter retreating to a back hallway and blowing their own brains out. There is no real, conclusive correlation between those two instances.
Alfndrate wrote: Listening to the local afternoon drive talk radio show, and a caller is talking about if you look at the majority of these shootings that have been happening in places where there is little resistance because they're places where things like CCW isn't allowed. Schools, Malls, etc.. Though movie theaters don't have that rule (so Aurora would be the exception).
And yet in many of these cases, ordinary citizens with CCW probably would not change anything except the body count--which could go both ways.
I'm not arguing that I was simply making a statement based on something I heard, but look at it this way. If you, god forbid, decided to shoot up a school, movie theater, or mall or some other place. Would you want the least number of threats possible?
Let's face facts here.
It's not simply "the least number of threats possible" which causes people to choose these targets.
It is the perception of safety that individuals have at these places. It is the fact that children are present at these locations, with parents.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Hmm, would I rather have officers conducting easily defeated "plain sight" searches, or would I prefer them out on the street? As someone with criminal intents, I would certainly prefer the former, as a law-abiding citizen I'll take the latter.
Officers "being out on the street" does not stop crimes from happening.
That's not entirely true, as it has been shown that while just driving through a neighborhood doesn't really do much, having directed foot patrols in high crime areas with a focus on community interaction can have a significant impact on reducing and preventing crime. In any case, it'd almost certainly still be more effective at reducing crime than these searches you are proposing. Actual criminals are probably not going to be reporting the fact they have a gun to begin with, and lazy/irresponsible citizens are simply going to keep the closet or dresser the gun(s) are contained in closed, thus having the weapons out of sight.
Kanluwen wrote: Not really. The psychology of these individuals supports my statement.
Possibly, but historical evidence does not.
The fact that I have said it four or five times in this thread and yet you do not seem to grasp it boggles my freaking mind.
I grasp it, it's simply incorrect.
These people DO NOT CARE if someone is armed.
Their goal is to cause as much mayhem as possible before they go out.
I believe it was you who had mentioned an incident where a CCW carrier had taken cover behind a pillar, which (supposedly) led to the shooter retreating to a back hallway and blowing their own brains out. There is no real correlation between those instances.
That wasn't me, no, but I do know you're not relating the incident in a factual manner.
Again, whenever a CCW holder has confronted one of these guys, that's ended the spree.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Hmm, would I rather have officers conducting easily defeated "plain sight" searches, or would I prefer them out on the street? As someone with criminal intents, I would certainly prefer the former, as a law-abiding citizen I'll take the latter.
Officers "being out on the street" does not stop crimes from happening.
That's not entirely true, as it has been shown that while just driving through a neighborhood doesn't really do much, having directed foot patrols in high crime areas with a focus on community interaction can have a significant impact on reducing and preventing crime.
You know why, correct?
It's not "the officers being out on the street" which does it. It is the increased watchfulness of the citizens, the increased willingness to cooperate with police, etc.
In any case, it'd almost certainly still be more effective at reducing crime than these searches you are proposing.
It would reduce the general acts of crime, certainly.
But it would not prevent acts like this.
Actual criminals are probably not going to be reporting the fact they have a gun to begin with, and lazy/irresponsible citizens are simply going to keep the closet or dresser the gun(s) are contained in closed, thus having the weapons out of sight.
Jackbooted Thuggery and State Sponsored Oppression.
While ignoring a couple decades of data in the name of self back patting and aggrandizing over "those backward gunning owning hicks". Sucks when reality doesn't match one's opinion does it not?
Interestingly the only individuals in this thread who've provided cited research and data have been the pro-gunners.
You know why, correct?
It's not "the officers being out on the street" which does it. It is the increased watchfulness of the citizens, the increased willingness to cooperate with police, etc.
Yes, I do know why. The why of how it works does not diminish it's effectiveness.
It would reduce the general acts of crime, certainly.
But it would not prevent acts like this.
While it might not reduce the number of suburban mass shootings, I would bet that the overall impact on crime would be a more effective use of law enforcement personnel. How many deaths/injuries from general crime would be prevented vs how many injuries/deaths from mass shootings would be prevented?
This is your rebuttal?
I'll let you reconsider this statement.
Please, enlighten me as I must be missing something. You are talking about randomized plain-sight searches on registered gun owners as I understand it. Actual criminals (and I'm not really sure of a better term to use - meaning someone intent on committing a violent crime) are probably not going to have a firearm that is registered in their name meaning there won't be a search of their property to begin with. Even if they do have a firearm registered in their name, knowing that they will be subject to search at some point, they will most likely ensure that anything incriminating is either off property or otherwise outside the bounds of the search.
An otherwise law-abiding citizen (again, best term I could think of - meaning they have no intent to commit a violent crime with the weapons, but may be a target of theft or may have a family member that intends to use their firearms) that is simply lazy or irresponsible will probably have the weapons out of sight anyway which defeats the purpose of the search.
And for whembly, I am simply proposing that we look for multi-angle, realistic approaches to the problem. I am for better and escalating gun regulation and education. I am for better mental health care and coverage. I am against banning firearms or treating every firearm owner as a potential mass-murderer or counter revolutionary. I own 7 firearms (two shotguns, three rifles, two handguns), all inherited, all have great value from a sentimental and/or historical standpoint. Two are no longer functional, one has never been fired (and probably will never be as long as I own it), and I only keep ammunition for one (and a minimal amount at that). One could be classified as an assault weapon under fairly loose interpretations.
I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.
Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...
Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!
The fact they don't go further and advocate this tells me that people don't really believe in this idea - they're simply using it as an excuse to own shiny guns...
One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one. The number of successful democracies where the private ownership of firearms is either heavily restricted or outright banned without a good reason is absolute proof of this.
For the US itself, there may have been good reasons why this was listed as a right over 200 years ago. Whether or not it should still be included as a right is almost irrelevant - I suspect guns are now so entrenched in US culture they can't be shifted, not even by tragedies like Sandy Hook. but restricting the sale and use of the deadlier classes of weapon - i.e. the guns specifically designed for no purpose than to kill lots of people as quickly as possible - that might be something that can be accomplished. America has to ask itself how many children's lives is it willing to trade in exchange for this restriction?
These are all legal with the right amount of money and proper paperwork as we've previously established. My standard of "personal freedom" for firearms have always been up to and including the standard kit of the modern infantryman. That used to be muskets, then lever actions, then bolt actions, now it's the semi-automatic AR-15 or one of the various other options out there.
The interesting thing with the whole "Govt is gonna stomp you" argument is it allows for no free will on the part of the military or law enforcement. I promise you in the event of a tyrannical doomsday that a solid half of the regular armed forces in the United States (probably more) wouldn't accept orders to fire on American citizens and in the event of out and out rebellion you're going to see guys deserting in droves and taking their toys with them. It's a rare man you'll find that will willingly fire on or make war upon his own people.
There's also a solid argument for guerrilla forces vs. regular military forces as presented by forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to be doing pretty well with rifles, RPGs, improvised weapons and pickup trucks. Sure they're losing and dying pretty quickly, but they've put up a damn good fight against several major modern military powers, not bad for untrained poorly armed sheep herders.
Meanwhile in America tactical shooting is a regular sporting event:
I'm not of the opinion that violent resistance to the US Government will ever be required, or that the UN is going to invade or some hogwash like that, but as Manchu said, the small tyrannies happen, and should be resisted with all force.
For example, the Battle of Athens Tennessee (aka the McMinn county war)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
Manchu wrote: I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hedgehog wrote: One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.
Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?
It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.
If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.
I'll also freely admit I'm just an outside observer with no personal stake in this (apart from the usual shock at the senseless deaths of innocent children). This is, ultimately, a problem that America has to solve itself.
Manchu wrote: I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hedgehog wrote: One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.
Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?
It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.
If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.
I'll also freely admit I'm just an outside observer with no personal stake in this (apart from the usual shock at the senseless deaths of innocent children).
I'd consider the right to self defense a human right. It stands to reason if you have a right to life you have the right preserve it.
It is the increased watchfulness of the citizens, the increased willingness to cooperate with police, etc.
Kan, from my own experiences,your making assumptions there. I don't often agree with either you or seaward, but he's right, the historical data, the only 'hard' data we have to work with, just isn't there for your assertions. Admittedly, my own experience with police is a mixed bag. Some cops do what you say, others have a more stormtrooperish approach.
Manchu wrote: I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hedgehog wrote: One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.
Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?
It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.
If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.
The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".
Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.
I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.
You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.
That's the simple point. Disarming the population in most cases probably wouldn't make that much of an impact to the overall homicide rate.
So... if gun control isn't working enough (if at all), why is it continually being pushed?
Hedgehog wrote: I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.
Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...
Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!
Well, let me look around the fortress here.
- Heavy machine guns? CHECK
- 40mm cannons? CHECK (and we also have such delightful flavors as 12 and 24 pound, 75mm PAK, British 25 pounder, 105mm and 155.
- RPGs? CHECK (weirdly, I found a bazooka round in my filing cabinet today. I had wondered where it had gotten to.)
- SAMs? None in stock, but can get with 24 hours notice.
- MBTs? CHECK
- Scuds? Who would want a piece of crap like this?
- Mustard gas? See SAMs
- Anthrax? I don't do Germs. I leave that to people who don't catch everything going around. Though I do have a variety of anthrax countermeasures on tap.
- Tactical nuclear weapons? Don't do nukes. Maintaining them in a state of readiness is beyond my means.
- H-bombs? I suppose if i had the materials... but no, again, too hard to safely maintain.
Suitcase nukes are a bit of a misnomer. They still weigh several tons.
And, let me counter with this: take a given army, and see how many tanks to rifles they have.
The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".
Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.
You act as if criminals are like Morlocks - a separate shadowy race, living in underground caves, waiting to burst out of their hiding places to rape and steal. Criminals are law-abiding citizens, right up until the point they decide to not... abide the law. That's the problem with saying things like 'gun control only affects law abiding citizens' - how do you quantify that? How many crimes are committed by otherwise 'law-abiding' citizens with legally-owned firearms?
I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.
You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.
Because gun crime doesn't make up a large % of the total homicide rate here. I'm pretty sure it does in the US, though.
That's the simple point. Disarming the population in most cases probably wouldn't make that much of an impact to the overall homicide rate.
Again, not in a country in which gun ownership is not widespread, but in America? I'm not so sure.
Albatross wrote: Again, not in a country in which gun ownership is not widespread, but in America? I'm not so sure.
You're overlooking the fact that America is impossible to disarm.
I'm not overlooking anything. FWIW, I agree with you. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think such a thing would even be desirable. I was just flagging up that the differences between the UK and US in terms of gun-culture and gun-crime make drawing hypothetical parallels on the effectiveness of gun control nigh on impossible. There are nowhere near the amount of guns per capita here, meaning that gun-control produces a different effect here than it would there. Disarming America's civilian population and removing most privately-owned firearms from circulation probably would bring homicide down, but as it's an impossible thing to do, it's pointless discussing it. Something does need to change though - probably the culture, in my opinion.
Saying that, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, either physically or emotionally. It's also none of my business.
Kanluwen wrote: Which just means that individuals intending acts like this would move their targets to elsewhere..
That's the idea, yes.
Kanluwen wrote: The goal that these shooters have are twofold:
1) Cause as much damage and as many casualties as possible. They want their acts to "shock the conscience".
2) Gain as much attention from media outlets as possible.
Most of them have a third goal, which is to kill themselves by their own hand or by the hand of law enforcement officials on the scene.
Schools are convenient targets for these individuals because there is a stigma against harming children in Western culture, fulfilling the "shock the conscience" aspect for these shooters. Add to it that the individuals know there is no real defensive measures on the premise--and it's a perfect target..
Yes, the fact that it's upsetting to "westerners" to have our children killed at school, and their total defenselessness, is an issue.
Kanluwen wrote: Add armed individuals to schools in the form of teachers with guns or a larger police presence, and the shift will be made towards other gathering places where parents and their children are relatively vulnerable.
Then we have another location to start moving in the direction of target hardening, and the cycle begins anew.
For people who ask why we can't have a rational debate about this, or why the "pro-gun" side of the aisle is so reflexively dismissive of any suggestions involving the limitation of firearm rights, I present to you Don Lemon, CNN anchor extraordinaire:
If someone who has a mental issue did not have access to guns that should only be available in war zones, we would not be dealing with this. Who needs a bullet piercing, armor piercing bullet to go hunting? Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting? You can’t even use the prey that you kill with an assault rifle if you indeed do it. no one needs an assault rifle to go out and shoot a deer. … That’s the issue that we need to deal with. So to say that gun violence is down does not make sense. To me, it’s insulting to everyone who lost a loved one here and who was dealing with that. It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down...We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt children.
There's a lot wrong with the above, least of all the terminology and claims regarding the weapon technology used in these tragedies. "Semantics!" the other side will shout, but I'd argue it's not semantics when you're writing legislation. If you care so passionately about something that you can't...quite...manage to do a basic level of research on it, I'm not sure yours should be a voice involved in the conversation.
Above all, though, it's that one line. Gun violence is down, but that doesn't matter, because sensational tragedies still occur. Is that a logical approach to the issue? Is that anything but attempting to legislate by emotion?
In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.
How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?
A Town Called Malus wrote: In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.
How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?
Depends on how fast they get hacked, if guys living in caves can access unprotected channels for those things I'm sure some of the genius hackers living in the United States pull it off.
Also I hear they work just fine... on the controllers.
The interesting thing with the whole "Govt is gonna stomp you" argument is it allows for no free will on the part of the military or law enforcement. I promise you in the event of a tyrannical doomsday that a solid half of the regular armed forces in the United States (probably more) wouldn't accept orders to fire on American citizens and in the event of out and out rebellion you're going to see guys deserting in droves and taking their toys with them.
Well, yeah, but tyrannical doomsday prognostications generally leverage the number of body bags that FEMA has stockpiled. In a realistic scenario involving a legitimate threat to the power of the federal government the US military would most likely behave as every other military in a similar situation has: follow the orders of the immediate CO. Because, at the end of the day, identifying oneself as being military is almost always far stronger than identifying oneself as being nationality X; especially with a nationality as weak as "American".
It's a rare man you'll find that will willingly fire on or make war upon his own people.
If you can get members of the Ohio National Guard to shoot college kids in Ohio, you can very easily get the US Army to shoot college kids in the US. There is a lot less common identity.
Look at it like this, If you banned guns outright in the USA what would happen.
It would be illegal to own a Gun, okay got it. So 95% of the population would not own a gun.
However it does not mean the other 5% would not go get them and obtain them.
Cocaine is illegal, yet still here in the states.
Pot, heroine, crack, immigrants entering without proper paper work,...
infact name one thing that is banned, outlawed or illegal not to be in possession of someone i\n the USA.
The sad truth is, some people don't follow the law. Outlawing guns does nothing to criminals.
I do see the argument about this case, well if the mom did not own these guns the Kid would not of used them. But that doesnt mean he couldn't drive to NYC or Hartford and obtain some if he wanted. Or perhaps worse, resort to a home made explosive or 2.
I have a permit to carry, I own guns. I would gladly give it my guns if it meant 1 "criminal" would have to give up his and magically could never obtain another one.
Gun control will never happen. Laws are for those who follow the law. The Lawless follow none.
The place to start is police or armed security at every school. And then stricter and tougher gun laws, NO TOLERANCE, as well as a revamp in background checks on how to acquire guns legally. Consider this, NFL wide reciever, Plexico Burress, shot himself and did 2 years in prison. Yet other NFL athletes have shot other people and have only done as little as 8 months.
A Town Called Malus wrote: In regards to protecting against tyrannical governments: if the US government wanted to become a tyrannical state there'd be pretty much nothing the populace could do about it.
How effective are handguns against a heavily armed drone being controlled from a hardened bunker beneath the Pentagon?
Tsilber wrote: Look at it like this, If you banned guns outright in the USA what would happen.
It would be illegal to own a Gun, okay got it. So 95% of the population would not own a gun.
Quite optimistic in thinking that 95% of the population would just walk to their nearest gun-collection zone to drop of the weapons they have legally owned, sometimes for generations.
How would you compensate the people who, with the stroke of a pen, lost legally owned property?
I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.
Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.
Tsilber wrote: I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.
Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.
Look... this whole ordeal touched me in ways I've never thought of as being a dad of a 6 and 8 year old... And having multiple familiy members teaching profession.
I don't know what is the right answer.
My gut feeling is that it's impossible to get rid of guns... so, I don't mind sensible regulation and more concerted effort to discover/treat mental illness.
Gun control will never happen. Laws are for those who follow the law. The Lawless follow none.
No, they don't. But there are very few people that do not follow any law, and very few people that follow all laws, so I'm not sure why either group is relevant.
The purpose of gun control is plainly to restrict the availability of firearms. This won't ever make them completely unavailable, but it will, unarguably, make them more difficult to obtain*.
*As many opponents of gun control enjoy going on about.
So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)
So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.
Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.
Well, yeah, but tyrannical doomsday prognostications generally leverage the number of body bags that FEMA has stockpiled. In a realistic scenario involving a legitimate threat to the power of the federal government the US military would most likely behave as every other military in a similar situation has: follow the orders of the immediate CO. Because, at the end of the day, identifying oneself as being military is almost always far stronger than identifying oneself as being nationality X; especially with a nationality as weak as "American".
Identity doesn't even factor into it. Humans have a tendency to obey a hierarchy. The CIA, once upon a time, did an experiment, where they tested to see at what point people would refuse an order to torture another human being. They took a bunch of college students and basically told them they were going to administer an experiment on people, which might cause the subjects a degree of suffering. They were to keep going though, as the subject's level of discomfort was part of the experiment. Almost the entire group, during the experiment, was willing to inflict incredible (though simulated) suffering on the subjects. When asked why they were willing to behave in such a callous and inhuman manner toward their fellow human beings when they could have refused and stopped the test at any time, 90% replied 'I was following orders'.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
First, it isn't a distinction between people that favor guns and people that oppose them. For example, I own 3 guns and favor gun control.
Second, while I agree with you that the people opposed to gun control invent terminology, the people that oppose it have done very little in public media to attack that tendency. Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
First, it isn't a distinction between people that favor guns and people that oppose them. For example, I own 3 guns and favor gun control.
Second, while I agree with you that the people opposed to gun control invent terminology, the people that oppose it have done very little in public media to attack that tendency. Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.
Mostly because neither side politically seems to know what they're talking about in the technical sense. You can I can debate policy on control and licensing standards for deep sea submarines all day, but beyond a general concept of what a submarine is and does, is either of us qualified to speak about submarines from a technical stand point?
dogma wrote: Neither side, on a political level, seems to have any interest in a technical discussion.
Neither side wants to push for sensible legislation, either. How does limiting magazine capacity keep guns out of the hands of dangerous madmen?
The thing is, that unless you deal with the core reason that these people are doing these things, then they're going to find a way to do it one way or another. I hate to say it, but guns are one of the less horrific ways that people like this can kill large numbers of people.
The CIA, once upon a time, did an experiment, where they tested to see at what point people would refuse an order to torture another human being.
You mean the Milgram Experiments, which were not conducted by the CIA, but by Stanley Milgram. Though the CIA used similar methods at times.
His general conclusion was that most people would do their job, even if it violated moral conviction, but that they would not be happy about it. And further, that that it was a relatively slim majority, ~60% as memory serves, which is far from "almost all".
Mostly because neither side politically seems to know what they're talking about in the technical sense. You can I can debate policy on control and licensing standards for deep sea submarines all day, but beyond a general concept of what a submarine is and does, is either of us qualified to speak about submarines from a technical stand point?
No, but I'm certain that some people are, and I'm certain that if someone paid me enough I could become qualified.
The problem isn't that they don't know what they're talking about, the R's and D's have plenty of employees that will learn if necessary. The problem is that a technical debate doesn't behoove either party, because most people aren't paid to learn things beyond their hobbies and professions.
The thing is, that unless you deal with the core reason that these people are doing these things, then they're going to find a way to do it one way or another.
I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)
So here's my favorite new terms I've learned: Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly... High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now. Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.
Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side. I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.
Heavy Duty weapon doesn't really made sense. High Power - When non gun familiar people use High Power they generally mean guns with a seemingly large round. The fact that they can't even use that properly is disconcerting, but not unexpected. For instance a Desert Eagle, or any pistol that chambers .44 or bigger methinks, is considered high powered by the general public. Though I think this has grown out of video game gun glorification. Megaclips - This means a magazine that has been extended, or manufactured with a capacity, beyond the typical number of maximum rounds. For instance putting a 30 round magazine into a 9mm pistol that normally only carries 17 would be a "Megaclip." Example below.
Manchu wrote: I don't think people necessarily have in mind the US government declaring war on them. They are thinking more of the petty tyrannies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hedgehog wrote: One important point to make is that the right to bear arms isn't a universal human right - it's an American one.
Why is that important to note? Who thinks otherwise? People you're talking to or people you're imagining?
It's difficult to tell. Some here seem to respond violently to any suggestion that this right be curtailed, as evidence by the occasional 'I'll shoot anyone who wants to restrict my rights to own guns' comments. I'm not sure if it's because they sincerely believe gun ownership is a human right, and can't conceive of any other state of affairs existing, or whether they've recognised it's simply a quirk of American culture.
If the former, it's likely that no logic or argument will change their minds. If the latter, I suspect they're more likely to at least be receptive to the idea that gun control can and does work in most countries, and perhaps elements of this can be applied to the US with the aim of preventing the mass shootings that seem to be so common there these days.
The point some are making is that MORE gun control only really impacts the law-abiding citizens. That's why some gun owners are claiming... "hey, why are you disarming ME?".
Criminials couldn't give a feth to current gun laws.
I guess some could advocate a total gun ban. However... take a look at the homicides (not just guns, all) in the UK.
You would think there would be a downward trend of all Homicide (if, guns were a large part of the crime). But you don't see that.
...
...
You would not, because gun crime has always been low in the UK. The UK has had only three mass gun killings, of the type under discussion, in the past 40 years. At the moment we are more worried about teenagers fighting with knives.
If you compare the murder rate in the US, you will find that it is about triple, and that 2/3rds of US murders involve guns. That is a more valid comparison if you want to think about the possible effects of guns.
Gun control is not being pushed in the UK. It is widely agreed that there is already enough of it. You can have shotguns and bolt-action rifles, which are adequate for sporting purposes and an important working tool for agriculture.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
Both sides has extreams, from the "ban all guns. Guns are bad and have no use" on one side (They are a vital agricutural tool and part of a vibrant and healthy sport) to "Well if you ban guns only the bad guys will have them" on the other, as if we live in the wild west.
If I lived in the US, would I own a hand gun or a rifle? Yes, probably, I enjoy air pistol shooting and archery, so would enjoy the sport. Equaly though I think the free avalability of guns in the US is a world wide problem with both the killings in the US and the number of legaly purchased arms that make there way in to illigal hands overseas.
I also think that almost all people who think they could stop an armed killer with a hand gun are living in a fantasy world. To get a good enough shot to be sure of putting someone down without the risk of hitting someone else almost always means putting yourself at allot of risk.
Hedgehog wrote: I've never understood the whole 'Defence against an oppressive government' idea.
Let's face it, these days governments have insanely effective weapons with truly incredible killing power. Surely therefore the logic behind this concept is that the civilian population is able to challenge the military forces that are oppressing them - and the more equal the terms the better...
Why do those using this argument stop at assault weapons? Why do advocates of this concept draw the line there, and not somewhere else in this spectrum? After all, the further down this list you go, the lower the chance a dictatorship has of winning against an armed resistance... you can bet that no-one is going to try and invade or oppress a country where everyone has their own suitcase nuke!
Well, let me look around the fortress here.
- Heavy machine guns? CHECK
- 40mm cannons? CHECK (and we also have such delightful flavors as 12 and 24 pound, 75mm PAK, British 25 pounder, 105mm and 155.
- RPGs? CHECK (weirdly, I found a bazooka round in my filing cabinet today. I had wondered where it had gotten to.)
- SAMs? None in stock, but can get with 24 hours notice.
- MBTs? CHECK
- Scuds? Who would want a piece of crap like this?
- Mustard gas? See SAMs
- Anthrax? I don't do Germs. I leave that to people who don't catch everything going around. Though I do have a variety of anthrax countermeasures on tap.
- Tactical nuclear weapons? Don't do nukes. Maintaining them in a state of readiness is beyond my means.
- H-bombs? I suppose if i had the materials... but no, again, too hard to safely maintain.
Suitcase nukes are a bit of a misnomer. They still weigh several tons.
And, let me counter with this: take a given army, and see how many tanks to rifles they have.
Agreed, all armies will have a much higher number of infantryman then the rest. Now tell me how many modern armies don't have tanks and so on (NBC weapons not included due to treaty restrictions or bans).
And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...
Tsilber wrote: I was speaking hypothetically... let's say 80%, 70%, 60%.
Either way, the point, which you seemed to have missed. Is that people who wanted a gun to commit a murder, would still obtain guns, and murderers would still murder.
Look... this whole ordeal touched me in ways I've never thought of as being a dad of a 6 and 8 year old... And having multiple familiy members teaching profession.
I don't know what is the right answer.
My gut feeling is that it's impossible to get rid of guns... so, I don't mind sensible regulation and more concerted effort to discover/treat mental illness.
It's the "how" that is going to be challenging.
I am with you 100%, Father of 2 daughters myself. We are about 30 miles North of Newton Ct.
I was pointing out sad fact, I am by all means not happy with making that statement that banning guns would never work.
but the real is guns will always be available for people whether banned or not. I am a Gun owner, I believe in the right to carry conceal. However if laws were passed to ban guns, I would ultimately hand my own over. If they were to ban guns outright, they would also have to have a NO TOLERANCE, NO second CHANCE law. All these pro-gun extremist can say what they want to try to argue how there guns would get stolen or how they would hide em... But when 15 year Jail sentences start getting handed out, without parole for illegal possession of a firearm. I'm sure it would change some minds.
Now those against guns 100%. Im willing to bet in most cases, people who believe Guns should be banned out right, are the same people that argue against the Death Penalty, or harsher punishments.
The way i believe to do this. maximize how many Guns a person can own. Stricter background checks to obtain Rifles and pistols (here in Ct, if you do not have a permit its a 2 week background check to get a rifle or shotgun, and you can not own a hand gun). I honestly don't mind if they ban assault rifles, I shoot my Ar-15 1-2 times a year.
But stricter laws on people who have guns illegally, and commit crimes with guns. Examples need to be made. Any Intent with a hand gun crime, should be the same as the crime itself. Meaning if people rob a store and shoot the clerk, but the clerk lives. The charges should not be attempted murder/man slaughter. It should just be murder/manslaughter.
Also I truly feel that people should be made more aware of guns. I said earlier in this topic, Texas, Utah, and North Dakota all have towns with an open carry law. People everywhere carry guns. That town in Texas is the lowest Gun related crimes in the USA.
Some teachers should be trained to carry, concealed or not. Kids see police officers everyday, they are used to seeing a gun on their side.
And I say again, there is no evidence anywhere that shows if more people had guns there would be more gun related crimes.
My comments are not meant to offend anyway, they are also not extreme either way. I am a Gun owner who believes there should be a lot stricter Gun Control and Laws.
Heres an example of how Gun laws in Connecticut are a joke.
About 4 years ago a Guy pulled a gun on me at Chucky Cheese, yes Chucky Cheese. We were in the parking lot, he was the New boyfriend of me and my fiancee's , good friend. Had I had a gun on me I would of probably shot him. But i did charge him as I forced my family to run the opposite way. He got 1 shot off and missed, I took him down and destroyed his face on the concrete. This A-hole's lawyer almost got him off, because they said my charging him provoked him and then because of how bad i beat him up that charges should of been filed against me. I charged him because he pulled a gun out in the parking lot as I was walking my family to our car. His Lawyer, said that he would of never shot at me had I not charged him. But the guy did pull the gun out on me and my family in the parking lot of a Mother-F'n chucky cheese...., perhaps i should just walk away and risk him being completely crazy shooting at me and my family. Anyway I then pounded him, until he no longer fought back and let go of the gun. (This whole scene was on surveillance from a camera in the parking lot). Ultimately he got 3 years and was out in 1.5. 1.5 for shooting at a man and his family while under the influence, because he failed to hit anyone he got a lesser sentence. Now granted I am far more grateful he did miss me and my family, and everyone else in that parking lot that night. But sometimes intent should be the same punishment as the doing it. Btw he had a pistol permit, and it was revoked.
Tilsber, I think you have made one of the first logical, well laid out arguments. I dissagree with a few points, but you are one of the few to come up with a clear argument that falls between the two camps. Thank you.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...
Yes. I know the reason for the law. I also think the law is outdated and worthless.
Gun Comntrol= Boring old debate with nothing new to be added. I think we can all agree that Gun Control will not stop people from committing mass killings. I'm sur esome one smarter then me can poitn to some archeological evidence to support that hypothesis.
The question in my mind is, why does someone suddenly start thinking a mass killing is in order. Can someone point me to some information about that?
I think what really gets me is the chicken little attitude I find among vocal gun owners. The panic buying, the rampant stupidity of signing white house petitions to preserve rights guaranteed by the BoR. the fear mongering the do to preserve thier guns is nearly as bad as the fear mongering done to ban them.
I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.
Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.
I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.
Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.
Yeah well, we all know that DOOM caused those kids to snap, they probably lost their bunny too...
But seriously, I would say in most cases there is some form of planning involved, even if it's nothing more than selling your worldly possessions and telling your gf you're moving to Hawaii (Oregon Mall shooting), but this kid, with all the stuff his mom had on hand, may not have needed much planning, if any at all.
I heard a weird rumor that the mom may have killed herself and that caused the kid to snap? Can anyone confirm or deny?
I disagree. A person angry enough to shoot lots of children is not necessarily angry enough to learn the chemistry involved in building a bomb.
Really? My understanding of it is that most mass shootings are not generally spur of the moment acts, but something the shooter spends at least some time planning. They had no problem building approx 99 improvised explosives for Columbine, for example.
I think it's already been pointed out ITT tha amongst school shooting Columbine is the exception rather than the rule. With our current lock down procedures how hard would it be to introduce chloramine gas to a central air system and cause a mess of casualties with perhaps the most easily attainable chemical weapon?
And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?
Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).
As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.
AustonT wrote: I think what really gets me is the chicken little attitude I find among vocal gun owners. The panic buying, the rampant stupidity of signing white house petitions to preserve rights guaranteed by the BoR. the fear mongering the do to preserve thier guns is nearly as bad as the fear mongering done to ban them.
It will be worse than 2008 when I just wanted to go to the gun range to shoot a few rounds without having to drive to every store to find some ammo...
I've always found that if someone wants to get a firearms enthusiast worked up, but not so much as to cause problems, that one should refer to a magazine as a clip and vice versa.
Like it or not Clip is now a synonym for Magazine. To argue otherwise is pretty much semantics, similar to calling a star screwdriver a phillips screwdriver and getting angry over it.
technically... no, since it's a bolt-action rifle, but it does have the ability to hold 5 rounds, I mean I could load them by hand, but when I got nat-zees to kill, I can't be bothered with hand loading my Mosin
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)
So here's my favorite new terms I've learned:
Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly...
High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now.
Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.
Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side.
I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.
To be fair, not everybody on this site is critical of gun owners. It's a very complex issue. I always try and resist the impulse to make judgements, because I remember a year or two ago when the America Media (and some American citizens) attacked the British National Health Service as part of their attack on Obama's healthcare laws.
My intial reaction was who the feth are these Americans to be lecturing us on the NHS. they know nothing about it. And in my mind it's the same with guns and gun culture. Just as Americans can't understand the NHS (well most of them IMO) it's hard for people in the UK to understand guns in America and so they make snap judgements about American culture, the usual stereotypes of fat rednecks that lynch africans and believe everything in the bible. Obviously, this is not the case 99% of the time and I understand why American posters can get mad sometimes.
Being a student of American history, I understand the historical reasons for guns in the USA and the fear of British Invasion that exists to this day
But if there is one that bugs me about this site is people getting mad at each other over things outwith their control. Debate yes, conflict no.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
You do realize that is the entire point of Concealed Carry laws right? To be licensed to carry a gun for your own protection...
The number of licensed CHLers in Texas alone is staggering.
This gun control argument is showing me how much of a moderate I am though. I look at facebook as my social barometer, I have one friend who has been posting non-stop anti-gun posts since this happened, and while he is generally very open to the other side's argument, he is very strongly against guns and their place in our society. And while I'm like because I know that trying to get rid of all guns is next to impossible, I know that he knows that, and just wants better forms of gun control in our country...
Then I see several people post thing about Obama's America 2016, and the shadowy government that secretly runs everything, and posts an image along these lines:
Spoiler:
And I remind them that there are other forms of gun control that don't involve disarming the population. Mention mental health screenings like Bulgaria has, and then someone mentions taking all the people with mental health issues and putting them in camps, etc...
God people are dumb... You can have both gun control and our guns, we just need to find a good common ground. Though I did say that if the country did ever try and disarm the populace, Texas would be next to impossible to disarm...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense andpublic protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers. .
100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
The clips vs. magazines thing is a classic, and the illusion of what an "assault weapon" is has already been covered (still not sure why "assault weapons" (by the 94 AWB's definition) is at the center of the present discourse, didn't the CT shooter use a pair of pistols/don't pistols cause the majority of gun related deaths nation wide?)
So here's my favorite new terms I've learned: Heavy Duty - Used by a couple media outlets, still not sure what they mean by it exactly... High Power - to be fair this actually means something, but it's usually applied to large caliber rifles, not pistols as I've seen it used a couple times now. Megaclips - No idea. None at all. Maybe it's a super large clip that you put in place with a crane and feed it into artillery pieces? that somehow have internal magazines now? Whatever they need to be banned apparently.
Favorite new things I've learned about me thanks to the kind people on the other side. I'm a Republican, Christian, uneducated redneck, coward, and I should shoot myself with one of my own guns.
To be fair, not everybody on this site is critical of gun owners. .
On no, this is else where, please pro-gun control in the Dakka OT don't think this is you. This is a bastion of sanity and rational discourse... [edited by moderator]
Alfndrate wrote: This gun control argument is showing me how much of a moderate I am though. I look at facebook as my social barometer, I have one friend who has been posting non-stop anti-gun posts since this happened, and while he is generally very open to the other side's argument, he is very strongly against guns and their place in our society. And while I'm like because I know that trying to get rid of all guns is next to impossible, I know that he knows that, and just wants better forms of gun control in our country...
Then I see several people post thing about Obama's America 2016, and the shadowy government that secretly runs everything, and posts an image along these lines:
Spoiler:
And I remind them that there are other forms of gun control that don't involve disarming the population. Mention mental health screenings like Bulgaria has, and then someone mentions taking all the people with mental health issues and putting them in camps, etc...
God people are dumb... You can have both gun control and our guns, we just need to find a good common ground. Though I did say that if the country did ever try and disarm the populace, Texas would be next to impossible to disarm...
It's a symptom of the political polarization the Reps and Dems have busily been creating mixed with kneejerk reactions on both sides. On the one hand you have people spasming because of an atrocity and going straight to a "ban all guns bruhaha" and on the other you have a gun owning population that gets a lot of gak on the national and in some areas local level for their sport, hobby and in some cases profession, who feel like they're getting singled out and blamed/lumped in with these nutcases. It's hard to find middle ground when passions are high and reason is short.
I've been reading several various solutions from different sites and I think it's at least worth considering.
Remember, there's no perfect solution.
The question becomes what is the actual solution. Via some various sites can be summarized as:
What if we had the equivalent of air marshals in schools?
What if willing teachers were trained and armed in schools?
What if we treated schools like we do airplanes and advertised the hell out of the fact that there’s a very good chance someone’s in the building who is trained and armed?
Those idea has some merits, but very expensize and/or impractical due to cost, insurance liability and possibly political will.
Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:
The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.
These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.
While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).
How 'bout this for an idea:
What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?
That would totally change the equation in several ways:
1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.
2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it
3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.
4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.
5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.
This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.
As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.
I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.
The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.
Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.
Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.
And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?
Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).
As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.
That is... utterly terrifying.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.
I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?
And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?
I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now - and breath a sigh of relief that I'm not living in the next potential Yugoslavia. I'll stick to the nice, safe UK, where the worst thing I have to worry about is a council tax rise, rather than being slaughtered by madmen with guns the moment I set foot in the country.
Here's hoping that you can find some answer to this problem, before more innocent lives, particularly children, are lost. Given the content of this discussion, I sincerely doubt it.
And you still haven't answered the point I originally raised - where do you draw the line if believe you need an armed citizenry as a protection against dictatorship? Are you really advocating the unrestricted personal ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons for anyone who can afford them? Why is the line seemengly drawn at assault weapons?
Yes, I do advocate the unrestricted ownership of those things, except nukes (due to the risk to the public of radiation exposure due to poor maintenance). Generally speaking, their price tag tends to be prohibition enough that the average madman is not going to buy a tank. To buy new, direct from the factory, an MBT will likely set you back 60 million, if you want to buy Made in the USA. (Weirdly, buying Japanese will set you back even more).
As far as why 'assault weapons', that's easy but two fold: They're comparatively inexpensive, and even without massacres, thanks to the movies, they're linked in most people's minds with violence and evil. This makes them an easy scapegoat.
That is... utterly terrifying.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.
I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?
And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?
I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now - and breath a sigh of relief that I'm not living in the next potential Yugoslavia. I'll stick to the nice, safe UK, where the worst thing I have to worry about is a council tax rise, rather than being slaughtered by madmen with guns the moment I set foot in the country.
Here's hoping that you can find some answer to this problem, before more innocent lives, particularly children, are lost. Given the content of this discussion, I sincerely doubt it.
Do you really perceive that US is that much more dangerous than the UK or anywhere else in the world?
The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:
1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.
2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.
3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.
Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:
The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.
These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.
While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).
How 'bout this for an idea:
What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?
That would totally change the equation in several ways:
1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.
2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it
3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.
4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.
5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.
This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.
As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.
I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.
The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.
Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.
Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.
Edit1... trying to get linky to work...
That is honestly the coolest and I think the best idea that I have ever heard regarding this issue. Absolutely perfect.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:
1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.
2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.
3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.
They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.
And no, I don't believe they're in the business of suicide by cops. If they were, they'd attack cops, and not nearly so many of them would kill themselves when the cops showed up. They're hunting infamy, and they need defenseless targets for that.
Here is a simple idea that in less than three months, every school in the country could achieve:
The odds are that in every school district, you can find plenty of students who have grandfathers who are retired ex police, ex military, ex law enforcement etc etc etc.
These are people who have used weapons, have been trained with weapons and know how to use them with responsibility.
While retirement can be pleasant... however, one of the thing that can be hard is no longer having responsibility. Going from a position of respect to a position where people just see you as old and many retirees struggle with (hence, why you see some retiree work at greeter at Walmart, or User at movie theater... not because they need the money, but it's something to do).
How 'bout this for an idea:
What if in each school you had five of those grandfathers volunteering for a day to be in the school to patrol the school either armed, or with a weapon or two in a safe in the principal’s office that only they and one other have the combination to?
That would totally change the equation in several ways:
1. Instead of a an unarmed teacher or an untrained teacher you would have an armed person who knows how to use guns between a shooter and the kids.
2. Before going after the kids the shooter would have to eliminate the armed guardian. That would at the very least complicate the plans of an attacker and at best decide it’s not worth it
3. There is a huge difference in accuracy when someone is shooting back. A shooter who has to worry about being shot can’t kill 15 people with say 12 shots because he is going to have to worry about the guy shooting at him.
4. Even if the guard is killed in defense that purpose is served because the goal is time. Time for the kids to evacuate and time for the police to get there. When seconds count police are minutes away, at worst he would die buying those minutes, at best he would hold off one or more shooters so police would be there and suddenly the shooters are flanked.
5. It would give an actual sense of security to the kids and give them all someone to look up to, an adult that is willing to lay his life on the line to protect them with no reward other than their safety, the cultural implications of such a role model would be incredible.
This idea could be implemented very quickly... with almost no cost. And you would not have to train/compel teachers in a skill that scares them.
As for the men to do the job, I suspect the problem wouldn’t be finding these people, I suspect the problem would be too many people for the slots available because it is an honorable task, a manly task and I suspect the retirees would jump at the chance to defend those they love once more.
I know my Grandparents and Grand Uncles would love to be a part of this.
The expense? the only thing that would take the time would be screening these men and then the cost of the safe.
Practical, simple and low-cost to implement, without a new bureaucracy or the surrender of anyone’s rights.
Because, if the bad guys know that there's a chance that someone there is armed... that knowledge may stop them.
Edit1... trying to get linky to work...
That is honestly the coolest and I think the best idea that I have ever heard regarding this issue. Absolutely perfect.
Thanks.
Not my idea, stole it from various sites...
Looks like it's kicking around on twitter/facebook too.
Again, it ain't perfect or work 100 % of the time. But, there's a good chance that it would work. That's why I think it has merits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:
1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.
2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.
3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.
They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.
And no, I don't believe they're in the business of suicide by cops. If they were, they'd attack cops, and not nearly so many of them would kill themselves when the cops showed up. They're hunting infamy, and they need defenseless targets for that.
Ditto... they're hunting "infamy".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you have a source for the data on armed civilians stopping crimes generally or mass murders in particular?
I was thinking of something like the Bureau of Justice Violent Crime database, or something a bit more structured than just a recent incident reported in the press.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was thinking of something like the Bureau of Justice Violent Crime database, or something a bit more structured than just a recent incident reported in the press.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of damage someone could cause when they own a fully armed MBT and snap.
Or someone who owns several kilos of C4.
Or has 50 hand grenades - much easier then bullets, just one per school classroom!
Or can brew up bioweapons to kill an entire city without any kind of a license.
I think this emphasises the difference in culture between Europe and the US - I'd be very surprised if one person in several thousand in the UK would agree with you there. Are your views extreme even for the US, or commonplace?
And as for your point about the cost - are you saying only wealthy people should be allowed to commit mass slaughter?
I would say how commonplace my view is depends on where in the United States you are. Locally, it's a hair above middle of the road, but not much so. (in that most people here don't have tanks. The next thing after my light tank is a few old half tracks, though one farmer got the old kraut mower running again.)
I can walk to my fireproof vault and find more than a few kilos of explosives (granted, it's black powder rather than C4, I don't have a spare fridge for C4)
And Europe has no grounds to talk. I feel much safer that madmen would try to shoot me with a gun than blow up a car full of explosives randomly. I can shoot back against a gunman, IEDs are much worse.
As far a Bioweapons go, you might be horrified but home genetics labs are all the rage atm, since DNA can be patented. And it's not just North America.
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:
1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.
2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.
3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.
They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.
have they though? The first officer on scene at Columbine was there within 6 minutes. Shortly thereafter the boys shot 22 people killing 10.
At Aurora the police were on scene in an. Exceptionally fast 90 seconds which stopped exactly zero shots: he was waiting for them.
What are the real odds a cop is actually on scene when a potential mass shooting starts?
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems with the "air marshal in schools" idea are:
1. It does not deal with mass killings outside schools.
2. The USA is already filled with armed people, who have been only moderately successful at stopping mass killings.
3. If it is true that mass killers are in the business of committing "suicide by cop", then advertising armed people in schools will attract more mass killers to schools.
They've been extremely successful at stopping mass killings when they've actually been present at one, Killkrazy. Extremely successful.
have they though? The first officer on scene at Columbine was there within 6 minutes. Shortly thereafter the boys shot 22 people killing 10.
At Aurora the police were on scene in an. Exceptionally fast 90 seconds which stopped exactly zero shots: he was waiting for them.
What are the real odds a cop is actually on scene when a potential mass shooting starts?
Do you really perceive that US is that much more dangerous than the UK or anywhere else in the world?
Compared to other western style countries most definately.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has the US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 1.6 for Canada, 1.0 for Australia and 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report.
And this is on top of, apparently, the 100,00 -- possibly even millions -- of non lethal "acts of self defence" that guns enable per annum as well.
And all of this is despite the dreadful statistics you have concerning incarceration of your own population as well.
AustonT wrote: have they though? The first officer on scene at Columbine was there within 6 minutes. Shortly thereafter the boys shot 22 people killing 10.
At Aurora the police were on scene in an. Exceptionally fast 90 seconds which stopped exactly zero shots: he was waiting for them.
What are the real odds a cop is actually on scene when a potential mass shooting starts?
Dunno. I wasn't including cases where the police arrived in my assessment of success, because, for perfectly understandable reasons, they're generally less inclined to Custer their way on into a situation. Guys with a concealed gun who happen to get caught in the middle of these are extremely rare, but in all the examples I've read, they put a stop to it one way or another right there. As soon as they draw, spree's over.
CAN they?
You can say they do but there's no proof, because there can't be. If a guy pulls out a gun in Gran Central Terminal and shoots one person and his brain explodes from an armed citizen. Is it a mass murder stopped, or a premeditated single murder quickly avenged? There's no way to answer that in data, just speculation.
AustonT wrote: CAN they?
You can say they do but there's no proof, because there can't be. If a guy pulls out a gun in Gran Central Terminal and shoots one person and his brain explodes from an armed citizen. Is it a mass murder stopped, or a premeditated single murder quickly avenged? There's no way to answer that in data, just speculation.
That's true, there's no way of knowing if, for example, the Clackamas guy would have gone on to kill more people, or if he was actually done. There's a not-unnoticeable pattern to these things, though, and if a shooter fits the profile - lots of ammo, possibly lots of weapons, public place, weak traditional motive at best for picking it - I don't believe it's unreasonable to assume he's probably a spree killer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense and public protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
.
100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.
Thats not an estimate, thats a made up number.
I am sure many people use there guns for household protection, but the numbers used in public must be tiny, and vanishingly small compaired to the numbers of deaths due to people being able to carry guns in public without being questioned.
I am happy to be proven wrong and will absoultly change my mind if someone can show a public benefit. As it stands I think the cost massively out ways the benefit.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From the Reverend Jesse Jackson: "It's easier to buy a gun then coffee in America"
what I want to know is where Jesse Jackson is that you have to go through a background check at Starbucks?
Must be pretty lethal coffee.
Interestingly, whats the argument for banning M4 types vs. just a magazine limitation to 10 or 15 rounds? Its just a rifle with access to a large magazine. Its not even a powerful rifle.
if we have to go down this road I'd prefer that. Still won't stop anyone but makes the hippies feel better about themselves.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense and public protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
.
100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.
Thats not an estimate, thats a made up number.
I am sure many people use there guns for household protection, but the numbers used in public must be tiny, and vanishingly small compaired to the numbers of deaths due to people being able to carry guns in public without being questioned.
I am happy to be proven wrong and will absoultly change my mind if someone can show a public benefit. As it stands I think the cost massively out ways the benefit.
Thats not correct. The FBI published a series of reports in the mid 1990s to his point.
Sorry good question. In the US, at least in Texas, the elementary schools are rather small. multiple elementary schools often feed into a Jr. High, and in turn multiple Jr. highs will feed into one High School. I could see consolidation into much larger elementariy schools that could have greater security on them. Its probably a cost issue.
Ahh, We have the system here too, Only problem i wee with that is a cost issue for both staff and larger facilities.
My problem with schools being armed is my the same with a high school that has barbed wire fences. They stop being places of learning and start to become high security baby sitting services.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ahh, We have the system here too, Only problem i wee with that is a cost issue for both staff and larger facilities. My problem with schools being armed is my the same with a high school that has barbed wire fences. They stop being places of learning and start to become high security baby sitting services.
Gotcha. Frazzled personally considered his high school already a baby sitting service. Frazzled thought high school was stupid and a waste of time. Turns out he was right. he thought he hated school, but once he got out of there he learned he just hated high school. College was like paradise in contrast, even having to work to pay for it.
There isn't one. I think it stands up solidly that it's soft targets these people go after. This is to sensationalize their deaths which we can thank the media for. If we didn't even mention these people's names when this sort of thing happened then I feel that would go a long way toward reducing occurances.
@Thread
As a sidenote I feel like a lot of the non-US posters intentionally misread what is posted. And that there is a tone of superiority in their comments about how to "fix" our country.
This is frustrating to me. I currently don't own a gun. But I was raised around guns and shot them from 5 years old onward. I was taught from a young age to respect guns as a dangerous instrument. No more dangerous than a lot of the farm equipment my extended family uses and in fact quite a bit less so.
People who don't grow up in a society which permits firearms will never understand a society that does.
I'd like to go into a anthropological discussion on America's development and how it's shaped our modern nation but without all the documents I'd have to cite on hand I'll avoid it. Not to mention it would likely be dismissed anyway, much like most of the relevant points posted in this thread already.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense and public protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers. .
100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.
Thats not an estimate, thats a made up number.
I am sure many people use there guns for household protection, but the numbers used in public must be tiny, and vanishingly small compaired to the numbers of deaths due to people being able to carry guns in public without being questioned.
I am happy to be proven wrong and will absoultly change my mind if someone can show a public benefit. As it stands I think the cost massively out ways the benefit.
Fine, I was using the conservative numbers, but we'll go full bull since you want to play. I've shown these before and I've sourced and cited my facts scrupulously through out this thread. In this case the citation will be immediately below the fact, unless the fact in question is simply derived from the math.
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.* Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. *Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995,
Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use.** **Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported)
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a Citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.*** ***Critical Incidents in Policing, FBI, 1991
Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides.**** ****Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990
Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.***** *****National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
So that's that, but you wanted the social cost? Well then...
One study* estimated a net cost to society of 20-100 billion, and included the lifetime earnings of people that die from guns, not just the true social costs. This included lost incomes of criminals killed by law-abiding citizens, and costs associated with suicides, and the “emotional costs experienced by relatives and friends of gunshot victims, and the fear and general reduction in quality of life ... including people who are not victimized”. If the same methodology were used to calculate the social savings from private gun ownership, we would see a benefit to society of half a trillion dollars, or 10% of the 1999 US Gross Domestic Product. *The Financial Costs of Gun Violence, Linda Gunderson, Annals of Internal Medicine, Septemer 21, 1999
As a sidenote I feel like a lot of the non-US posters intentionally misread what is posted. And that there is a tone of superiority in their comments about how to "fix" our country.
This is frustrating to me. I currently don't own a gun. But I was raised around guns and shot them from 5 years old onward. I was taught from a young age to respect guns as a dangerous instrument. No more dangerous than a lot of the farm equipment my extended family uses and in fact quite a bit less so.
People who don't grow up in a society which permits firearms will never understand a society that does.
I'd like to go into a anthropological discussion on America's development and how it's shaped our modern nation but without all the documents I'd have to cite on hand I'll avoid it. Not to mention it would likely be dismissed anyway, much like most of the relevant points posted in this thread already.
I personally feel a lot of farm equipment is way more dangerous then a firearm when you view it as a tool. Guns are simple, controlled and efficient. Once you know how to handle one safely the chances of an accident with one drop dramatically.
That said I'd love to see a paper on the subject you're discussing here Hulk, sounds like a good read, and you may as well make it a research paper if you need the citations any way
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.
Nothing personal, however the indication I am getting from you, Seaward and Frazzled is that you don't have any source data on this topic, or you would be able to direct me to it rather than wikis and the like.
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.
Nothing personal, however the indication I am getting from you, Seaward and Frazzled is that you don't have any source data on this topic, or you would be able to direct me to it rather than wikis and the like.
Those are from FBI crime statistics. if you can pull those, awesome. I tend to steer clear of anything related to the FBI...Big Brother is Watching...YOU!
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.
Nothing personal, however the indication I am getting from you, Seaward and Frazzled is that you don't have any source data on this topic, or you would be able to direct me to it rather than wikis and the like.
Those are from FBI crime statistics. if you can pull those, awesome. I tend to steer clear of anything related to the FBI...Big Brother is Watching...YOU!
FBI crime statistics which are almost two decades old and therefore unlikely to be representative of today.
I don't have anything on Spree Shooters stopped and confronted by CCW holders. Just the generic stats on Defensive Gun Use. I'll poke around at some point.
On that note, I'd suggest that Defensive Gun Uses have increased over time, even as crime has dropped, because the number of people legally carrying has increased significantly over time. I don't have direct math or sources on me for that one, I'm just inferring.
Specifically on spree shooters? No, I don't, other than primary source reporting. I find it more than a tad disingenuous, though, to say, "Well, just because no one's published a study on spree shooting and concealed carry permit holders, there's no data available to draw any conclusions." There is, it's just looking at modern mass shootings and going, "Was it stopped by a civilian with a pistol?"
Well then it depends upon how many rapes, murders, muggings and home invasions only occur as the perpetrators are "enabled" by such easy access to guns surely ?
As a sidenote I feel like a lot of the non-US posters intentionally misread what is posted. And that there is a tone of superiority in their comments about how to "fix" our country.
I think you'll find that's balanced out by what the non USA members are forced to put up with and feel in the threads not about America or that reference their countries/laws/etc etc
Here is my simply argument why we should not harden our schools with added security. The US is not a militarized state under siege by attackers and assailants. Therefore, we do not need to ask our children to live everyday like they are part of a militarized state under constant attack by terrorists and assailants.
Also, this thread has taught me that the best way to protect people from gun violence is MOAR GUNZ!1!!1! It seems counter-factual, but sometimes true solutions aren't obvious; so it is possible that MOAR GUNZ!1!!!1 is the appropriate solution. I honestly don't know.
Kilkrazy wrote: It can be tedious but enlightening to go back to the source data.
I doubt there's been a study put together on it. I'm just thinking about/looking back and remembering/finding examples where one of these guys was confronted, even briefly, by a civilian with a gun.
Yeah... just google-fu "statistics on armed citizens stopping crime"... you'll see them.
Nothing personal, however the indication I am getting from you, Seaward and Frazzled is that you don't have any source data on this topic, or you would be able to direct me to it rather than wikis and the like.
Those are from FBI crime statistics. if you can pull those, awesome. I tend to steer clear of anything related to the FBI...Big Brother is Watching...YOU!
FBI crime statistics which are almost two decades old and therefore unlikely to be representative of today.
You're right. There will be more instances now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Well then it depends upon how many rapes, murders, muggings and home invasions only occur as the perpetrators are "enabled" by such easy access to guns surely ?
As a sidenote I feel like a lot of the non-US posters intentionally misread what is posted. And that there is a tone of superiority in their comments about how to "fix" our country.
I think you'll find that's balanced out by what the non USA members are forced to put up with and feel in the threads not about America or that reference their countries/laws/etc etc
Funny that eh ?
Thats your fault. You Brits need to flood the airwaves discussing all things British. Here's some potential topics.
Britain, so close to the devil, so far from Texas.
Britain, at least its not Texas.
Is it true that Stonehenge was really built by Frazzled and three thousand wiener dogs?
How come Britain can't be more like Texas?
England: why do we type everything with "our" instead of "or."
Bloody Hell, a name or a state of mind?
How many times would Britain have been invaded if we didn't have haggis?
A question for Brits: Which is worse, France or Texas?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So like with every major national discussion about gun control, team anti has brought out some fascinating new terms that either don't mean what they think they mean, or mean... nothing.
Oh come on, both sides have done this. Look at the numbers of people claiming that they carry a gun for self defense and public protection, as if they were wild west gun slingers.
.
100,000 (this is the low estimate, high estimate is well into the millions) defensive gun uses a year disagrees with you Steve.
Thats not an estimate, thats a made up number.
I am sure many people use there guns for household protection, but the numbers used in public must be tiny, and vanishingly small compaired to the numbers of deaths due to people being able to carry guns in public without being questioned.
I am happy to be proven wrong and will absoultly change my mind if someone can show a public benefit. As it stands I think the cost massively out ways the benefit.
Fine, I was using the conservative numbers, but we'll go full bull since you want to play. I've shown these before and I've sourced and cited my facts scrupulously through out this thread. In this case the citation will be immediately below the fact, unless the fact in question is simply derived from the math.
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.* Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
*Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995,
Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.
Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use.**
**Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported)
Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a Citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.***
***Critical Incidents in Policing, FBI, 1991
Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides.****
****Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990
Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved
through defensive use.
Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.*****
*****National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
So that's that, but you wanted the social cost? Well then...
One study* estimated a net cost to society of 20-100 billion, and included the lifetime earnings of people that die from guns, not just the true social costs. This included lost incomes of criminals killed by law-abiding citizens, and costs associated with suicides, and the “emotional costs experienced by relatives and friends of gunshot victims, and the fear and general reduction in quality of life ... including people who are not victimized”. If the same methodology were used to calculate the social savings from private gun ownership, we would see a benefit to society of half a trillion dollars, or 10% of the 1999 US Gross Domestic Product.
*The Financial Costs of Gun Violence, Linda Gunderson, Annals of Internal Medicine, Septemer 21, 1999
reds8n wrote: Well then it depends upon how many rapes, murders, muggings and home invasions only occur as the perpetrators are "enabled" by such easy access to guns surely ?
No way to accurately suss that out that I can see. Unless you have access to a reliable crystal ball.
Also, this thread has taught me that the best way to protect people from gun violence is MOAR GUNZ!1!!1! It seems counter-factual, but sometimes true solutions aren't obvious; so it is possible that MOAR GUNZ!1!!!1 is the appropriate solution. I honestly don't know.
Well that's actually the subject of a research book by John Lott "More Guns, Less Crime", it's worth a read.
No way to accurately suss that out that I can see. Unless you have access to a reliable crystal ball.
Indeed.
Of course one would have to point out then this same flaw kind of throws a wrench into the calculation of avoided muggings, rapes etc etc as well no ? Whilst I'm sure that no doubt some -- maybe even most who knows ? -- of these instances were prevented by a firearm we'll never know how many wouldn't have happened anyway. Or how many were.... hmm... "feared incorrectly" shall we say ?
We are more or less now trying to make claims about crimes that didn't happen or that we don't know about ?! So I think a degree of caution is advisable either way.
England: why do we type everything with "our" instead of "or."
In all honesty it's just so we can consistently and honourably beat you at Scrabble.
No way to accurately suss that out that I can see. Unless you have access to a reliable crystal ball.
Indeed.
Of course one would have to point out then this same flaw kind of throws a wrench into the calculation of avoided muggings, rapes etc etc as well no ? Whilst I'm sure that no doubt some -- maybe even most who knows ? -- of these instances were prevented by a firearm we'll never know how many wouldn't have happened anyway. Or how many were.... hmm... "feared incorrectly" shall we say ?
We are more or less now trying to make claims about crimes that didn't happen or that we don't know about ?! So I think a degree of caution is advisable either way.
I'd agree, but the citations above do a pretty good example of explaining where their information's coming from. Mostly surveys on crime victimization for the stats on Defensive Gun Uses. That's why I normally use the "100000 per year" number because it's the lowest number provided instead of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology's 2 Million+, or the average of fifteen surveys provided by Dr. Gary Kleck in his book.
If we don't have the original data, we don't know what kind of statistical analysis has been done, so we can't test the conclusions.
"I don't like the cited information you've provided me from professional associations, peer reviewed journals, the FBI and people with Doctorates who should hopefully know what they're talking about in their field, so I'm going to dismiss it out of hand"
YES, JOHN LOTT AGAIN....If you are an econometrician — a person who evaluates the real world using complex statistical models — there are two basic ways you can go about your job:
You can do your best to figure out which statistical model does the best job of mirroring the real world, and then plug in your data and see what pops out. We will call this methodology tolerably honest.
You can plug in your data first, and then tweak your model until it provides the results you want. We will call this methodology dishonest bs.
The alert reader has probably guessed that I am talking here about the latest sad chapter in the John Lott saga, and indeed I am. The indefatigable Tim Lambert is on the case, and assuming I have been able to put the timeline together correctly, here's what's happened:
Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.
Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.
After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?
Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."
When Tim discovered that Lott had surreptitiously changed his model, he emailed Lott. No response.
It turns out Lott was busy covering his tracks. How? By quietly removing the corrected table from his website and replacing it with a new corrected table. This one uses Model 2 but has the old, incorrect data.
Here's where you have to pay attention. Why would Lott do this?
Answer: this new table claims to be "corrected: April 18, 2003," and it turns out that Lott is trying to pretend that this was the original table he had posted all those months ago. That way, he could claim that he had never changed his model at all. Model 2 is the one he's been using all along!
Unfortunately, when Lott changed the revision date on the document to make it look like it had been created on 4/18/03, he changed it to 1/18/04 instead. What's more, Lott apparently doesn't know that you can check the create date of PDF documents anyway, and this one was created on 9/2/03. That is, it was created in September, not April.
Basically, Lott wants to pretend that Model 2 is the one he's always used. That way, when he corrects the data errors, his results still hold up. Unfortunately for Lott, his attempts to rewrite history were as clumsy as they were dishonest. His original table did use Model 1, his results do go away when the corrected data is plugged in, and he did respond to this by furtively devising a new model that would continue to give him the results he wanted.
If you're not sure you understand what's going on here, reread the timeline. Reread it five or six times. Eventually it will all become clear.
And a note to Glenn Reynolds, who has said he is "not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the statistical questions": my timeline deliberately avoids discussing the validity of the competing econometric models, which I'm not competent to judge either. Rather, it simply shows how Lott works, something that anyone is competent to judge. He's a liar and a cheat, and merely being "quite reluctant" to rely on him is far too weak a response.
The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.
If economist John R. Lott didn't exist, pro-gun advocates would have had to invent him. Probably the most visible scholarly figure in the U.S. gun debate, Lott's densely statistical work has given an immense boost to the arguments of the National Rifle Association. Lott's 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime -- which extolled the virtues of firearms for self-defense and has sold some 100,000 copies in two editions, quite an accomplishment for an academic book -- has served as a Bible for proponents of "right to carry" laws (also known as "shall issue" laws), which make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons. Were Lott to be discredited, an entire branch of pro-gun advocacy could lose its chief social scientific basis.
That may be happening. Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, "Mary Rosh," and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a "false identity for a scholar," charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud."
Lott's recent baggage makes him an impeachable witness in the push to pass state-level right to carry laws, and raises questions about his broader body of work. Kennedy and others have even likened Lott to Michael Bellesiles, the Emory University historian who could not produce the data at the heart of his award-winning 2000 book "Arming America", which had seemed to undermine the notion that there was widespread gun ownership and usage in colonial America. But while Bellesiles resigned after a university panel challenged his credibility, thus far Lott has escaped a similar fate. An academic rolling stone, Lott has held research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale law schools, but currently works at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank much smiled upon by the Bush administration. AEI will not say whether it will investigate its in-house guns expert; by e-mail, AEI president Christopher DeMuth declined to comment on the possibility.
Lott's defenders rightly point out that the missing survey -- which was completely lost in a computer crash, Lott says -- isn't central to the argument of "More Guns, Less Crime". But as Harvard economist David Hemenway wrote in a recent critique of Lott's latest book, "The Bias Against Guns", one must have "faith in Lott's integrity" before accepting his statistical results. That is because in the dauntingly complex subfield of econometrics, statistical manipulation is a constant concern. In a recent attempt to rescue his beleaguered "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis from criticism, Lott has been caught massaging his data to favor his argument. In subsequent exchanges with Mother Jones, he changed his story several times about a key data table that was misleadingly labeled -- and then surreptitiously amended -- on his website. Nevertheless, most pro-gun scholars and political conservatives have yet to call Lott to account.
Lott's colleagues credit him with having a brilliant empirical mind and for publishing an impressive array of scholarly papers, as well as for being a pioneer in making his data available on the Internet. Yet Lott is also known for a fiery personality. Yale economist Ian Ayres, who helped Lott get a research job at the Yale Law School but has since criticized his former colleague's work, says: "A lot of people would say, thank God Lott is still in the academy, but thank God he's not at my school."
Lott made his name as a guns expert in the standard academic way: By publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. In an influential 1997 article in the Journal of Legal Studies, Lott and co-author David Mustard examined crime data from all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 to test the impact of right to carry laws. During those years ten states passed such legislation, and Lott and Mustard's regression analyses -- complex statistical techniques used to uncover apparent causal links by controlling for other variables -- found right to carry laws had stunningly deterred violent crime, particularly rape and murder. Their study, they wrote, showed concealed handguns to be "the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists."
In a country with over 200 million guns in circulation and some 29,000 gun deaths a year, Lott's work fed into a fraught political debate. U.S. firearms researchers, notes University of California-Berkeley criminologist Franklin Zimring in a recent article, find themselves "organized into sectarian groups" even on seemingly straightforward empirical questions, such as the number of times per year that guns are used for self defense. In this fray, Lott portrays himself as a dispassionate scientist rifling through mounds of data. "My only objective is to study the measurable effect that gun laws have on incidents of violence," he writes in "The Bias Against Guns".
But this is not the first time Lott has been accused of overstating his results. In early 1997, Lott testified before Nebraska lawmakers with advance galleys of his Journal of Legal Studies article in hand, claiming to have proven a causal link between right to carry laws and lower crime. Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely.
Lott had an answer to Black and Nagin -- as he has for each subsequent critic. They tend to be mind-bogglingly complicated, involving things like ordinary least squares and Poisson distributions. In calling Lott's overall thesis junk science, Skeptical Inquirer magazine noted his tendency to make "arguments so complex that only other highly trained regression analysts can understand, let alone refute, them." This was not meant as praise.
Still, economists like Stanford's John Donohue and Georgetown's Jens Ludwig say that when first published in 1997, Lott's work was novel and even cutting edge. But the intervening years -- and increased scholarly scrutiny -- have not been kind to the "More Guns, Less Crime" idea. In fact, social scientists have turned away from the thesis even as Lott has stuck by his original conclusions. As a result, to maintain his argument Lott has had to go to considerable lengths, as demonstrated by a recent brouhaha over a massive critique of his work in the Stanford Law Review.
The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime.
This may seem like an ordinary scholarly dispute, but it quickly devolved into the sort of controversy that has followed much of Lott's recent work. Lott was invited to write a response to Ayres and Donohue, scheduled to run simultaneously in the Stanford Law Review. He accepted the invitation, but then suddenly withdrew his name from the response as the editorial process wound down. The cause, according to then Stanford Law Review president Benjamin Horwich, was a minor editing dispute involving literally one word; Lott, however, complains of an editorial "ultimatum" from the journal.
And so Lott's response was published under the name of two co-authors, economists Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley. They accused Donohue and Ayres of having "simply misread their own results" and, in a feat of statistical one-upmanship, claimed to extend the crime data even further -- through 2000 -- thereby rescuing the "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis in the process. But when Ayres and Donohue analyzed this new data, they say they found severe coding errors that, when corrected, thoroughly obliterated the attempt to confirm the "More Guns, Less Crime" thesis. Similar coding errors, wrote Donohue and Ayres, have cropped up elsewhere in Lott's work, including in his new book, "The Bias Against Guns".
A charge of coding errors, while not unheard of, is embarrassing, since it implies that only by using mistaken data can Lott preserve his thesis. The errors might have been accidental, but since the Stanford Law Review exchange, Lott has continued to defend the erroneous work. "There's a bit of concern over making the error, but now there's huge concern over not backing away from the results now that it has been pointed out," says Ayres.
In May, Lott told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the claim of coding errors had not been reviewed by a third party. Now, though, he admits the errors but calls them "minor" and claims they don't appreciably affect the results of the Plassmann-Whitley paper (which is, of course, really his own). "I knew he was going to say that," says Donohue when informed of Lott's response.
To get to the bottom of the dispute -- which goes to the heart of the continuing validity of "More Guns, Less Crime" -- Donohue and Ayres responded to Plassmann-Whitley by contrasting two key tables, one that uses their (read: Lott's) data and one that corrects the coding errors. The first table, using miscoded data, shows statistically significant decreases in murders, rape, and robbery. The second, using corrected data, shows statistically insignificant decreases in murder, rape, and robbery, along with statistically significant rises in property crimes, auto theft, and larceny, which Plassmann and Whitely had also noted in their paper.
In the face of this evidence, how can Lott continue to claim the coding errors don't matter? In an interview conducted on August 18 (transcript), Lott told me that he had posted "corrected" tables on his website for all to see. But when I downloaded Lott's "corrected" version of the contested table, it showed the same numerical values as that of Donohue and Ayres -- that is, the coding errors were gone -- but bizarrely claimed the properly coded data still indicated statistically significant drops in murder, rape, and robbery. That's because Lott had introduced a new twist: Rather than simply fixing the incorrectly coded data, he omitted a key calculation regarding statistical significance used in the Plassmann-Whitley paper. (For statistics geeks, it's called "clustering at the state level.") Faced with no other way to save his thesis, you could say that Lott changed the rules -- rules his own team had laid down -- in the middle of the game.
Confronted with this, Lott's subsequent actions raise even more questions. On the website, Lott claimed the "corrected" table used "clustering," when it did not. In a heated interview on August 19 (transcript), Lott said this labeling claim must be an error. But the very next day, he e-mailed a file containing precisely the same table, claiming that all the tables on his website were "clearly and properly labeled."
On September 2, Lott changed his story yet again, emailing me that "the file should now be returned to what had been up there before." But when I downloaded the new file, the key table had been altered to remove the questionable clustering assertion, but had inexplicably reverted to the incorrectly coded Plassmann-Whitley findings that Donohue and Ayres had long since debunked, and Lott himself had admitted to me were incorrectly coded. And despite all these changes, as of October 13, Lott's website still labels the table as last being corrected "April 18, 2003."
Perhaps because correcting Lott's coding errors sinks his latest attempt to revive his "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, Lott since has taken to criticizing the Stanford Law Review for not being "a refereed academic journal," as he put it in an e-mail. That's true: The nation's most prestigious law reviews are run and edited by students, which hardly keeps leading academics from publishing in them. Yet Lott's critique is once again misleading: His own newspaper op-eds aren't peer reviewed, and Lott admits that Regnery Press, his latest book publisher, does not use peer review. Furthermore, now that Lott has left academia and has an ethics cloud over his head, he may have difficulty being published in peer-reviewed publications. "It's strange that he's putting so much of his weight on the fact that Stanford is not a refereed journal," says Ayres, "because there's a possibility that this is where he's going to be moving towards himself."
Given all the questions about Lott's ethics -- and his stubborn reluctance to back away from his mistakes -- pro-gun scholars might feel an intellectual obligation to challenge him. Some do: Randy Barnett, a "pro-gun rights" legal scholar at Boston University, insists that a non-politicized investigation is needed to determine whether the missing defensive gun use survey actually existed, since "fraud is what is on the table." One of Michael Bellesiles' most dogged critics, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, also prepared a report investigating Lott's survey claims. "I have serious doubts whether he ever did the study," says Lindgren, "and the only evidence that he's brought forward for having done the study is ambiguous" -- an NRA activist who claims to remember having been called and asked about defensive gun uses.
But many gun rights conservatives have taken a pass on the Lott issue. A glowing review of "The Bias Against Guns" in National Review -- which made much hash of the Bellesiles affair -- failed to mention Lott's recent difficulties in corroborating the existence of his survey. "It's so interesting that Michael Bellesiles gets hung from the highest tree, while Lott, if anything, he's been more prominent in the last couple of months," says Donohue.
The right has good reason to stick by Lott: "The entire ideology of the modern gun movement has basically been built around this guy," says Saul Cornell, an Ohio State University historian who has written widely on guns. Over the years the pro-gun intellectual agenda has had two prongs: Defending a revisionist legal understanding of the Second Amendment in constitutional law, and refuting social scientists and public-health researchers who argue that the widespread availability of guns in America plays a key role in the nation's staggering number of homicides and suicides. Without Lott's work, the latter argument becomes much harder to make.
More conservative soul searching may result from a forthcoming National Academy of Sciences report from an expert panel dedicated to "Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms." Scheduled for release in late fall, the panel's report will address Lott's work. Duke University economist Philip Cook, co-editor of the Brookings Institution book "Evaluating Gun Policy", draws a historical analogy: In the late 1970s, after economist Isaac Ehrlich published a complex analysis supposedly proving that every execution in America deters about eight murders, the NAS released a devastating expert report debunking Ehrlich's findings. The same thing could happen to Lott.
If it does, we can be reasonably sure of one thing: Lott will have a response ready. "Lott will never say, 'that's a good point.' Lott will offer you some rebuttal," says Georgetown gun policy expert Jens Ludwig. But if Lott won't fully address the errors that undermine his thesis, it may fall to someone else -- his conservative peers, the American Enterprise Institute, perhaps -- to step in and do it for him.
YES, JOHN LOTT AGAIN....If you are an econometrician — a person who evaluates the real world using complex statistical models — there are two basic ways you can go about your job:
You can do your best to figure out which statistical model does the best job of mirroring the real world, and then plug in your data and see what pops out. We will call this methodology tolerably honest.
You can plug in your data first, and then tweak your model until it provides the results you want. We will call this methodology dishonest bs.
The alert reader has probably guessed that I am talking here about the latest sad chapter in the John Lott saga, and indeed I am. The indefatigable Tim Lambert is on the case, and assuming I have been able to put the timeline together correctly, here's what's happened:
Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.
Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.
After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?
Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."
When Tim discovered that Lott had surreptitiously changed his model, he emailed Lott. No response.
It turns out Lott was busy covering his tracks. How? By quietly removing the corrected table from his website and replacing it with a new corrected table. This one uses Model 2 but has the old, incorrect data.
Here's where you have to pay attention. Why would Lott do this?
Answer: this new table claims to be "corrected: April 18, 2003," and it turns out that Lott is trying to pretend that this was the original table he had posted all those months ago. That way, he could claim that he had never changed his model at all. Model 2 is the one he's been using all along!
Unfortunately, when Lott changed the revision date on the document to make it look like it had been created on 4/18/03, he changed it to 1/18/04 instead. What's more, Lott apparently doesn't know that you can check the create date of PDF documents anyway, and this one was created on 9/2/03. That is, it was created in September, not April.
Basically, Lott wants to pretend that Model 2 is the one he's always used. That way, when he corrects the data errors, his results still hold up. Unfortunately for Lott, his attempts to rewrite history were as clumsy as they were dishonest. His original table did use Model 1, his results do go away when the corrected data is plugged in, and he did respond to this by furtively devising a new model that would continue to give him the results he wanted.
If you're not sure you understand what's going on here, reread the timeline. Reread it five or six times. Eventually it will all become clear.
And a note to Glenn Reynolds, who has said he is "not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the statistical questions": my timeline deliberately avoids discussing the validity of the competing econometric models, which I'm not competent to judge either. Rather, it simply shows how Lott works, something that anyone is competent to judge. He's a liar and a cheat, and merely being "quite reluctant" to rely on him is far too weak a response.
The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.
If economist John R. Lott didn't exist, pro-gun advocates would have had to invent him. Probably the most visible scholarly figure in the U.S. gun debate, Lott's densely statistical work has given an immense boost to the arguments of the National Rifle Association. Lott's 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime -- which extolled the virtues of firearms for self-defense and has sold some 100,000 copies in two editions, quite an accomplishment for an academic book -- has served as a Bible for proponents of "right to carry" laws (also known as "shall issue" laws), which make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons. Were Lott to be discredited, an entire branch of pro-gun advocacy could lose its chief social scientific basis. That may be happening. Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, "Mary Rosh," and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a "false identity for a scholar," charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud."
Lott's recent baggage makes him an impeachable witness in the push to pass state-level right to carry laws, and raises questions about his broader body of work. Kennedy and others have even likened Lott to Michael Bellesiles, the Emory University historian who could not produce the data at the heart of his award-winning 2000 book "Arming America", which had seemed to undermine the notion that there was widespread gun ownership and usage in colonial America. But while Bellesiles resigned after a university panel challenged his credibility, thus far Lott has escaped a similar fate. An academic rolling stone, Lott has held research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale law schools, but currently works at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank much smiled upon by the Bush administration. AEI will not say whether it will investigate its in-house guns expert; by e-mail, AEI president Christopher DeMuth declined to comment on the possibility.
Lott's defenders rightly point out that the missing survey -- which was completely lost in a computer crash, Lott says -- isn't central to the argument of "More Guns, Less Crime". But as Harvard economist David Hemenway wrote in a recent critique of Lott's latest book, "The Bias Against Guns", one must have "faith in Lott's integrity" before accepting his statistical results. That is because in the dauntingly complex subfield of econometrics, statistical manipulation is a constant concern. In a recent attempt to rescue his beleaguered "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis from criticism, Lott has been caught massaging his data to favor his argument. In subsequent exchanges with Mother Jones, he changed his story several times about a key data table that was misleadingly labeled -- and then surreptitiously amended -- on his website. Nevertheless, most pro-gun scholars and political conservatives have yet to call Lott to account.
Lott's colleagues credit him with having a brilliant empirical mind and for publishing an impressive array of scholarly papers, as well as for being a pioneer in making his data available on the Internet. Yet Lott is also known for a fiery personality. Yale economist Ian Ayres, who helped Lott get a research job at the Yale Law School but has since criticized his former colleague's work, says: "A lot of people would say, thank God Lott is still in the academy, but thank God he's not at my school."
Lott made his name as a guns expert in the standard academic way: By publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. In an influential 1997 article in the Journal of Legal Studies, Lott and co-author David Mustard examined crime data from all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 to test the impact of right to carry laws. During those years ten states passed such legislation, and Lott and Mustard's regression analyses -- complex statistical techniques used to uncover apparent causal links by controlling for other variables -- found right to carry laws had stunningly deterred violent crime, particularly rape and murder. Their study, they wrote, showed concealed handguns to be "the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists."
In a country with over 200 million guns in circulation and some 29,000 gun deaths a year, Lott's work fed into a fraught political debate. U.S. firearms researchers, notes University of California-Berkeley criminologist Franklin Zimring in a recent article, find themselves "organized into sectarian groups" even on seemingly straightforward empirical questions, such as the number of times per year that guns are used for self defense. In this fray, Lott portrays himself as a dispassionate scientist rifling through mounds of data. "My only objective is to study the measurable effect that gun laws have on incidents of violence," he writes in "The Bias Against Guns".
But this is not the first time Lott has been accused of overstating his results. In early 1997, Lott testified before Nebraska lawmakers with advance galleys of his Journal of Legal Studies article in hand, claiming to have proven a causal link between right to carry laws and lower crime. Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely.
Lott had an answer to Black and Nagin -- as he has for each subsequent critic. They tend to be mind-bogglingly complicated, involving things like ordinary least squares and Poisson distributions. In calling Lott's overall thesis junk science, Skeptical Inquirer magazine noted his tendency to make "arguments so complex that only other highly trained regression analysts can understand, let alone refute, them." This was not meant as praise.
Still, economists like Stanford's John Donohue and Georgetown's Jens Ludwig say that when first published in 1997, Lott's work was novel and even cutting edge. But the intervening years -- and increased scholarly scrutiny -- have not been kind to the "More Guns, Less Crime" idea. In fact, social scientists have turned away from the thesis even as Lott has stuck by his original conclusions. As a result, to maintain his argument Lott has had to go to considerable lengths, as demonstrated by a recent brouhaha over a massive critique of his work in the Stanford Law Review.
The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime.
This may seem like an ordinary scholarly dispute, but it quickly devolved into the sort of controversy that has followed much of Lott's recent work. Lott was invited to write a response to Ayres and Donohue, scheduled to run simultaneously in the Stanford Law Review. He accepted the invitation, but then suddenly withdrew his name from the response as the editorial process wound down. The cause, according to then Stanford Law Review president Benjamin Horwich, was a minor editing dispute involving literally one word; Lott, however, complains of an editorial "ultimatum" from the journal.
And so Lott's response was published under the name of two co-authors, economists Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley. They accused Donohue and Ayres of having "simply misread their own results" and, in a feat of statistical one-upmanship, claimed to extend the crime data even further -- through 2000 -- thereby rescuing the "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis in the process. But when Ayres and Donohue analyzed this new data, they say they found severe coding errors that, when corrected, thoroughly obliterated the attempt to confirm the "More Guns, Less Crime" thesis. Similar coding errors, wrote Donohue and Ayres, have cropped up elsewhere in Lott's work, including in his new book, "The Bias Against Guns".
A charge of coding errors, while not unheard of, is embarrassing, since it implies that only by using mistaken data can Lott preserve his thesis. The errors might have been accidental, but since the Stanford Law Review exchange, Lott has continued to defend the erroneous work. "There's a bit of concern over making the error, but now there's huge concern over not backing away from the results now that it has been pointed out," says Ayres.
In May, Lott told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the claim of coding errors had not been reviewed by a third party. Now, though, he admits the errors but calls them "minor" and claims they don't appreciably affect the results of the Plassmann-Whitley paper (which is, of course, really his own). "I knew he was going to say that," says Donohue when informed of Lott's response.
To get to the bottom of the dispute -- which goes to the heart of the continuing validity of "More Guns, Less Crime" -- Donohue and Ayres responded to Plassmann-Whitley by contrasting two key tables, one that uses their (read: Lott's) data and one that corrects the coding errors. The first table, using miscoded data, shows statistically significant decreases in murders, rape, and robbery. The second, using corrected data, shows statistically insignificant decreases in murder, rape, and robbery, along with statistically significant rises in property crimes, auto theft, and larceny, which Plassmann and Whitely had also noted in their paper.
In the face of this evidence, how can Lott continue to claim the coding errors don't matter? In an interview conducted on August 18 (transcript), Lott told me that he had posted "corrected" tables on his website for all to see. But when I downloaded Lott's "corrected" version of the contested table, it showed the same numerical values as that of Donohue and Ayres -- that is, the coding errors were gone -- but bizarrely claimed the properly coded data still indicated statistically significant drops in murder, rape, and robbery. That's because Lott had introduced a new twist: Rather than simply fixing the incorrectly coded data, he omitted a key calculation regarding statistical significance used in the Plassmann-Whitley paper. (For statistics geeks, it's called "clustering at the state level.") Faced with no other way to save his thesis, you could say that Lott changed the rules -- rules his own team had laid down -- in the middle of the game.
Confronted with this, Lott's subsequent actions raise even more questions. On the website, Lott claimed the "corrected" table used "clustering," when it did not. In a heated interview on August 19 (transcript), Lott said this labeling claim must be an error. But the very next day, he e-mailed a file containing precisely the same table, claiming that all the tables on his website were "clearly and properly labeled."
On September 2, Lott changed his story yet again, emailing me that "the file should now be returned to what had been up there before." But when I downloaded the new file, the key table had been altered to remove the questionable clustering assertion, but had inexplicably reverted to the incorrectly coded Plassmann-Whitley findings that Donohue and Ayres had long since debunked, and Lott himself had admitted to me were incorrectly coded. And despite all these changes, as of October 13, Lott's website still labels the table as last being corrected "April 18, 2003."
Perhaps because correcting Lott's coding errors sinks his latest attempt to revive his "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, Lott since has taken to criticizing the Stanford Law Review for not being "a refereed academic journal," as he put it in an e-mail. That's true: The nation's most prestigious law reviews are run and edited by students, which hardly keeps leading academics from publishing in them. Yet Lott's critique is once again misleading: His own newspaper op-eds aren't peer reviewed, and Lott admits that Regnery Press, his latest book publisher, does not use peer review. Furthermore, now that Lott has left academia and has an ethics cloud over his head, he may have difficulty being published in peer-reviewed publications. "It's strange that he's putting so much of his weight on the fact that Stanford is not a refereed journal," says Ayres, "because there's a possibility that this is where he's going to be moving towards himself."
Given all the questions about Lott's ethics -- and his stubborn reluctance to back away from his mistakes -- pro-gun scholars might feel an intellectual obligation to challenge him. Some do: Randy Barnett, a "pro-gun rights" legal scholar at Boston University, insists that a non-politicized investigation is needed to determine whether the missing defensive gun use survey actually existed, since "fraud is what is on the table." One of Michael Bellesiles' most dogged critics, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, also prepared a report investigating Lott's survey claims. "I have serious doubts whether he ever did the study," says Lindgren, "and the only evidence that he's brought forward for having done the study is ambiguous" -- an NRA activist who claims to remember having been called and asked about defensive gun uses.
But many gun rights conservatives have taken a pass on the Lott issue. A glowing review of "The Bias Against Guns" in National Review -- which made much hash of the Bellesiles affair -- failed to mention Lott's recent difficulties in corroborating the existence of his survey. "It's so interesting that Michael Bellesiles gets hung from the highest tree, while Lott, if anything, he's been more prominent in the last couple of months," says Donohue.
The right has good reason to stick by Lott: "The entire ideology of the modern gun movement has basically been built around this guy," says Saul Cornell, an Ohio State University historian who has written widely on guns. Over the years the pro-gun intellectual agenda has had two prongs: Defending a revisionist legal understanding of the Second Amendment in constitutional law, and refuting social scientists and public-health researchers who argue that the widespread availability of guns in America plays a key role in the nation's staggering number of homicides and suicides. Without Lott's work, the latter argument becomes much harder to make.
More conservative soul searching may result from a forthcoming National Academy of Sciences report from an expert panel dedicated to "Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms." Scheduled for release in late fall, the panel's report will address Lott's work. Duke University economist Philip Cook, co-editor of the Brookings Institution book "Evaluating Gun Policy", draws a historical analogy: In the late 1970s, after economist Isaac Ehrlich published a complex analysis supposedly proving that every execution in America deters about eight murders, the NAS released a devastating expert report debunking Ehrlich's findings. The same thing could happen to Lott.
If it does, we can be reasonably sure of one thing: Lott will have a response ready. "Lott will never say, 'that's a good point.' Lott will offer you some rebuttal," says Georgetown gun policy expert Jens Ludwig. But if Lott won't fully address the errors that undermine his thesis, it may fall to someone else -- his conservative peers, the American Enterprise Institute, perhaps -- to step in and do it for him.
so.. I'm not really impressed with his claims I'm afraid.
There's a reason I don't quote any of his stats and research. Even if I do agree with his thesis of "More firearms in the hands of the people reducing crime."
d-usa wrote: Nice to know that the TSA has prevented 375 airplanes from falling into terrorist hands and becoming missiles
Er...what?
I believe he was trying to make a comment about statistics on things (crimes specifically) that didn't happen. Except defensive gun uses DO happen so we can collect statistics on them, unlike the TSA doing something useful which has never happened.
I Was Wrong...It's Not Just A Tool...
For decades now I have tried to explain to those who don't understand that firearms are neither good or bad, they are simply a tool or object that can be used for good or bad depending upon the intentions of the user.
But with all this talk about possible bans and concessions that we must make in order to placate those who want to get rid of all guns and possibly keep some of what we have I realized it simply isn't true. Firearms are NOT just a tool.
If there was some kind of massacre involving just "tools" where some mentally broken person ran around killing people with a hammer, screwdriver or any other "tool" I might actually be willing to surrender those items from my toolbox deemed "offensive." It would of course completely mystify me that I would have to surrender such an item due to the misuse by mentally broken person but I'd probably go along with it.
And of course I'd bitch and complain every time I had to work on a project that would be done more efficiently with the now banned item as I tried to complete the job with the more "safe and compliant" version of the tool I was no longer able to own.
But firearms simply aren't "just a tool."
They are also a heritage, a way of life and for some part of who we are.
I grew up with guns. I had my first handgun by the fourth grade and it wasn't a .22. By the age of 10 I was shooting my .357 (usually loaded with .38s) once a week with my father. I was a shooter in the same way that professional baseball players play baseball with relative skill level being the only actual difference, that and I didn't get paid to do it.
By the time I was in Junior High I had more guns than many of the adults I knew and I was focused on completing a collection centered around WWII and acquiring historical knowledge of every firearm involved. While other kids could quote baseball stats, I knew who made Lugers in 7.65mm and who made them in 9mm.
And I certainly didn't become a FFL because it was an easy path to getting rich. You are lucky if you get to do a job that you that you are truly interested in and knowledgeable about, but doing what you are good at is hardly a guarantee of financial rewards. Some jobs you just have to want to do despite the challenges. I could have possibly done something else and made quite a bit more money, I decided I wanted to work with guns for a living.
I have firearms for many, many reasons.
I have firearms that I enjoy shooting recreationally.
I have firearms that I own for personal defense.
I have firearms that I own for the same reason people buy works of art.
I have firearms that I own for the same reason people buy rare collectibles.
I have firearms that were once owned by family members who are now gone.
I have firearms that I own because I feel my Dad would have been proud to see me finally get one of them.
I have firearms that I own for the same reason people buy things that make them feel they have achieved some measure of success.
I have firearms that I own for the same reason people buy things that make them feel complete.
I only feel that way about a single tool I own and that would be a wrench that belonged to my Grandfather. I suppose if legislation were passed I would surrender all my tools except for that one. That one I would fight for, because it too is more than just a tool.
But my firearms are still more than just that.
My firearms ARE my chosen religion. My firearms ARE my free expression and speech. My firearms ARE my right to redress government. My firearms ARE my protection from being forced to quarter troops. My firearms ARE my protection from unreasonable search and seizure. My firearms ARE my protection from having private property seized.
My firearms are a means of making sure all my rights are respected. I'd have a hard time doing that with just a hammer or screwdriver.
I have firearms because that is simply who I am and asking me to surrender them would be like asking a peaceable Muslim to surrender his Koran because it has been misused by others.
So perhaps we should simply focus on addressing all the people who are an actual threat to others because they are mentally broken and figure out how to protect society from them rather than believing we can simply take away their "tools" and they will no longer be a threat.
d-usa wrote: Nice to know that the TSA has prevented 375 airplanes from falling into terrorist hands and becoming missiles
Er...what?
I believe he was trying to make a comment about statistics on things (crimes specifically) that didn't happen. Except defensive gun uses DO happen so we can collect statistics on them, unlike the TSA doing something useful which has never happened.
But we still get people claiming "x number of crimes prevented because a gun owner was there and people changed their minds and didnt commit the crime". Those instances are more what I was aiming for.
Here's some interesting stuff, this is the testimony of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Dr. Gratia Hupp was in the restaurant during the Luby's Massacre in 1991, while she had a revolver, per Texas's gun laws at the time she had to leave her weapon in the car. She was influential in getting Texas's concealed carry laws changed and spent a decade in the Texas House of Representatives.
This might very easily make me sound like the heartless bastard of the Dakka OT, but anyway:
Yes I know 26 people died. Yes I know it is a tragedy. But one of the questions now asked is this: "Is it worth it to have people die like this to have a 2nd amendment?". And as a country we have to be honest with ourselves and admit that yes, as a country we are perfectly 100% A-OK with people dying on a regular basis for our rights including children. To do otherwise would be a bold faced lie and would make us nothing short of hypocritical. We mighty not like it, but we are okay with it and have accepted it as a fact of our life.
Cigarettes are perfectly legal, and they have no purpose what-so-ever other than to be smoked. 3,000 non-smokers a year die from cigarettes a year, and we are okay with that.
How many non-drinkers are killed by people under the influence of alcohol? How many people are eating themselves to death?
We are okay with kids starving to death because welfare is not the job of the government and having people die because they can't afford healthcare is perfectly reasonable because they made a choice not to have insurance or they just didn't try hard enough to be successful.
How many children were abused and neglected on the same day as the shooting? How many grade school children were molested by family members, beaten, and then went to bed hungry because we think that DHS is just the government getting into peoples lives and on witch hunts to punish parents.
So as a country we are fine with having rights that result in the deaths of thousands of people every year, we accept that. Or at the very least we don't care, we refuse to think about the fact that our "rights" come at a price that includes the deaths of innocent people that had nothing to do with any of that.
I think 5 kids a day die from abuse and neglect in our country. On one day 26 people get shot, and we care and have a national outrage about this. People are crying in the streets, politicians have meetings, news channels run 24 hour coverage of the event. But even on the day that is all about the poor children that died, nobody mentioned the 5 that dies that day after starving for months, being sick for months, being abused for months.
Maybe I am just overly bitter. But today I am just kind of tired of everybody suddenly caring that 20 children died, when they didn't care about the other 5 children that died that day, or the day before, or every day since.
Hey... our friends accross the pond think it's the thunderdome here... shall we spoil the surprise?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Well then it depends upon how many rapes, murders, muggings and home invasions only occur as the perpetrators are "enabled" by such easy access to guns surely ?
As a sidenote I feel like a lot of the non-US posters intentionally misread what is posted. And that there is a tone of superiority in their comments about how to "fix" our country.
I think you'll find that's balanced out by what the non USA members are forced to put up with and feel in the threads not about America or that reference their countries/laws/etc etc
Funny that eh ?
Funny eh?
Lemme let you on a secret then... 'tis ain't bad here.
Where does this notion that since people are upset that 26, 20 of which were children between the ages of 6 and 7, people were shot for no reason all at once that they don't don't care about the day to day horror all around us?
I think you should look at the charitable giving of money and time in the US before throwing around that sort of rhetoric.
Monster Rain wrote: Where does this notion that since people are upset that 26, 20 of which were children between the ages of 6 and 7, people were shot for no reason all at once that they don't don't care about the day to day horror all around us?
I think you should look at the charitable giving of money and time in the US before throwing around that sort of rhetoric.
I'm talking about the fact that 20 kids getting shot is too high a price to pay for "freedoms" when the number of people that die each day because of many different "freedoms" is much higher and nobody cares.
8 non-smokers died today because of cigarettes. Yet where is their candle light vigil and where are the politicians screaming "how many more have to die before we get rid of something that has no purpose other than to poison yourself"?
If each kid was shot in a gun related crime over 20 days, nobody except their family and friends would care. And that is the truth of it. I just look at the 3 year old that shot himself with the pistol that belonged to his law enforcement uncle and died.
Sorry if I am a bastard today, just not feeling it right now.
I mean, just numerically a mass shooting like this is different from sundry violence.
The fact that all those people died at once is kind of the point. It's the same reason people don't like seeing plane crashes. Yes, millions of people die all the time from all kinds of awful things. This doesn't mean we shouldn't care. I think it means we should care more.
d-usa wrote: This might very easily make me sound like the heartless bastard of the Dakka OT, but anyway:
Yes I know 26 people died. Yes I know it is a tragedy. But one of the questions now asked is this: "Is it worth it to have people die like this to have a 2nd amendment?". And as a country we have to be honest with ourselves and admit that yes, as a country we are perfectly 100% A-OK with people dying on a regular basis for our rights including children. To do otherwise would be a bold faced lie and would make us nothing short of hypocritical. We mighty not like it, but we are okay with it and have accepted it as a fact of our life.
Cigarettes are perfectly legal, and they have no purpose what-so-ever other than to be smoked. 3,000 non-smokers a year die from cigarettes a year, and we are okay with that.
How many non-drinkers are killed by people under the influence of alcohol? How many people are eating themselves to death?
We are okay with kids starving to death because welfare is not the job of the government and having people die because they can't afford healthcare is perfectly reasonable because they made a choice not to have insurance or they just didn't try hard enough to be successful.
How many children were abused and neglected on the same day as the shooting? How many grade school children were molested by family members, beaten, and then went to bed hungry because we think that DHS is just the government getting into peoples lives and on witch hunts to punish parents.
So as a country we are fine with having rights that result in the deaths of thousands of people every year, we accept that. Or at the very least we don't care, we refuse to think about the fact that our "rights" come at a price that includes the deaths of innocent people that had nothing to do with any of that.
I think 5 kids a day die from abuse and neglect in our country. On one day 26 people get shot, and we care and have a national outrage about this. People are crying in the streets, politicians have meetings, news channels run 24 hour coverage of the event. But even on the day that is all about the poor children that died, nobody mentioned the 5 that dies that day after starving for months, being sick for months, being abused for months.
Maybe I am just overly bitter. But today I am just kind of tired of everybody suddenly caring that 20 children died, when they didn't care about the other 5 children that died that day, or the day before, or every day since.
Yes, you are right. We non-Americans find it hard to comprehend but you are exactly right. Most Americans think it is a fair trade off for the occasional theatre or elementary school getting shot up for the right to bear arms. You are a democracy and you've made that choice. This isn't one of those laws that doesn't reflect the majority of the people's will. We non-Americans need to understand that.
It's what I interpret the arguments against arming a percentage of a school faculty, or otherwise making schools less vulnerable, to be.
I think the argument against arming school faculty is sound. Teachers already have to jump through enough hoops to earn their meager living.
However, police liaison agreements are always a good idea. They put armed personnel in schools, and help to teach children that police aren't inherently terrible people.
Sorry good question. In the US, at least in Texas, the elementary schools are rather small. multiple elementary schools often feed into a Jr. High, and in turn multiple Jr. highs will feed into one High School. I could see consolidation into much larger elementariy schools that could have greater security on them. Its probably a cost issue.
From a policy perspective there are few problems with it. The most obvious one, as you've noted, is cost. Building new facilities, especially when they are going to be very large, is quite expensive as is maintaining them. Even aside from the front end cost, it is often cheaper to maintain a series of smaller facilities than one very large one (this is especially true in very cold climates*). Transportation is another key variable. When you consolidate your cost of transportation spikes massively and, because it simply takes longer to get students to school, you have to start school later in the day; which often means parents will have to leave their kids at home when they go to work. This is fine in in grades 6-12, but many parents are not comfortable leaving their child alone at younger ages.
Security is an issue, but its a bit of a messy one. On one hand the absence of a personal relationship with students and their families caused by a large school prevents familiarity from causing breaches of protocol. On the other hand, it seems likely that a small school environment will enable staff to detect and deal with issues at a higher rate. You also have a much smaller group of relevant people to police.
*Very warm ones get away with it because of summer vacation.
It's what I interpret the arguments against arming a percentage of a school faculty, or otherwise making schools less vulnerable, to be.
I think the argument against arming school faculty is sound. Teachers already have to jump through enough hoops to earn their meager living.
However, police liaison agreements are always a good idea. They put armed personnel in schools, and help to teach children that police aren't inherently terrible people.
I'm not advocating every teacher packing heat, but a few willing and responsible people with access to a firearm might help. Even if it dropped the death toll from 26 to 25 (using this incident's tally as an example) would be progress. Is it a perfect solution? No.
If there is one I'd love to hear it.
As to your second point, I fully agree. To go a step further: If the money could be scrounged up I'd say making the schools as secure as, say, a bank or courthouse, wouldn't be a bad idea either. There are a few things that we as a society should be able to take for granted; one of these things should be that the schools that we are (generally) required by law to send our children to are as safe as possible.
d-usa wrote: This might very easily make me sound like the heartless bastard of the Dakka OT, but anyway:
Yes I know 26 people died. Yes I know it is a tragedy. But one of the questions now asked is this: "Is it worth it to have people die like this to have a 2nd amendment?". And as a country we have to be honest with ourselves and admit that yes, as a country we are perfectly 100% A-OK with people dying on a regular basis for our rights including children. To do otherwise would be a bold faced lie and would make us nothing short of hypocritical. We mighty not like it, but we are okay with it and have accepted it as a fact of our life.
Cigarettes are perfectly legal, and they have no purpose what-so-ever other than to be smoked. 3,000 non-smokers a year die from cigarettes a year, and we are okay with that.
How many non-drinkers are killed by people under the influence of alcohol? How many people are eating themselves to death?
We are okay with kids starving to death because welfare is not the job of the government and having people die because they can't afford healthcare is perfectly reasonable because they made a choice not to have insurance or they just didn't try hard enough to be successful.
How many children were abused and neglected on the same day as the shooting? How many grade school children were molested by family members, beaten, and then went to bed hungry because we think that DHS is just the government getting into peoples lives and on witch hunts to punish parents.
So as a country we are fine with having rights that result in the deaths of thousands of people every year, we accept that. Or at the very least we don't care, we refuse to think about the fact that our "rights" come at a price that includes the deaths of innocent people that had nothing to do with any of that.
I think 5 kids a day die from abuse and neglect in our country. On one day 26 people get shot, and we care and have a national outrage about this. People are crying in the streets, politicians have meetings, news channels run 24 hour coverage of the event. But even on the day that is all about the poor children that died, nobody mentioned the 5 that dies that day after starving for months, being sick for months, being abused for months.
Maybe I am just overly bitter. But today I am just kind of tired of everybody suddenly caring that 20 children died, when they didn't care about the other 5 children that died that day, or the day before, or every day since.
Yes, you are right. We non-Americans find it hard to comprehend but you are exactly right. Most Americans think it is a fair trade off for the occasional theatre or elementary school getting shot up for the right to bear arms. You are a democracy and you've made that choice. This isn't one of those laws that doesn't reflect the majority of the people's will. We non-Americans need to understand that.
....Not sure how you got that from what D posted there
I'm not advocating every teacher packing heat, but a few willing and responsible people with access to a firearm might help. Even if it dropped the death toll from 26 to 25 (using this incident's tally as an example) would be progress. Is it a perfect solution? No.
If there is one I'd love to hear it.
Obviously security is the paramount concern, and you are correct that there is no perfect solution. However, one issue that always needs to be addressed in matters of policy is belief. Policymakers not only need to ensure that children are protected, but that their parents believe they are protected. And there are a lot of people that do not trust armed individuals that do not train with their weapons on a daily basis, which most teachers surely would not.
I'm not advocating every teacher packing heat, but a few willing and responsible people with access to a firearm might help. Even if it dropped the death toll from 26 to 25 (using this incident's tally as an example) would be progress. Is it a perfect solution? No.
If there is one I'd love to hear it.
Obviously security is the paramount concern, and you are correct that there is no perfect solution. However, one issue that always needs to be addressed in matters of policy is belief. Policymakers not only need to ensure that children are protected, but that their parents believe they are protected. And there are a lot of people that do not trust armed individuals that do not train with their weapons on a daily basis, which most teachers surely would not.
Seaward wrote: We don't often have suicide bombers in the US. I'm fairly certain there are other forms of terrorism than suicide bombing, however. There have been an awful lot of mass shootings stopped by a civilian with a concealed weapon.
None of that has anything to do with the claim that guns are an effective means of stopping terrorist attacks. I'll ask once again, exactly how does people walking around with concealed weapons prevent a suicide bomber?
And, interestingly, every mass killing in recent history, save one, has been in a place where guns have been banned.
You need to come to terms with the reality that the gun lobby lies to its members as a matter of course. Because what you just claimed is laughably wrong.
Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.
That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.
and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.
And some go as low as 12,000 per year.
So that's one hundred thousand, rapes, murders, kidnappings, assaults, home invasions and muggings foiled PER YEAR in the United States.
Not all DGUs (in fact the majority) involve shots fired or dead/wounded bad guys. Mostly, like Seaward said all it takes is drawing down to make the scumbag du jour decide to leg it.
And in many cases you get two strangers and a darkened alley, one shows he's carrying, both parties withdraw and no-one knows if the guy with the gun stopped a mugger or just scared the gak out of some guy who was walking down an alley way. The information on this stuff is light on and really subjective. The evidence on the number of serious violent crimes is basically non-existant.
Except at the top level, where we can look at the overall crime rate... and we can see there's no impact from gun ownership.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
No, it's not true. Hitler gun reforms didn't ban guns, but actually relaxed many restrictions. Reality fething matters. Don't fething play make believe games.
Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.
That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.
and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.
And some go as low as 12,000 per year.
Citation needed. I cite everything I list so it would seem acceptable for everyone to do the same no?
For example the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms that concluded 1.5 Million DGU annually.
The low number I regularly see, and that I personally tend to use is the National Crime Victimization Survey which concluded 108,000 DGU annually. This is despite some issues that have been brought up with how the NCVS was collected, but I tend to stick with the conservative number.
I personally believe the actual number is somewhere between the NCVS and the higher numbers.
Frazzled wrote: No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Oh look, and now it's the 'okay guns haven't stopped these countries becoming totalitarian hell holes, but they totally will at some point in the future!'
I like guns. I think there is one extremely good reason for people to have access to guns - because they're a really fun hobby for lots of people. But all this crazy ass bs about guns stopping governments from going bad is crazy nonsense. Armed societies go bad all the time, look at Nazi Germany for feth's sake - this is because a guy with a gun is not a freedom fighter. And unarmed societies can still mount resistance movements, because once you have the cell structures that allow a resistance to continue, getting guns is a piece of cake.
These are just things that are simply, completely, utterly true. No debate. Just facts, versus noise and bs from people who like pretending their guns make them exciting freedom fighters, and not just working schlubs like the rest of us. So stop the bs, and if you really can't deal with the idea that your guns are nothing but a fun hobby, at least stop posting this bs where sane people can hear you. Because it's really fething annoying.
Frazzled wrote: No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Oh look, and now it's the 'okay guns haven't stopped these countries becoming totalitarian hell holes, but they totally will at some point in the future!'
I like guns. I think there is one extremely good reason for people to have access to guns - because they're a really fun hobby for lots of people. But all this crazy ass bs about guns stopping governments from going bad is crazy nonsense. Armed societies go bad all the time, look at Nazi Germany for feth's sake - this is because a guy with a gun is not a freedom fighter. And unarmed societies can still mount resistance movements, because once you have the cell structures that allow a resistance to continue, getting guns is a piece of cake.
These are just things that are simply, completely, utterly true. No debate. Just facts, versus noise and bs from people who like pretending their guns make them exciting freedom fighters, and not just working schlubs like the rest of us. So stop the bs, and if you really can't deal with the idea that your guns are nothing but a fun hobby, at least stop posting this bs where sane people can hear you. Because it's really fething annoying.
Sebs you always seem to be two or three pages behind everyone else
Nazi gun laws weren't terrible by my standards.... unless you were Jewish, in which case you were screwed... by all means not the worst way you were about to be screwed living in Germany in the early 20th century but still. For more on Nazi gun control I refer the curious to this brief guncite article http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
The IRA/Provos are a good example. Very strict gun control there and they still managed to get AK-47s, M-16s, RPGs, Dragunovs and other things to make the RUC and British Army's lives a living hell. That's in a country smaller then Rhode Island too. A resistance of any decent size in the United States would be a nightmare... never mind the nightmare that would have to happen to cause a resistance movement in the first place.
Personally I hate the concept of using firearms in a major conflict in the United States. My guns ARE a fun hobby, as well as my profession and an enjoyable way to get meat "on the hoof" shall we say. I'm a historian, target shooter, hunter, tactical shooter (not competitive, I can't afford the toys you need, much less the match entry fees), and CCW holder. I'll leave the heroism to other people.
AustonT wrote: Start looking at legging KM. A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.
If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.
Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program
I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR
I would think retired police/military G'pa would mitigate some angst...
I have two issues with it:
1: Reliance on volunteerism is plagued with problems. First, it is inconsistent. Despite what people say regarding the replacement of social security with charity, I suspect that most would hesitate when actually forced to depend on such a system. Second, while many people love their grandparents, I'm sure that they also understand their limitations. I would not have trusted my own grandfather to operate a gun when he was of retirement age, and he served in the Army Air Corps during WWII.
To be blunt, there is a reason that retired people work at Wal-Mart beyond needing something to do: no one trusts them to do anything else.
2: It is, ultimately, a new system. Police liaison agreements are well established. I don't see how a volunteer corps of old men could perform better than the present system, or a variation of it. Indeed, the uniform alone is a major advantage.
Monster Rain wrote: No one trains with their weapons on a daily basis. Not even Marines.
Ask me how I know.
I know how you know, bro.*
I was exaggerating, but the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.
Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.
That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.
and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.
And some go as low as 12,000 per year.
Citation needed. I cite everything I list so it would seem acceptable for everyone to do the same no?
For example the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms that concluded 1.5 Million DGU annually.
The low number I regularly see, and that I personally tend to use is the National Crime Victimization Survey which concluded 108,000 DGU annually. This is despite some issues that have been brought up with how the NCVS was collected, but I tend to stick with the conservative number.
I personally believe the actual number is somewhere between the NCVS and the higher numbers.
Sebster doesn't do citations, man. Too mainstream.
AustonT wrote: I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR
Yeah there's a decent amount of competition here... lot of .22 mostly. The bonus to living near the US Olympic training center.
dogma wrote: Obviously security is the paramount concern, and you are correct that there is no perfect solution. However, one issue that always needs to be addressed in matters of policy is belief. Policymakers not only need to ensure that children are protected, but that their parents believe they are protected. And there are a lot of people that do not trust armed individuals that do not train with their weapons on a daily basis, which most teachers surely would not.
Yet, bizarrely, folks like that trust cops, the majority of whom shoot to qualify and then don't touch the weapon...until they need to shoot to qualify again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: None of that has anything to do with the claim that guns are an effective means of stopping terrorist attacks. I'll ask once again, exactly how does people walking around with concealed weapons prevent a suicide bomber?
And I'll respond once again: it doesn't, but that doesn't matter unless you're making the absurd claim that suicide bombing is the only form of activity that falls under the label of 'terrorist attack.'
You need to come to terms with the reality that the gun lobby lies to its members as a matter of course. Because what you just claimed is laughably wrong.
You're welcome to prove it.
That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.
What is DoJ's criteria for that number? Actual justifiable homicide, actual firing of the weapon, or mere brandishing?
That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.
What is DoJ's criteria for that number? Actual justifiable homicide, actual firing of the weapon, or mere brandishing?
Well I just cited a '94 DOJ sponsored study that was the 2.5 Million number. Sooooo take Seb's claim as you will.
Yet, bizarrely, folks like that trust cops, the majority of whom shoot to qualify and then don't touch the weapon...until they need to shoot to qualify again.
A guy that has to shoot to qualify once still has to shoot to qualify, which extends beyond what Teacher X must do absent some kind of gun trial for school carriage.
Much as a degree makes you more employable regardless of competence, a badge makes you more trustworthy regardless of firearm skill. Its a farce, but it is what it is.
I would think retired police/military G'pa would mitigate some angst...
I have two issues with it:
1: Reliance on volunteerism is plagued with problems. First, it is inconsistent. Despite what people say regarding the replacement of social security with charity, I suspect that most would hesitate when actually forced to depend on such a system. Second, while many people love their grandparents, I'm sure that they also understand their limitations. I would not have trusted my own grandfather to operate a gun when he was of retirement age, and he served in the Army Air Corps during WWII.
To be blunt, there is a reason that retired people work at Wal-Mart beyond needing something to do: no one trusts them to do anything else.
2: It is, ultimately, a new system. Police liaison agreements are well established. I don't see how a volunteer corps of old men could perform better than the present system, or a variation of it. Indeed, the uniform alone is a major advantage.
That is a fair point... just thinking outside of the box, and not advocating that this is "pushed" across the country. Consider it as an option, in addition to the police liaison.
If nothing else, just remove the "gun-free zone" signs and perpetuate rumors (real or not) that old fogys and/or police liaison are on campus. At least knowing that someone might be able to shoot back would enter the equation whenever bad guys deliberate doing this.
Killkrazy, the source you're looking for is the Keck and Gertz 1995 phone survey. It's somewhat questionable, as the conclusion they come to is that upwards of 2.5 million self defense incidents took place per annum, though it's solid enough that the main complaint of it's detractors is that it's misleading due to not 'only' addressing use of guns to prevent violent crime but also guns used in other potentially life threatening situations and depending on the persons surveyed to answer truthfully.
100,000 came from a FBI report that is occasionally referenced, but I'm still trying to track down someplace with an original for you to examine. EDIT: I see some others found the source for you.
On September 9th of this year, a situation that might have turned into a murder spree was ended by an armed civilian. Sadly, it was too late for the first two victims.
"William J. Allabaugh was inside Bonnie's Food and Spirits, a local pub, reportedly making racial statements. Other patrons had also complained about Allenbaugh being armed in the bar. Allabaugh was told to leave, and while being escorted out, drew a handgun and shot a black patron, Stephen Holman in the head while he was chatting on his cell phone. Holman is in critical condition. Allabaugh then shot passerby Scott Luzetsky outside the bar multiple times, killing him. As Allabaugh walked down the street, he approached the bar owner Bob Wallace, and patron Mark Ktytor who were had gone outside and were hiding behind a car. Allabaugh pointed his gun at the two men, at which point Ktytor drew his own weapon and shot Allabaugh multiple times. Ktytor then called 911. Allabaugh is in the hospital. Authorities said that Allabaugh has been charged with Homicide and Attempted Homicide. Ktytor will not be charged." Wikipedia, sourcing the Times Tribune (sept 11 2012)
According to sources, Mr Allabaugh had his weapon illegally. Mr Ktytor had a CWP and had his weapon legally.
dogma wrote: [...the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.
This makes total sense, but I think what may be required is, whether or not some of our school faculty end up being armed, is a re-defining of the roles of at least some of the people that work in the schools. Perhaps even a new type of position could be created not unlike the "air marshalls" that were mentioned earlier.
That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.
dogma wrote: [...the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.
This makes total sense, but I think what may be required is, whether or not some of our school faculty end up being armed, is a re-defining of the roles of at least some of the people that work in the schools. Perhaps even a new type of position could be created not unlike the "air marshalls" that were mentioned earlier.
That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.
I rather like the idea of arming teachers. The idea that several armed persons will respond immediately in the event of an attack on the school without the delay inherent in sitting tight and waiting for police appeals to me. For obvious reasons. Then again, I've also never been a big subscriber to the idea that a non-solider is always inherently inferior to a soldier. A sufficiently motivated individual on their home terrain can be very, very dangerous, even without special training, and quite capable of taking out a soldier one on one. If you have any doubts about this, read up on the horrendous casualties angry farmers were able to inflict on Nazi Paratroopers during the invasion of Crete.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Citation needed. I cite everything I list so it would seem acceptable for everyone to do the same no?
For example the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms that concluded 1.5 Million DGU annually.
I'll go you one better, I'll give you a Department of Justice report that clearly and logically puts the case for why such numbers are completely flying rodent gak crazy.
"For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS... For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!"
"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases."
"Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias.... The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents,only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias—regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth."
"The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise."
I personally believe the actual number is somewhere between the NCVS and the higher numbers.
I think, given the imformation above, we can just accept the higher numbers are completely screwball crazy, and move on to discussing more sensible things.
Now, we might note the methodology of the NCVS method will systematically under-report, because it fails to account for any instances in which a gun is drawn and no crime is subsequently reported. But we can acknowledge that such a bias is likely to be only a small number and somewhat quantifiable (whatever portion of prevented crimes go unreported, likely fairly substantial for minor crimes like attempted burglary, and incredibly small for serious crimes like attempted murder), whereas the bias inherent in cold call surveys is massive, and so much bigger than the underlying number that it makes such studies completely worthless.
That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.
I suppose I should elaborate. Police liaisons are stationed in schools, at least where I grew up. In Primary School the officer would wave at us as we came in off buses, or from parents' cars, and his office was feet from the main entrance. In HS/JH they (there were 2 of them) would walk the halls in order to corral kids, and keep an eye on the doors. Granted, there were less than 600 kids in my HS and maybe 300 in my JH.
One thing that could be done is limiting the number of entrances/exits. My primary school had 4, my Junior High had 6, and my High School had 8.
One thing to keep in mind about the idea of arming teachers, or the motion that an armed individual would have stopped the attacker, is a very important lesson I was tought during my EMT training:
Don't think that having a cop on scene makes it safe and always expect the worst to happen anyway. Everytime a police officer gets killed in the line of duty, there was an armed person on scene that was unsuccessful at protecting himself.
It appears that in 2011 there were 67 law enfocement officers killed by gunfire in the line of duty. Having an armed person at the scene of a crime did not protect them.
I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.
I'm always 12 hours behind you lot. Stupid other side of the country.
That said, when it comes to this debate, I'm kind of also about 5 years ahead. Because I've hashed out every one of these points so many times in the last five or possibly more years that I can see each one coming and it's just so tiring.
Nazi gun laws weren't terrible by my standards.... unless you were Jewish, in which case you were screwed... by all means not the worst way you were about to be screwed living in Germany in the early 20th century but still. For more on Nazi gun control I refer the curious to this brief guncite article http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Yeah, I know. And they didn't because, as I've already said, the ownership of a gun doesn't make you a revolutionary.
The IRA/Provos are a good example. Very strict gun control there and they still managed to get AK-47s, M-16s, RPGs, Dragunovs and other things to make the RUC and British Army's lives a living hell. That's in a country smaller then Rhode Island too. A resistance of any decent size in the United States would be a nightmare... never mind the nightmare that would have to happen to cause a resistance movement in the first place.
Which supports what I was saying. Once you've got sophisticated cell structures in place, then getting your hands on guns is a piece of piss.
Personally I hate the concept of using firearms in a major conflict in the United States. My guns ARE a fun hobby, as well as my profession and an enjoyable way to get meat "on the hoof" shall we say. I'm a historian, target shooter, hunter, tactical shooter (not competitive, I can't afford the toys you need, much less the match entry fees), and CCW holder. I'll leave the heroism to other people.
Which is a really healthy way to look at guns. If there were more folks like you then we wouldn't need to keep having this fething debate
I mean, fething hell, you can complain I'm not that polite, or maybe that I'm not that constructive in debates. But you can't complain I don't give references. That's just bs.
d-usa wrote: I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.
Is anyone saying that, though?
I think the general gist is that increasing the potential for preventing deaths is better than not doing so.
Seaward wrote: And I'll respond once again: it doesn't, but that doesn't matter unless you're making the absurd claim that suicide bombing is the only form of activity that falls under the label of 'terrorist attack.'
Pick some other terrorist attack. Whatever takes your fancy. Then start listing the instances in which local civilians with weapons have prevented such attacks with personally owned guns. And keep on listing them until you've produced so many answers that you can, even slightly plausibly, claim that civilians with guns are the best means to combat terrorism. Because that was the original wingbat claim, that you for some reason have tried to defend.
You're welcome to prove it.
Already done by the DoJ. You're welcome to read the link I provided.
d-usa wrote: I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.
Is anyone saying that, though?
Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."
I think the general gist is that increasing the potential for preventing deaths is better than not doing so.
I know quite a few teachers I wouldn't want near a gun though .
Lets take the last comparable instance we have had that is similar to the push for armed teachers: 9/11 and arming pilots. How many terrorists have been stopped by an armed pilot, and how many pilots have fethed around and fired their gun on the flight deck, lost the gun in an airport bathroom, etc...
d-usa wrote: I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.
I don't think a lot of people are saying that having an armed responder (civilian or otherwise) present is the magical answer to the problem. I think the idea is simply that it will increase the odds of survival compared to a situation when there is no armed responder present. Obviously, if an active shooter comes into a building and starts taking people out, and no one else is armed, the chances of someone being able to stop the shooter quickly is a lot lower than if someone besides the shooter has a weapon. Yes, there are a variety of situational factors, there is a chance that a bystander could be hit, but at least there is a viable opportunity to resist the attacker and everyone doesn't have to wait for the shooter to finish slaughtering all the victims before he kills himself or surrenders to the police who arrive after he has finished. There's also the potential for an armed responder to buy time for others to escape, even if the responder is ultimately unsuccessful in stopping the shooter.
d-usa wrote: I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.
Is anyone saying that, though?
Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."
99 mass shootings in between 1980 and 2010. 98 of them occured in a "gun free zone". While I doubt what you said was a direct qoute, by all probability that may be right.
These things overwhelmingly target area's where they will meet the least amount of resistance possible. Much like the Aurora shooting earlier this year. He specifically targetted the one theatre in the area that publicized it was a weapon free zone.
I say if you remove the places where these murderers will be safe, you will see a drop in their occurance.
d-usa wrote: Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."
I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, I'm saying there's a chance it might have been stopped, and it wouldn't have made the situation any worse than it was. I don't see any alternatives being proposed that would also accomplish that. Columbine occurred during an Assault Weapons Ban, after all.
AustonT wrote: Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.
If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.
Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program
So what about the results of the armed flight deck program, and the incidents resulting from armed pilots?
I'm not really arguing against armed teachers. It looks like Oklahoma is trying to indroduce a bill where teachers can become CLEET certified and then be armed at school.
I am just bringing up points and counterpoints and real questions that we should be asking ourselves.
On the topic of mass shootings, are we counting all the drive by shootings that occur on a daily basis? Lots of people with guns there and nobody is stopping nothing. Not that many people die in drive by's, but just because they got crappy aim doesn't mean it couldn't be counted as a mass shooting...
AustonT wrote: Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.
If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.
Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program
Well, how many hijackings have been attempted since then D?
One could say that the terrorists now knowing there are weapons on board has acted as a deterent.
Of course that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at that, and obviously there are other factors, but the simple truth of the matter is you can't say the program is a failure.
Firearms are not simple a means to stop a crime. They also act as a strong deterrent.
d-usa wrote: So what about the results of the armed flight deck program, and the incidents resulting from armed pilots?
I'm not really arguing against armed teachers. It looks like Oklahoma is trying to indroduce a bill where teachers can become CLEET certified and then be armed at school.
I am just bringing up points and counterpoints and real questions that we should be asking ourselves.
On the topic of mass shootings, are we counting all the drive by shootings that occur on a daily basis? Lots of people with guns there and nobody is stopping nothing. Not that many people die in drive by's, but just because they got crappy aim doesn't mean it couldn't be counted as a mass shooting...
Well, as far as arming the flight deck goes, I'd say that's an afterthought measure at best, thrown in with a whole host of other changes that represented a comprehensive reform of airline security. I actually think that example's illustrative for a lot of reasons, least among them the fact that no one measure is guaranteed to prevent a repeat of a similar crime. If the gun control side of the debate was showing any interest in a full spectrum approach to the problem at hand, I'd probably be a little more interested in what they had to say.
That Oklahoma bill's interesting. I wouldn't be opposed to endorsements, like with driver's licenses now, for concealed carry permit holders. Complete X training, get Y endorsement, whether Y's the ability to carry lawfully in a school or whatever else.
. I would agree to such schedule inspections for licensing reasons... Though I wouldn't be a gun owner 
because I know that trying to get rid of all guns is next to impossible, I know that he knows that, and just wants better forms of gun control in our country...
