Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 87393 times)

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1150 on: May 07, 2018, 11:24:45 AM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.

Then just have a holstered weapon that's on you at all times.  Then keep other guns locked up when not in use.  Simple.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

Well, we just make it a law.  Gun Owners are law abiding citizens aren't they?  That's what I always hear, anyway.  So make it a law and the law abiding citizens will follow the law.  Unless you're saying that gun owners don't abide by the law?
I'll just chime in here that we're just feeding the frenzy and creating no discussions.  Just as with my comments someone made on DHMO's input that were needlessly attacking, would it not make it more likely to have a response if we did not start the question by calling guns death machines? 

Going back to this last response, @ncornilsen did not say anything you are pushing back with.  They asked what seems to be a reasonable question.  Even if you make it a law, how are you going to enforce it?  Authorities would need to in essence conduct surprise visits to verify you are complying.  If they scheduled a visit you'd have time to place your gun in the safe.  Now we step into unlawful searches if we just make what turn into unannounced raids to see if people are using gun safes and then I assume take the guns if they are not in a safe, right?  I can certainly see how that would be something any law abiding citizen should have a problem with.  So you perhaps being less snide with the commentary might get the response you claim to be seeking.  If you find a way to get something solves by yelling at each other, let me know, but I've not seen a lot of fruitful results from that.  You've got a guy who is doing what you asked (locking up their gun when not in their possession) and then you ridicule their response while ignoring the reasonable question they asked?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1151 on: May 07, 2018, 11:36:10 AM »
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1152 on: May 07, 2018, 11:58:46 AM »
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).
OK, but in the flippant responses I think we're missing a legitimate effort by that poster and are being asked what exactly is being asked.  He already said you could prove you own a safe (same idea you suggested, which one could infer means you had not read his option/question) but that does not mean you will use it.  I believe he asked that because he thinks your response will be that's not enough.

I do not think your comparison makes any sense.  It's hard enough to get beat up spouses to file a complaint which is how we enforce that law.  Are you implying the safe will self report if it is being used or not?  If not, then please explain how this reply adds anything meaningful to the conversation.  I'm trying to improve the tone of discourse as I'd really like too see if some real ideas might come up, so I'm trying to moderate the two sides a bit to get everyone out of their corner.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1153 on: May 07, 2018, 12:09:35 PM »
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 12:12:06 PM by tyort1 »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1154 on: May 07, 2018, 12:29:47 PM »
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486


To be honest, can we improve on these numbers, even with those suggested regulations?  You already mentioned that 'people would break the law' and I would be willing to bet that those who are responsible for these 82 deaths per year are (probably) the same ones that would disobey the regulations.

Lets keep the actual data in mind when discussing these things.  It really isn't an epidemic... 


Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1155 on: May 07, 2018, 12:38:39 PM »
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point. Colorful suggestive language doesn't add anything to the debate, all it does is activate emotions to pull those who agree closer to you while pushing those who disagree further away. Using the term "death machine" to refer to what they would consider a tool, reinforces the opinion of gun rights activists that gun restriction advocates are emotional and illogical. Not saying that is the case here, but it will be the perception for many.

I agree that a law requiring guns to be locked up may be beneficial but having inspectors seems impractical, very expensive, and very likely to get gun rights activists more fired up than ever. My opinion is that making it a law would actually encourage a lot of gun owners to do so without any real way of enforcing it. Plus it can be enforced in scenarios where law enforcement has another reason to enter someone's home or if there is an incident which leads to the finding that a gun wasn't properly locked up.

Mandatory training I could get on board with.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1156 on: May 07, 2018, 12:52:33 PM »
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).
OK, but in the flippant responses I think we're missing a legitimate effort by that poster and are being asked what exactly is being asked.  He already said you could prove you own a safe (same idea you suggested, which one could infer means you had not read his option/question) but that does not mean you will use it.  I believe he asked that because he thinks your response will be that's not enough.

I do not think your comparison makes any sense.  It's hard enough to get beat up spouses to file a complaint which is how we enforce that law.  Are you implying the safe will self report if it is being used or not?  If not, then please explain how this reply adds anything meaningful to the conversation.  I'm trying to improve the tone of discourse as I'd really like too see if some real ideas might come up, so I'm trying to moderate the two sides a bit to get everyone out of their corner.

I'm not trying to be flippant.  My point is that no law is ever perfect.

Passing a law regarding safe storage certainly doesn't mean that all gun owners will obey it.  It won't prevent the death of all children from firearms because random inspections of private homes is far too intrusive to ever reasonably request.  I was trying to point out that most of the laws and regulations in existence work this way.  There's no regular inspection of your home for spousal abuse, or under age drinking, or improper electrical wiring, etc.

What it will do however, is make things better.  There's a sizable chunk of the population who are law abiding citizens.  Currently they're putting kids in danger because there's no real repercussion for doing so.  After the laws, many of them will comply to avoid the chance of penalty.  Family friends who come over, kids who are playing . . . there are many ways that improper storage can be discovered, so many will decide it's not worth the risk.


A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:00:05 PM by GuitarStv »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1157 on: May 07, 2018, 01:05:40 PM »
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.
I'm not one trying to own a gun, but even I see this as a massive overreach with little benefit and a ton of work for people with no likely decrease in any issues per the limited numbers this could even impact per TexasRunner's feedback.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1158 on: May 07, 2018, 01:42:47 PM »

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.

Well if we're talking about intentions guns are intended for target shooting, killing animals or incapacitating humans. When used on humans, death is often an undesirable side effect of incapacitation. I suppose since the word "designed" was used originally I could see an argument for either harm or death.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1159 on: May 07, 2018, 01:46:39 PM »

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.

Well if we're talking about intentions guns are intended for target shooting, killing animals or incapacitating humans. When used on humans, death is often an undesirable side effect of incapacitation. I suppose since the word "designed" was used originally I could see an argument for either harm or death.
Death is an extreme form of harm.  See my longer posts with DHMO above as my entire point was that guns are designed for harm, so you and I are trying to make the same point.

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1160 on: May 07, 2018, 01:56:37 PM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1161 on: May 07, 2018, 02:01:47 PM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.

How do you prove that the owners in your examples actually owned any of the guns you're saying they did at the time of the crime?

There's no gun registry.  They could just say that the gun had been sold.  Since there's no background check required on most private sales, you couldn't prove them wrong in court.

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1162 on: May 07, 2018, 02:14:29 PM »
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.

How do you prove that the owners in your examples actually owned any of the guns you're saying they did at the time of the crime?

There's no gun registry.  They could just say that the gun had been sold.  Since there's no background check required on most private sales, you couldn't prove them wrong in court.

Well, that would be the other planks of the platform.  A federal gun registry, background checks/registration of all sales, and mandatory safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun.  You know, just like we do with cars.

On the flip side, we stop mucking around with partial gun bans/complete gun bans.  You want to own a gun?  You can buy any gun you want--BUT you have to adhere to the rules above, and take legal responsibility for said weapon.

Those people who feel like they NEED a gun to protect themselves or their family will go through that process.  Likewise gun aficionados who want to collect, hunt, or sport shoot.  Those who just want a gun around because 'it seemed like a good idea', but don't want to be bothered with safe storage, training, etc., probably will not, especially if there are real consequences to the mishandling of said gun.  Which will cut down on a heckuva lot of shootings right there. 

Would this have stopped the Las Vegas shooter?  From all accounts, no.  But it would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter, and the Oregon mall shooter, and any number of others. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1163 on: May 07, 2018, 02:36:04 PM »
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1164 on: May 07, 2018, 02:53:54 PM »
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1165 on: May 07, 2018, 03:53:12 PM »
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.008/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem.  The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified. 

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1166 on: May 07, 2018, 04:39:08 PM »
I thought this was actually a really well done article discussing the real numbers of gun related deaths...  Despite what people on both sides of the issue are trying to push.


BJ Campbell - Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1167 on: May 08, 2018, 07:56:26 AM »
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.0088/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem. The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified.

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.


I agree that there are issues of greater concern than mass shootings and accidents and I think they should be tackled first. Low hanging fruit, absolutely.

But I don't think that means we should ignore other issues. From a political standpoint, yes, I think we should focus on the more important issues which have the potential for the greatest benefit first and not try to fix everything at once. However when I engage in these discussions I speak in regards to the topic at hand. This is a thread ostensibly about school shootings. Obviously it's branched out to cover a lot more than that, but my point is that I (and I suspect many others do as well) make my arguments based on what I think the best reality would be in regards to the current topic. For example, discussing a ban on certain types of weapons and ammunition, I think there is evidence that there may be some benefit to doing so. I don't believe that it's the most important change we need to make to current gun laws, but I would still support it if I agree with the details of such a ban. (I also acknowledge the details are important)

Not really debating anything you said, just hoping this gives you a different perspective. It's easy to look at the worst arguments made on the side you disagree with and say "those people don't know what they're talking about" but the inaccurate rhetoric shouldn't take away from the more reasonable arguments.

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1168 on: May 08, 2018, 08:09:08 AM »
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.008/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem.  The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified. 

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.

Thank you for proving my point about how this conversation usually goes.  Though of course now we've moved the goalposts from 'not my problem' to 'it's not a problem' by cherrypicking statistics.  Because of course the only deaths that gun registries and other legislation would prevent are accidental ones!  I'll just put this out there:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States 

I'm sure, however, that the GRA folks will now contort themselves into knots explaining to the rest of us how thousands of deaths per year 'isn't a real problem'.  Or the fact that every school and every major workplace now has active shooter drills and training, just in case a coworker or classmate has a bad day and decides to bring a gun in to inflict lethal retribution on the people around them, is also 'not a real problem', and that everyone is totally overreacting. 

As for your proposed solutions--pretty much the only one I agree with is enforcement of existing laws on the books (which don't even cover most states) about harm caused by an unsecured firearm.  As for all the others:

-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide--not exactly useful when guns are readily available for teens to make the attempt before anyone knows anything is wrong.  And attempted suicide by firearm is overwhelmingly more successful on the first try than any other method.

-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.--yes, because this will totally prevent suicides.  Hell, we can't even get a significant percentage of parents to feed their kids breakfast!  But you think a powerpoint presentation is going to reduce attempted suicides?

-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.--considering we've had gangs for almost as long as we've had a country, I find this solution to be starry-eyed optimism at best.  Even the U.K. has gangs.  You know what they don't have?  Drive-by shootings.

-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.--I'm pretty sure we already do this.  Of course, that requires law enforcement to catch them first.  And when they can buy a gun via undocumented 'private sale' from any schmoe on the street, any felon with a couple hundred bucks who wants a gun can have one.

DHMO

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1169 on: May 08, 2018, 11:42:13 AM »

OK, so part of the problem in discussing this is that I tried (maybe poorly) to phrase my response to your talking points.  Race guns was one of those where you were, I believe, trying to explain how race guns are different and the "harm" they cause you felt was justifiable for the sport they were used in.  I agreed.  But here you then tell me a race gun can fire other ammo and use those same high speed, grouping capabilities with more lethal effect, so that changes the discussion.  If we keep doing that we'll end up in the inevitable whirlpool getting nowhere.  I will finish this line of thought though to present you my thoughts.  I am not necessarily saying ban any type of weapon (I'd only go to a ban if no other solution could be found) or that we need to do anything other than punish someone who uses a tool (race gun) for a purpose it was not intended (instead loads it with armor piercing rounds and takes out a concert venue).  I agree, that those rare cases where a perpetrator is intent on finding a way to use a tool (gun, stapler, toothpick, etc.)  inappropriately for harm are too many and varied to address with laws and regulations.  I agree with people about not prohibiting the possession of a tool just because it can be used maliciously.  So hopefully that helps.

I also feel you muddied the water of unique regarding guns.  Again, using your current examples, the difference in the gun safe versus the document safe is not the safe, it is the contents.  Someone stealing my paper can likely not do a whole lot of damage to anyone but me and my family with that, and likely not instantly kill me with whatever embarrassment, loss of money or lawsuit that results.  Someone stealing my gun has immediate access to life threatening harm.  This is all I mean with unique and why I will continue to fine tune my explanation of this definition because I think it is the lynch pin on which any meaningful conversation hinges.  Because of the nature and seriousness (uniqueness) of a gun, there should be processes that only apply to them and not to other things.  I get that you may still refer to pools, crowbars, drunk driving (and now it seems sheets of paper) for examples, but it is crucial to understand that they are distinctly different in many crucial ways from guns and therefore trying to create equivalence (the only difference in the safe is the dividers and the size) just creates confusion.  On one hand you are right.  The only difference in those two SAFES (which are still both safes by the way, and therefore inherently not different in their purpose, to secure something) is size and dividers.  On the other hand, extending that lack to difference to the contents when the contents are very different is what then makes the description blurred and confusing.  I would like to see anyone show how my last will and testament or my social security card is in any significant way like a gun.  I'd like you to note that where you "disagree" on guns not being unique had nothing to do with a gun, but required you to bring other items into the mix (training, safes, etc.).  I'd humbly suggest that if we can just focus on the very specific point that a gun, all by itself and without things attached to it, does have a unique purpose (as do a lot of other things in this world) then we might range further down the rabbit hole.

I am open to the fact that perhaps solutions do not need to be unique.  Certainly if a safety feature was created on a safe that when it was breached without the proper opening combination that when a hand cut a laser sensor inside a guillotine blade came down and cut off the hand reaching into the safe, it would have equal impact on keeping a gun safe as it would my documents.  A person without a hand will have a difficult time taking and firing my gun and they will have a difficult time taking my papers (though I guess they could try to stick them to their bloody stump).  So as you can see, I clearly see that solutions do not have to be unique, but that again, does nothing to show that a gun is not unique.

On your last point (which is a good observation), why does Hollywood use guns to make thing seem tense, a person seem tough, or in control?  I'd suggest they do so because we all understand what I have been trying to focus my definition on.  Because a gun is unique in its set of qualities.  It can all at once, project authority (if the other side has no gun), level of intent (guns are rarely drawn unless stakes are high), and competency (since the gun requires little to no training to use as you pointed out, the person with it knows how to move their finger in a motion to fire the weapon and understands by the direction of the barrel generally which way the projectile will go unless the tool is malfunctioning).  Making a gun be the only way to get someone's attention, I agree, is as lazy as the mode of speech that suggests if you are yelling out curse words every other word it must also be serious or important.  Someone can be very intimidating without profanity and without a gun.  I have lots of friends who think that adding f$* in front of anything makes it clearly more important.  I regularly suggest to them they may simply want to expand their vocabulary.

My apologies, I’m not trying to twist the conversation. I guess I’m more articulate in my head than I am in my forum posts. I’ll try to clarify a bit more.
I used race guns as an example of “acceptable harm”, as a way to start with a base of agreement. Most people don’t have an issue with competition shooting, so I was then able to demonstrate how the race gun does not inherit any evilness because the activity it is used for is not inherently evil. In the process, it seems that I gave you the impression that race guns are in a different, less damaging class of guns. That is sometimes that case, but not always (depending on the competition rules), and trying to create definitions is going to be very difficult. Competitors and murderers both benefit from having accurate, easy to aim guns. As a side note, the ammunition is an even more complicated topic, so I’ll just leave it at this: any ammunition that wasn’t specially designed to be “less-lethal” (that’s the technical term) is going to be sufficient to create life-threatening injury. Even the lowest-power competition ammunition needs to be treated as if it can be lethal, because it can be.
As to differences between document safes and gun safes, I was hoping to use that as an example of how the solution to a problem is not unique. Something needs to be secured? Stick it in the safe. Whether there are guns or documents inside, the safe is built and operates the same way. The solution for “I don’t want other people to get their hands on my documents” is the same as “I don’t want other people to get their hands on my guns”. My point is that while guns are certainly distinct from documents, the solution to a gun-related problem may not be unique and doesn’t have to be modified or special just “because guns”. This ties into how I disagree on guns being unique.
My disagreement on guns being “unique” in the way that we’ve been using the word here is based on a perception I have that many people go “Oh, wait, this is for guns? Well, that’s different. Guns are a special case.” I don’t think that guns are on some second tier of seriousness. It is my responsibility to assess and address the risks involved for everything I bring into my environment. Guns are a part of that, and can be addressed within the same framework that I use for everything else.
I appreciate your humble suggestion; please continue to be patient with me. I don’t think I fully grasp what you’re trying to say quite yet. Thinking of a gun “all by itself and without things attached to it” is not intuitive to me.
My comments about Hollywood are meant to raise some awareness, but please do not take them in isolation. A broader message that I’d like to convey is that there has been a culture shift towards seeing guns in the ways you mentioned. A gun can be seen as somehow conferring authority or competency or can be seen as an indicator (sometimes the only indicator?) of a high-stakes situation. I think we in general would be well served to move away from or minimize that culture. I think that many problems are exacerbated by it. It won’t change quickly, but it can change.
May I guess that you would see this culture as growing from the capabilities of the gun? That in a vacuum, the culture would regrow in the same way? I think I personally would disagree with that (no reasons yet, just a feeling), but that might be another interesting rabbit hole to run down.
Edit: I can't seem to shake the feeling that I've missed one of your points, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1170 on: May 08, 2018, 03:20:02 PM »
@TexasRunner I appreciate your well articulated post. 

I very much agree that the only way the problem will truly be addressed is to get to the underlying reasons that the US has created for having a high level of gun violence and I think an easy scapegoat is easy access to guns.  The mental issue is one I discuss often with people when it comes up.  Why is the mindset in the US for kids or others so gun focused?  I do think it may have a lot to do with the Hollywood/gaming aspect that DHMO and others have spoken of.  I certainly loved my shooter games and Die Hard movies growing up but for some reason they did not become a focus of my life like they can for others.  Other cultures have access to this media as well yet do not have the same gun violence issue. 

The counterpoints, while valid, lead us again to a stalemate because hey we need to address the guns first because a teen can die on the first attempt.  Again, valid, but why is removing the gun the only right first step?  Why could better coverage in school or work at home not be the issue?  Why is the teen depression rate going up in one of the most affluent countries in the world?  I've got one of my own on meds for some of these issues.  I believe no one would indicate she has much to be anxious about.  We talk a lot and cannot understand why she got to this point and the professionals she is working with are not having a whole lot more answers that lead to the why either.  The problems she raises are very similar to what I dealt with at her age, yet I never got to the point that anyone felt I needed pharmaceutical help.  As a parent I'll be the first one to tell you I have no idea why our kids are struggling so much more than we did with the same issues, but ignoring that this is happening and not thinking it might have a correlation to gun violence is very limiting I believe. 

I'd love to see the things Texas brings up be seriously addressed as I think as a country we need them.  We're a very unhappy place for the level of comfort we have compared to third world nations, but to listen to a lot of our young people we might as well be one of Trump's s*hole nations.  That should alarm us.  That should cause action.  And if we did something there we might just make real progress on this problem as well.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1171 on: May 09, 2018, 04:38:15 PM »
I'm on my tablet, so apologies ahead of time for mistakes.

First of all, thanks for the dialogue, carcarn. As dhmo commented, I'm going to be just expressing thoughts that your posts and others have triggered. I guess my overall thoughts about gun control is that it it has to be balanced, and by balance, I'm not thinking about it quite the way it's been brought up in many places here. I'm not talking about balance between the NRA or whoever on the pro gun side and whatever liberal person think tank wants to ban many/most/all guns on the other side. I'm not even talking about compromise of allowing some new gun laws to be passed only if other ones that are ineffective are removed (although I understand that point and appreciate it). I'm talking about balancing two very real sides of the issue. On the one side is the right to defend yourself. That can be aided by guns. Period. It just can. There are risks with it, but it can make a bad situation for a person in the right who is being victimized better because they had access to a gun. The other side is, of course, the inherent danger of guns in the wrong hands. The 33k+ gun deaths per year testify to that. Guns make joe blow angry guy much more lethal, no doubt.

The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Because that is the crux as I see it. No offense about guns for competition or whatnot but with the inherent risk of guns I would not have near as much trouble supporting restrictions if it was just for fun. Hunting is more defensible in my opinion, but if that were it, there could certainly be more leeway for regulating without pushback to me. The crucial point is the right to defend yourself.

So in answer to your question, I can understand guns being unique, but not just to me in the way I believe you are thinking of it. They're unique on two fronts. They are a high risk. We can argue about swimming pool deaths and car deaths and whatnot...these are fair topics and very valid especially to gauge raw risk comparisons imo. However, the unique part about guns is the danger of them in their primary function. This has two sides to it, however. They are almost always used for something that's dangerous, so they're unique compared to cars, per se. However, because they're dangerous, they are also uniquely suited for defense. So in one way, they're different because you don't need a gun to survive but a car is pretty vital in the modern world where many live. On the other hand, a gun is much MORE important BECAUSE it is uniquely qualified to help people defend themselves, a much more important right than wanting to cool off on a hot summer day in a pool or to not move close enough to bike to work.

Thoughts?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1172 on: May 09, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Fix my statement then please.  Explain the burning need for a gun owner to keep a weapon loaded and unsecured in his home at all times (whether the home owner is there or not).  To those of us who live in countries without such a need, it's difficult to see a legitimate problem that is being solved by doing this.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1173 on: May 10, 2018, 03:26:02 AM »
Exactly. When you are not home, an unsecured gun is protecting no one.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1174 on: May 10, 2018, 10:59:54 AM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1175 on: May 10, 2018, 11:20:36 AM »
The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Fix my statement then please.  Explain the burning need for a gun owner to keep a weapon loaded and unsecured in his home at all times (whether the home owner is there or not).  To those of us who live in countries without such a need, it's difficult to see a legitimate problem that is being solved by doing this.

If you are just talking about having a gun in a safe when you are not home and that's all you are meaning, I'm not going to argue against you. That's not all we are discussing and certainly not all gun control supporters have proposed/enacted.

I'll fix your statement since you asked. Requiring a loaded gun locked up in a simple, smallsafe with a single key lock will probably not impede you from ninjas or actual threats of home invaders. Regulations requiring $1500 gun safes that are a certain weight and therefore size that won't really work for a bedroom and thus mean they need to be in a different room or regulations saying have your unloaded gun locked in one of those safes and your ammunition locked in another one and oh by the way, the gun needs to be biometric (not really mentioned in this discussion but another proposed regulation in the same line of "securing the gun").......and yea, this securing of the gun keeps you from defending yourself against these attacking ninjas....

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1176 on: May 10, 2018, 08:01:34 PM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1177 on: May 10, 2018, 08:07:58 PM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1178 on: May 10, 2018, 08:17:47 PM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.

I mean, honestly, at this point, I'm about ready to just say done with it and go for it. I've actually heard that before, and it is not that crazy imo. At least in America, there's a huge urban/rural divide that's only getting more and more extreme. The situations are different. The political sentiments are different. Heck why not. No guns in a city of whatever size is decided (make it legitimately high enough). Status quo with some onerous imo restrictions removed everywhere else. Have at it....dunno may just be that it's late and I'm tired :).

Heywood57

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1179 on: May 11, 2018, 10:26:22 AM »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1180 on: May 11, 2018, 02:10:54 PM »
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1181 on: May 11, 2018, 02:18:29 PM »
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1182 on: May 11, 2018, 02:18:37 PM »
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.

I mean, honestly, at this point, I'm about ready to just say done with it and go for it. I've actually heard that before, and it is not that crazy imo. At least in America, there's a huge urban/rural divide that's only getting more and more extreme. The situations are different. The political sentiments are different. Heck why not. No guns in a city of whatever size is decided (make it legitimately high enough). Status quo with some onerous imo restrictions removed everywhere else. Have at it....dunno may just be that it's late and I'm tired :).
Interesting idea, and one that might start to be based on the issues the are different in the US that drive the higher gun violence.  Pack enough people together, turn on the heat in the summer, take away jobs and create poverty and add in guns and maybe that's the recipe for a mess. 

Rather than providing two responses I'll just jump in here with for your earlier one as well.  I do get the area of the country plays a part (which is also what makes your idea intriguing, since most large population centers are out east where I also believe there is also more gun control advocates than down south or west.  I have vacationed out in Montana.  One of the things my wife and I talked about was how you'd need to be a lot more self-sufficient to live here because of the vast distances between anything.  Huge use of time and resources to run out to the store to buy something so I'm sure that drive much bulk purchasing or making/growing your own.  Much longer time for any response.  Just like the need for a gun, I assume if your house catches on fire if you cannot put it out yourself by the time anyone got there it would be far too late.  Like it or not, those situations change perspective on a lot of things, including the importance of a gun.  And I would also think it would enhance the perspective of those with malicious intent into thinking that since response time is naturally so much longer because of lack of population and distance that they might be more emboldened to try something they would not in a city with a house across the street and five feet away on either side, which then raises the importance of being able to defend yourself if you happen to get a nut job who picks your homestead. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1183 on: May 11, 2018, 02:20:35 PM »
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.
Agreed.  Heywood did not really explain what point they were trying to make (good/bad).  It points back to all my questions that we should be asking.  What makes the US situation so different and then address from that standpoint to try to remove those things that cause gun violence to be the route selected.

middo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1184 on: May 11, 2018, 05:14:56 PM »
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.

There has been mutterings of reducing the strictness of gun laws in some states of Australia lately.  Hopefully this horrible tragedy will being some sense back to the minds of the legislators and  won't be entirely lives lost for nothing. My heart goes out to the community, some of whom I know, but my actions go towards keeping gun laws strict and ensuring my gun is locked in it's safe at all times it is not being used.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1185 on: May 15, 2018, 03:02:48 PM »
The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents. Twenty incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017. As with past FBI active shooter-related publications, this report does not encompass all gun-related situations. Rather, it focuses on a specific type of shooting situation. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf



Quote
In 10 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely
and successfully acted to end the shooting.
■ In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting. In two incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident, the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender via telephone during a police chase; she ran up to the shooter’s car as he came to a stop and pulled him out of his seat, bringing the chase to an end.
In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.


(Edit to remove confusing reference numbers that pulled from the report.)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 03:06:31 PM by TexasRunner »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1186 on: May 15, 2018, 05:50:34 PM »
The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents. Twenty incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017. As with past FBI active shooter-related publications, this report does not encompass all gun-related situations. Rather, it focuses on a specific type of shooting situation. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf



Quote
In 10 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely
and successfully acted to end the shooting.
■ In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting. In two incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident, the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender via telephone during a police chase; she ran up to the shooter’s car as he came to a stop and pulled him out of his seat, bringing the chase to an end.
In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.


(Edit to remove confusing reference numbers that pulled from the report.)

That's a powerful case you make against the need for personal firearms to protect yourself in those situations.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1187 on: May 16, 2018, 09:17:26 AM »
That was such a good example of what was just discussed. The example by TexasRunner shows support to both sides of the defense/not needed for defense argument. I’m actually pretty surprised it was brought up, although that in itself may show how much tunnel vision we get about this. At best, it’s tells us that either having a gun or not having a gun does not mean you can or can’t stop a shooter. Basically, it is pretty meaningless for either side.


Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1998
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1188 on: May 18, 2018, 10:43:17 AM »
Another school shooting today.

Ten dead at Santa Fe school.

We live in a calm, welcoming place. Still, I want my kids to be done with public school due to lax legislation about school safety.

For example: you have to be buzzed in the front door. Press the doorbell, a few seconds later after looking you over from the office they will or won't let you in.

Or - a couple of bullets to the huge glass windows everywhere and you're in...

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1189 on: May 18, 2018, 11:04:50 AM »
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 11:31:26 AM by TrudgingAlong »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1190 on: May 18, 2018, 11:29:15 AM »
Sante Fe is the 3rd school shooting in the last 7 days and the 16th this year.

Enough.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11384
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1191 on: May 18, 2018, 12:17:22 PM »
Sante Fe is the 3rd school shooting in the last 7 days and the 16th this year.

Enough.

No.  Unfortunately, it's not.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1192 on: May 18, 2018, 02:04:52 PM »
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1193 on: May 18, 2018, 02:22:04 PM »
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.

Not really:







If you read up on the gun laws in other countries - Japan, Australia, the UK, etc. - you'll notice they have far stricter gun laws than the U.S.  Then again, since we allow virtually unfettered access to guns having stricter laws isn't hard.

Also, as the charts show above, other places don't have guns in the numbers we do.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1194 on: May 18, 2018, 03:14:34 PM »
Yep, another "law abiding gun owner" who's guns were used in a massacre. Sickening!

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1195 on: May 18, 2018, 03:20:32 PM »
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.

Not really:




If you read up on the gun laws in other countries - Japan, Australia, the UK, etc. - you'll notice they have far stricter gun laws than the U.S.  Then again, since we allow virtually unfettered access to guns having stricter laws isn't hard.

Also, as the charts show above, other places don't have guns in the numbers we do.
If this says what I think it does, this is exactly what I mean.  I do not automatically correlate the fact that there are a lot of guns to the fact that there are a lot of deaths.  Let's take Sweden as out base point.  They have 4.1 deaths and about 30 guns per 100 people (actually a bit more, like 31 or 32).  The US has less than 90, but for easy math let's say 90, 3 times as much as Sweden.  If the guns were the only, or even the main, problem, then we should have 3 times the homicides, or a little over 12, yet he have 2.5 times that number, which is exactly my point.  There is something else going on in our culture that drives Americans to attack with a gun, and we need to figure that out if we really want to address this.  We've banned guns in several of our cities for a time and while homicides dropped they did not come anywhere near 0, so limiting or banning is an easy panacea that is likely to be a lot of work for not the result you want. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1196 on: May 18, 2018, 03:25:32 PM »
I thought this was actually a really well done article discussing the real numbers of gun related deaths...  Despite what people on both sides of the issue are trying to push.


BJ Campbell - Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide


Nice charts.....


I think I will just repost this.  I doubt anyone here will bother reading it though...

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1998
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1197 on: May 18, 2018, 03:53:54 PM »
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.

I agree. Beginning to think they need to go back to the old windows with the wire inside the glass or ballistic glass around entrances. I'm over the gun rights argument. Time to get something done.

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1198 on: May 18, 2018, 07:17:17 PM »
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1199 on: May 18, 2018, 07:24:23 PM »
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.
You do understand while you run to your corner again that I am not a GRA but someone who would like to solve the problem and could care less if people could own guns, yet I was one who raised what you call "psychiatric counseling".   Ignoring a possible solution because it is hard is not a really smart choice.  I'm asking because beyond guns we seem to have a propensity for choosing to take those things and do something (children killing other children as you say) that is not consistent in magnitude with our gun levels compared to other countries who have the same things we so, guns, schools and children.  Yet our kids make stupider choices.  You don't think that it's worth figuring out why?

Or instead you prefer to run to your corner of gun control and ban guns and accuse GRA of not wanting to talk, while you just decided not to talk?  Sounds pretty fair and intelligent.