Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 98471 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1250 on: May 21, 2018, 04:40:14 PM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.

So your "calculations" are simply pure guess work and based on speculative numbers? And don't lead to more guns equals less crime? I'm not sure why you commented, other than to dispute one of the sources I included.

For the record, I don't believe for one second you can quantify the "more guns equals less crime" no matter what sort of crime you want to discuss. Rape was brought up earlier. Guns are not the only means of protecting oneself. If someone broke into my house and assaulted my wife, a gun would more likely be used to keep our dog from tearing the perp apart. Although I would probably just let the dog tear him up. 

You just aren't going to convince any reasonable person that we need more guns. You know because they make us safer. Because they don't. 
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 05:03:30 PM by MasterStache »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1251 on: May 22, 2018, 07:59:59 AM »
Personally, even though Iím a gun owner and have a permit to carry, Iím done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find theyíre way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.

So your "calculations" are simply pure guess work and based on speculative numbers? And don't lead to more guns equals less crime? I'm not sure why you commented, other than to dispute one of the sources I included.

For the record, I don't believe for one second you can quantify the "more guns equals less crime" no matter what sort of crime you want to discuss. Rape was brought up earlier. Guns are not the only means of protecting oneself. If someone broke into my house and assaulted my wife, a gun would more likely be used to keep our dog from tearing the perp apart. Although I would probably just let the dog tear him up. 

You just aren't going to convince any reasonable person that we need more guns. You know because they make us safer. Because they don't.

My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS. The numbers lead to guns being a net benefit. I reject simplistic crap like the FBI "32:1" thing you brought up, which is so easily debunked as pointless it hurts your credibility to cite it. I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

And no, I won't try to convince any one we need more guns/less control than we have now.... as those who want them can get them now. I am more than willing to discuss some forms of added control that I've discussed before, as there are some people who can get guns now who ought not.  But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data... it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1252 on: May 22, 2018, 09:48:33 AM »
My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS.

Not sure what "your side" means because you made no such concessions. For example, how exactly do you quantify grief, anguish over loss of life? I am actually asking you this because you made the "calculations." 

Quote
I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

Right, because a 5 second Google search on the exact title that I wrote is too hard for folks? Good grief. Your logic is impeccable. I explained why I couldn't link to it. Feel free to read it again if you are confused.

Quote
But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data...[/b] it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.

Loss of life is never a "net benefit" even for many would be criminals (besides the obvious serial killer etc.). There are so many variables you cannot account for that to even simply try and quantify it is unreasonable and immoral. For instance you cannot quantify the grief and immeasurable suffering of those affected by any loss of life.

It's certainly not bullshit especially when other far less violent "gun toting" countries place a high value of responsibility on gun ownership and institute restrictions, rules, laws accordingly.  Probably partly a result of understanding loss of life is not a "net benefit." But not here. We pretend it's not a problem and even in some cases (like with you) pretend it's all a "net benefit." Step 1 is admitting there is a problem. Since we can't get past the first step so many many more children will unfortunately meet a very untimely demise. It's ok though, their deaths will be canceled out by some defensive gun use and families and loved ones mental anguish dismissed. Status quo in other words.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 11:14:34 AM by MasterStache »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1253 on: May 22, 2018, 01:27:15 PM »
My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS.

Not sure what "your side" means because you made no such concessions. For example, how exactly do you quantify grief, anguish over loss of life? I am actually asking you this because you made the "calculations." 

Your side - those who wish to ban or otherwise unreasonably restrict firearm access.
"concessions" made to make numbers look worse for gun usage than what they probably are in my figures:
-7% of the 414,000 crimes committed by someone who happened to have a gun, involved a serious injury, which may or may not be gunshot related. I went ahead and figured they ALL were gunshot related, then multiplied it by 2. 

What I came up with applies narrowly to crimes committed because firearms are available versus crimes stopped because firearms are available.

Quote
Quote
I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

Right, because a 5 second Google search on the exact title that I wrote is too hard for folks? Good grief. Your logic is impeccable. I explained why I couldn't link to it. Feel free to read it again if you are confused.

Quote
But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data...[/b] it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.

Loss of life is never a "net benefit" even for many would be criminals (besides the obvious serial killer etc.). There are so many variables you cannot account for that to even simply try and quantify it is unreasonable and immoral. For instance you cannot quantify the grief and immeasurable suffering of those affected by any loss of life.

It's certainly not bullshit especially when other far less violent "gun toting" countries place a high value of responsibility on gun ownership and institute restrictions, rules, laws accordingly.  Probably partly a result of understanding loss of life is not a "net benefit." But not here. We pretend it's not a problem and even in some cases (like with you) pretend it's all a "net benefit." Step 1 is admitting there is a problem. Since we can't get past the first step so many many more children will unfortunately meet a very untimely demise. It's ok though, their deaths will be canceled out by some defensive gun use and families and loved ones mental anguish dismissed. Status quo in other words.

We have lots and lots of laws and restrictions on firearms already. What makes you think there aren't any?

Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

There's also the self defense aspect. Police simply can't be everywhere. No other tool allows the weakest among us to hand the upper hand, or,  at worst, match any threat that faces them.

So yes, guns are a net benefit to society.. by an order of magnitude. If I didn't think they were, I'd argue for a ban too.

Of course, people can misuse the power a firearm gives them, and we need some laws to regulate that.  We could do a few more things to reduce how many people misuse firearms without unreasonable restrictions... I've stated that I'm OK with  these. Universal background checks, etc.

So, like every other thing in our lives, there's a balance, a trade off. We endure 1.3 million deaths per year to have the freedom to cover vast distances in automobiles.
We accept that 3500 of those deaths are due to cell phone misuse, but we endure those deaths to be able to communicate any time, any where.
I'm willing to endure 8-11k homocides caused by misuse of firearms for the benefits they provide.

As for other incalculable.... how many robberies, rapes, murders, etc aren't even attempted because the potential perp knows their potential victim has or might have a gun? how much misery was avoided because of that?
 

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1254 on: May 22, 2018, 01:38:34 PM »
...political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.


And here is the real heart of the matter.  This is why GRAs are not concerned with gun violence.  Even if all gun related deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, they would still be against banning guns. 

To argue with them about the harm guns cause is utterly futile, because at the end of the day they don't really care.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1255 on: May 22, 2018, 02:16:09 PM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1256 on: May 22, 2018, 02:46:36 PM »
Your side - those who wish to ban or otherwise unreasonably restrict firearm access.

I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man.

Quote
"concessions" made to make numbers look worse for gun usage than what they probably are in my figures:
-7% of the 414,000 crimes committed by someone who happened to have a gun, involved a serious injury, which may or may not be gunshot related. I went ahead and figured they ALL were gunshot related, then multiplied it by 2.

And again you completely ignore any cumulative/secondary affect and the ability to defend without a gun. That happens when you start with a conclusion and force the data to fit the narrative. Kind of like telling the grieving parents of a child killed at school their grief doesn't matter.

Quote
remain essential to the preservation of freedom.

LMAO I always love this line of reasoning. Because you're little "pee shooter" scares the government. You know my job in the military boiled down to being able to level entire cities with a simple radio call. Sure back in the day of musket loaders and cannons the government might have been a little concerned.

Quote
There's also the self defense aspect.


Yep and the cool thing about self defense is the fact that there are a plethora of ways to defend yourself these days. Of course that didn't factor into your "calculations" because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Quote
As for other incalculable.... how many robberies, rapes, murders, etc aren't even attempted because the potential perp knows their potential victim has or might have a gun? how much misery was avoided because of that?

Good question. Debunking your own calculations I see. ( : To go along with that how many were followed through on because they wanted the victims gun? I mean over 1.4 million guns were stolen in robberies between 2005 and 2010. I didn't see that in your calculations. In 2016 over 237,000 guns were stolen. Irony is "law abiding gun owners" fueling violence across America. 

Let's be honest. Your calculations are simply a way for you to justify your preconceived notion that guns are good for society. You have no desire to acknowledge the true cost of firearms. And with that I have no more desire to debate with someone who lacks empathy.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1257 on: May 22, 2018, 04:19:52 PM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.




Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

Quote

And again you completely ignore any cumulative/secondary affect and the ability to defend without a gun. That happens when you start with a conclusion and force the data to fit the narrative. Kind of like telling the grieving parents of a child killed at school their grief doesn't matter.

Yep and the cool thing about self defense is the fact that there are a plethora of ways to defend yourself these days. Of course that didn't factor into your "calculations" because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Nice strawman yourself, guy. I never said anyone's grief didn't matter, of course it does.  I'm just not going to advocate bad policy in a futile attempt to prevent all of it. I also maintain that the cumulative secondary effects of crimes prevented because of firearms more than washes the cumulative secondary effects of the crimes committed because of them.

As for the "you could defend yourself other ways:"
It is not incumbent upon the victim to scale their defense down to what 'could have worked'. Any defensive use is accredited to the positive impact of firearms on society because it ensured the victim had the most effective tool to defend themselves. additionally, a massive disparity in force can result in less injury/struggle. (think about it - would you try to assault someone at knife point if they were aiming a gun at you? Probably not, unless you were on meth.)

Quote

LMAO I always love this line of reasoning. Because you're little "pee shooter" scares the government. You know my job in the military boiled down to being able to level entire cities with a simple radio call. Sure back in the day of musket loaders and cannons the government might have been a little concerned.

You think they're going to airstrike every city in their own back yard to get the resistance? There are myriad ways an armed resistance can foil an oppressive tyrannical government.


Quote

Good question. Debunking your own calculations I see. ( : To go along with that how many were followed through on because they wanted the victims gun? I mean over 1.4 million guns were stolen in robberies between 2005 and 2010. I didn't see that in your calculations. In 2016 over 237,000 guns were stolen. Irony is "law abiding gun owners" fueling violence across America. 

Let's be honest. Your calculations are simply a way for you to justify your preconceived notion that guns are good for society. You have no desire to acknowledge the true cost of firearms. And with that I have no more desire to debate with someone who lacks empathy.

My statement does nothing to debunk anything else I said... the opposite, infact. It's impossible to calculate all of the good intangible impacts firearms have on society just as much as you can't calc the intangible bad ones.

I am not lacking in empathy, but as I said, I won't let empathy drive me to support bad policy, and I support some ways of improving the situation without compromising the utiity of firearms.

The 237,000 guns stolen, as I recall, are part of that 414,000 gun crimes per year in the BJS data I discussed. Securing one's firearms is an area I think some legislative improvement is needed. That's a view I've evolved during the course of this thread.

My calculations were an attempt to compare how many crimes happened directly because of guns, and how many didn't happen directly because of guns. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, it supported my preconceived notions, but I didn't know that when I started, and I included my reasoning. You can evaluate what, particularly, about my reasonings you don't like, but the data is from the BJS and is as solid and broken down as I can find.  So far your criticisms indicate you haven't read that study, or given what I came up with any thought, and instead want to just accept the FBIs hilariously half-backed analysis because it fits YOUR preconceived notions.



Quote

And here is the real heart of the matter.  This is why GRAs are not concerned with gun violence.  Even if all gun related deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, they would still be against banning guns. 

To argue with them about the harm guns cause is utterly futile, because at the end of the day they don't really care.
That's pretty ungenerous, strawman-esque even. It could be that we recognize that gun violence is actually pretty rare, and that there are many other reasons to keep them that might weigh more heavily in favor of keeping them.

But, I'll play along:
If:
-all gun deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, (Not likely)
-Gun deaths wouldn't convert to death-by-other-means (Even less likely.)
-All criminals would announce upon the commencement of their burgling, raping, and murder what they brought for offensive capabilities, so I might select  what to use to repel them (not likely)
-something major about human nature changed and the desire in some people's hearts to oppress others was eliminated (Still less likely!)

Then: Yes, we could ban guns. There would be no need for them. That's a world I'd love to live in.  Unfortunately, in the real world, those hypothetical will not come to pass, and I cannot support a ban on guns as the consequences would be worse than what we're enduring now.
I still care that firearm deaths happen, I literally am sick every time I hear about another school shooting. I know people who died in the Roseburg shooting in 2015, I took classes there! So for the 100th goddamned time I'll say that I support some things to reduce them, up until they start to compromise the main utility of firearm ownership, as when emotion is set aside, those things matter to.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1258 on: May 22, 2018, 07:03:08 PM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1259 on: May 22, 2018, 11:14:58 PM »
Iíll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. Iím actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spainís best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Francoís troops.

Letís actually look at Americaís own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1260 on: May 23, 2018, 04:27:03 AM »
Iíll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. Iím actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spainís best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Francoís troops.

Letís actually look at Americaís own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?
Don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy though.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1261 on: May 23, 2018, 05:16:05 AM »
Iíll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. Iím actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spainís best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Francoís troops.

Letís actually look at Americaís own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?
Don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy though.

Yes, but just remember, somewhere out there a would be TV thief was deterred by the presence of a gun. So their sacrifices are not in vein. All for the "net benefit" of society. 

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1262 on: May 23, 2018, 08:18:36 AM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)

Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it? 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1263 on: May 23, 2018, 08:32:45 AM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)

Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

Sure.  Anything is possible.

Aliens could arrive tomorrow and enslave all of humanity, but their one weakness might be getting a round of lead under their skin.  Dragons could start terrorizing the countryside, immune to every form of resistance but small arms.

I don't believe those are likely to happen though.  It seems to me to be equally unlikely that a group of people with small arms will overthrow a tyrannical government with a modern military.  That's why I was asking for real world examples of the weapons you claim to need for defense from a government out of control being used for that purpose.  You've been unable to find any.  While I do admit that anything is possible in the future, you need to admit that your line of reasoning regarding the need for small arms is completely unfounded and based upon your personal biases . . . not reality.

In virtually every case where a revolution/guerrilla action takes place to resist a government, the new government is just as tyrannical (or worse) than the old government.  For examples of this in the last 100 years, see:  Cambodia, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc.  The myth of bringing about a better world through armed revolution is a powerful image, but it's wrong.  The people who do best at leading a revolution tend to be the worst possible people to govern.  Slow, small, incremental changes over years is the way that most governments actually end up changing for the betterment of their people.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1264 on: May 23, 2018, 11:39:25 AM »
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1265 on: May 23, 2018, 03:16:41 PM »
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.

How can we take a GRA person seriously when they utter phrases like "fighting tyranny".  It's sheer fantasy.  You're right to bring up the comparison to preppers - very apt!  And one I hadn't thought of before.  But you're so right - you can't argue with them because if/when you rebut their more reasonable scenarios, they just double down.  And their end game scenario is equally ridiculous.  For preppers, it's always some variation of "What if all human society collapses!"  And for GRA types is "What if the government totally turns against the people". 

Sure those may make compelling story lines for a video game, but for everyone else, it's the equivalent of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  As long as you give in to the irrational idea that there are angels at all, then you're going to lose because they can just keep making shit up. 

A GRA person will never, ever admit that it's extremely unlikely for the government to turn on us.  Or that we'd be completely f'ing overmatched if it did, regardless of our # of small arms.  And as long as they feel justified in saying "well, it's 'possible'" for the government to turn on us, any/all other reasoning gets thrown out the window.  Including ANY discussion about the harm that guns do to society.  Because in their view, ANY harm done to society is justified by guns preventing the catastrophe of government tyranny.

So you see, it doesn't matter what you say or how compelling your facts and evidence.  It will simply be dismissed out of hand or the GRA person will double down on insanity ("What if Russia nukes us!" or "What if China invades us" or "What if the US Government starts executing all political opposition").  I mean these things are just crazy.  But that is exactly what they will cling to and double down on.  And as a reasonable person, you just have to throw your hands up and say that all of that just isn't going to happen for XYZ reasons, knowing that it won't be accepted.  Won't even be heard.  Because if it were true, if tyranny weren't always lurking around the corner, it would undercut a GRA's entire world view. 

And that is something they cannot tolerate.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: KC Metro
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1266 on: May 23, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1267 on: May 23, 2018, 07:06:49 PM »
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1268 on: May 24, 2018, 06:12:34 AM »
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1269 on: May 24, 2018, 07:26:01 AM »
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.

Yeah, good thing that times were so culturally different that people with access to guns didn't start shooting.  That might have been the end of MLK Jr . . .

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: KC Metro
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1270 on: May 24, 2018, 10:45:59 AM »
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.

Yeah, good thing that times were so culturally different that people with access to guns didn't start shooting.  That might have been the end of MLK Jr . . .

Again, I'm not expert by any means, but I would venture to say that our culture is radically different than the 60's. You can argue that our culture is just as racist now, but during the equal right movement people were a lot more open about it. I don't think its fair to compare the assassination of a movements leader to psychology behind today's schools shooters.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1271 on: May 24, 2018, 11:25:26 AM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9259
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1272 on: May 24, 2018, 11:54:49 AM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1273 on: May 24, 2018, 12:07:46 PM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1274 on: May 24, 2018, 12:13:44 PM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

The Black Panthers are an interesting case.  They actually took up arms to defend themselves against tyrannical policing.  While initially somewhat successful, this quickly devolved into wanton murders, torture and escalated violence.  It's hard to say if they were a net benefit or not . . . but this is probably the best example of 'freedom fighters' using gun against an oppressive (part of a) government.  I'd argue that they were ultimately less effective than the non-violent protests of MLK . . . but that's certainly open to argument.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1275 on: May 24, 2018, 12:16:51 PM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

What they have in common:

1. A grudge
2. Access to guns

We might not be able to do much about #1 but we can do a hell of a lot about #2.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1276 on: May 24, 2018, 12:29:12 PM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1277 on: May 24, 2018, 12:52:04 PM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

The Black Panthers are an interesting case.  They actually took up arms to defend themselves against tyrannical policing.  While initially somewhat successful, this quickly devolved into wanton murders, torture and escalated violence.  It's hard to say if they were a net benefit or not . . . but this is probably the best example of 'freedom fighters' using gun against an oppressive (part of a) government.  I'd argue that they were ultimately less effective than the non-violent protests of MLK . . . but that's certainly open to argument.

Thatís an extremely good point. How many people really know much about the Black Panthers, yet know at least a little about MLK? The guys with guns were ineffective and villafied. The one that tried nonviolent means is who we still revere and use as our example, rightly so if you ask me.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: KC Metro
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1278 on: May 24, 2018, 01:36:26 PM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore guns. I don't want to put words in Caracarn's, but I don't think Caracarn is ignoring guns either. I just don't think we should ignore the underlying cause behind these actions. I don't agree that automobiles are a good example, unless the sole reason to add safety features is because you have people purposefully going out to kill people with their cars. Safety standards where implemented due to accidental deaths, not intentional deaths caused by an evil person. I think the answer to all of this sits somewhere in the middle.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1279 on: May 24, 2018, 02:03:40 PM »
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.
OK, but I think you also understand what my point was and instead chose to make a snarky remark that is not relevant.  If all we had today was assassinations of leaders as our gun violence problem we'd be is a much better place. 

In case my point of using that example was not clear, there was a lot more public unhappiness and yet there were not a lot of shootings.  In very heated environments where guns certainly come out today, they did not in the 60s.  People who were upset did not turn to a gun as often as they do now.  I did not say there was no gun violence, and again i think you know that.  Try to help the conversation instead of just stop it.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1280 on: May 24, 2018, 02:10:10 PM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK? 

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1281 on: May 24, 2018, 03:45:32 PM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK?

I wasnít responding to you. This was a response to the implication Onestep made that focusing on guns wonít fix the issues. Itís the low hanging fruit, so thatís why it comes up, not because anyone is under some illusion that guns are literally the only thing causing the problem.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1282 on: May 25, 2018, 04:37:02 AM »
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We canít ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you canít ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK?

Chill dude, I wasn't responding to you either. I didn't even point to anyone specifically. If you read what I wrote more carefully you would see that I already stated the bolded part above.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 04:39:31 AM by MasterStache »

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1283 on: May 26, 2018, 04:33:56 PM »
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

Both of my grandfathers lived in nazi occupied areas during the war, and sympathized with the resistance. One was a pacifist, the other was a hunter who did not turn in his guns. Only one of them had to flee from the nazis because they issued an arrest warrant, he changed his name, and lived the rest of the war in hiding. Want to guess which one?

After the war, he came out of hiding, and took active part in politics. So active, that he ended up on the US watch list as ďthe most dangerous radicalĒ in the region. Still very outspoken against weapons of all sorts.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1284 on: May 26, 2018, 09:38:37 PM »

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason

If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.


I did, in fact, directly answer your question.  How is that not a direct answer?

Oops, I stand corrected. I misread your statement.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1285 on: May 26, 2018, 09:43:51 PM »
It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad.

Quote
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

I made no such implication or statement that what you stated was my viewpoint. Again, you even used the word "implied." Hence straw-man.

Fair enough, I can see how you didn't exactly state that (commenting that a child didn't get raped in addition to killed seemed at the time to do that, but re-reading it, maybe that was too much of a stretch, but whatever, I admit that it wasn't exactly the same thing, so I retract the statement). I can admit when I'm wrong as I just did here and with tyort. I'm sure you'll never admit your strawman implying that I didn't care about gun deaths because I said that overall deaths were more important than one specific subset of kinds of deaths. It seems you'd rather just accuse other people of flaws and never admit your own.

Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1286 on: May 26, 2018, 09:44:44 PM »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

It did give me some reading. As has been pointed out, in your very explanation of the third article you compare justifiable homicide with a gun to criminal homicide with a gun - justifiable homicides does not equal justifiable defensive gun uses. It shouldn't be that hard to process the possibility or dare I say probability that criminals might actually use guns fatally in their uses of guns more than someone defending himself. I'm not saying it has to be, but without somehow proving that it's apples to apples, I have a hard time believing that it is.

As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1287 on: May 26, 2018, 09:46:25 PM »
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.

I don't mean to jump on you here, caracarn, but I wanted to make two comments on your statement I bolded above.

First, the crux of the issue in the conversation these past few pages, imo, was tyort's comment:

"Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet."

Tyort and MasterStache are arguing a complicated issue as if it truly has no nuance. I don't care what issue it is in modern politics or what side I tend to support on it...when I hear someone declare there is no nuance to an issue or de facto do so by their arguments, that's what makes me start to laugh or roll my eyes. It's never that simple. GRA people are continually presented as unreasonable and yet, again, we're the ones told, there's no nuance to the issue at all, you're just wrong......I don't even know what else to say about that. And before I get accused of yet another strawman by MasterStache, if you do think the issue is nuanced, please feel free to comment how you think it is so. I'm just not seeing it in your arguments (and of course tyort specifically stated it).

For my second comment, let me give you one example of nuance. Defending against tyranny is not a hill I'm willing to die on in the argument personally. However, no one has mentioned in the discussion one of the possibilities that in my mind has a fairly decent chance (more so to me than some of the examples brought up) because of our crazily interconnected and interdependent world, and that is anarchy in some form - maybe localized and/or temporary before order is restored. We see this on a small scale in riots and the like, so please don't tell me this could never happen. This is why I like to go back to self defense, because in this case, it does go back to self defense....defending yourself if the government for whatever period of time in whatever locale for whatever reason is unable to. It won't matter if order is restored in a week if something happened to you on day 3. Just throwing out an example of nuance here.....

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1288 on: May 27, 2018, 04:46:27 AM »
Iím interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take peopleís personal property?  Or some big buy back.

Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldnít.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?

And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they donít want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesnít believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1289 on: May 27, 2018, 04:57:29 AM »
Iím interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take peopleís personal property?  Or some big buy back.
Personally I don't want to ban guns.  I think the problem is much deeper than guns.  I'd favour increased regulation and restrictions though.

Having said that, if the second was repealed, laws passed and guns banned I can only assume all those GRAs who profess to being responsible, law abiding citizens will hand their guns in.  That's assuming they are actually law abiding and not just abiding by the laws they personally like.

It wont get rid of every gun but it will get rid of the overwhelming majority.
Quote from: dmc
Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldnít.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?
I don't think they would.  I also don't think murderers, rapists, fraudsters and robbers are all going to stop committing their crime of choice either.

I also don't think the willingness of criminals to commit crimes should be a reason to not have a law against any particular crime though.
Quote from: dmc
And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they donít want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesnít believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.
As mentioned above, there shouldn't be any reason for local communities to enforce any gun confiscation.  All those responsible, law abiding citizens will doubtless continue to be fine, responsible, law abiding citizens and willingly hand in their guns wont they?

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1290 on: May 27, 2018, 10:02:58 AM »
I never thought Iíd support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. Iíd say the opposite is happening.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 10:04:34 AM by TrudgingAlong »

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1291 on: May 27, 2018, 10:08:11 AM »
Iím interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take peopleís personal property?  Or some big buy back.
Personally I don't want to ban guns.  I think the problem is much deeper than guns.  I'd favour increased regulation and restrictions though.

Having said that, if the second was repealed, laws passed and guns banned I can only assume all those GRAs who profess to being responsible, law abiding citizens will hand their guns in.  That's assuming they are actually law abiding and not just abiding by the laws they personally like.

It wont get rid of every gun but it will get rid of the overwhelming majority.
Quote from: dmc
Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldnít.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?
I don't think they would.  I also don't think murderers, rapists, fraudsters and robbers are all going to stop committing their crime of choice either.

I also don't think the willingness of criminals to commit crimes should be a reason to not have a law against any particular crime though.
Quote from: dmc
And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they donít want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesnít believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.
As mentioned above, there shouldn't be any reason for local communities to enforce any gun confiscation.  All those responsible, law abiding citizens will doubtless continue to be fine, responsible, law abiding citizens and willingly hand in their guns wont they?

Yes to all of this! All these self-proclaimed ďgood guysĒ would become ďbad guysĒ if they donít respect the laws. Just like every other ďcriminalĒout there. They are people who chose not to follow the law, period. The law (and pretty much everyone else) does not care if you personally believe the law is wrong. Youíre still a criminal if you flout it.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1661
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1292 on: May 27, 2018, 10:12:21 AM »
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that. 
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 10:14:39 AM by MasterStache »

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1293 on: May 27, 2018, 11:45:35 AM »
Since we donít seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I donít see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if itís like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I donít think itís going to effect me much.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1294 on: May 27, 2018, 11:57:43 AM »
Since we donít seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I donít see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if itís like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I donít think itís going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2018, 11:59:15 AM by Dabnasty »

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1295 on: May 27, 2018, 12:42:11 PM »
Since we donít seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I donít see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if itís like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I donít think itís going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.

Iíve read enough.  Itís not like anything said here is going to effect anything.  It is interesting to read other view points.  But like many topics no one really changes anyoneís view.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1296 on: May 27, 2018, 02:30:25 PM »
Since we donít seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I donít see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if itís like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I donít think itís going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.

Iíve read enough.  Itís not like anything said here is going to effect anything.  It is interesting to read other view points.  But like many topics no one really changes anyoneís view.

Not true, my opinion has changed based on this thread. Not in the sense that I've gone from one side to the other but I have learned that some of the statistics I once based my opinions on are not quite what they seemed. Therefore my opinions on what restrictions might be effective have changed.

Are you saying that you have made up your mind and it will not be changed? That seems odd to me as I was under the impression that that was a criticism one person makes about another, not something you would recognize, much less admit of yourself.

Regardless, you're making arguments that have not only been made already, but have been thoroughly discussed. I suppose talking it through again doesn't hurt but if you're actually interested in the discussion it would really help if you read through the older comments. The difficulty of taking existing guns out of circulation, "criminals" disregarding bans, the need to enforce current laws, and the dangerous looking vs actually dangerous. All of your questions have been discussed, so I would disagree that you have read enough.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1297 on: June 06, 2018, 04:05:41 PM »
I never thought Iíd support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. Iíd say the opposite is happening.

TrudgingAlong....I'm really sorry to hear you say that and to be honest, confused. We've had vigorous debate on all sides, but I've literally read every post on this thread and haven't seen what you're seeing coming out. I've mentioned this before, but gun supporters on this thread have suggested numerous ideas to improve things. I don't recall many of them if any that have said we should do absolutely nothing, and I don't recall seeing the argument on this board that "anything less than more guns is the proper solution." It's the reverse that's been true, to be frank. I've seen GRA people say, enforce laws better, myself saying they're open to better background checks, restrictions on magazines, etc. People have proposed different ideas, not nothing. On the other side, I've seen multiple people say that they want to ban all guns. I don't know what magical compromise you're expecting of GRA people. There is a fundamental disconnect that's been highlighted significantly that GRA people realize guns are used to hurt people but feel the rights to have something to defend themselves and/or defensive gun uses outweighs the risks while GCA people tend to think the risks outweigh the benefits. Of course GRA people are not going to back down on this because that's the fundamental perspective underlying their beliefs. GCA people aren't going to back down on thinking the risks weigh more than any benefits. Beyond that, though, again, it's the GCA people on here who have gone towards (or already been there) banning all guns. The GRA people haven't proposed any (that I remember, please correct me if you find it) "more guns" solution other than relaxing laws on concealed carry (a group of people that have such a minuscule risk that it's not in the same league as anything).

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1298 on: June 06, 2018, 04:16:56 PM »
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that.

Ok, I won't argue the point that ncornilsen made specifically that you're being illogical if you don't support banning them all. I will say I agree with the general thrust he and I made that we'd like you to put out specifics so I can have something to directly comment on and you don't have to keep accusing me of straw man arguments. So, I'll be direct: Ban all guns? Ban all semi-automatic guns? More middle of the road perspectives of magazine restrictions? Full registry of gun owners? What do you think?

On the second part, no, I'm pretty sure I'm correct about it conflating the two unless it does not mean what I think it means (cue Princess Bride reference :) ). I'm not conflating the two. I'm saying they are different and should be treated as such, and it's not cherry picking imo. They're brought up with the statistics saying it's riskier to have a gun in your house than the benefit of using it defensively. That's only true with the studies if you count people literally hurting themselves. If you don't hurt yourself, the results aren't valid. Suicides and homicides are different and not in some small nuanced way. One someone robbing someone else of their life and choices. One is someone making a choice in regards to their own life. I'll admit that I don't have any specific close family situations in regards to suicide. However, I have a general belief that someone doing something to themselves doesn't carry the same weight as someone doing something to others, especially when it comes to infringing on the rights of others.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1299 on: June 06, 2018, 09:46:59 PM »
I never thought Iíd support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. Iíd say the opposite is happening.

TrudgingAlong....I'm really sorry to hear you say that and to be honest, confused. We've had vigorous debate on all sides, but I've literally read every post on this thread and haven't seen what you're seeing coming out. I've mentioned this before, but gun supporters on this thread have suggested numerous ideas to improve things. I don't recall many of them if any that have said we should do absolutely nothing, and I don't recall seeing the argument on this board that "anything less than more guns is the proper solution." It's the reverse that's been true, to be frank. I've seen GRA people say, enforce laws better, myself saying they're open to better background checks, restrictions on magazines, etc. People have proposed different ideas, not nothing. On the other side, I've seen multiple people say that they want to ban all guns. I don't know what magical compromise you're expecting of GRA people. There is a fundamental disconnect that's been highlighted significantly that GRA people realize guns are used to hurt people but feel the rights to have something to defend themselves and/or defensive gun uses outweighs the risks while GCA people tend to think the risks outweigh the benefits. Of course GRA people are not going to back down on this because that's the fundamental perspective underlying their beliefs. GCA people aren't going to back down on thinking the risks weigh more than any benefits. Beyond that, though, again, it's the GCA people on here who have gone towards (or already been there) banning all guns. The GRA people haven't proposed any (that I remember, please correct me if you find it) "more guns" solution other than relaxing laws on concealed carry (a group of people that have such a minuscule risk that it's not in the same league as anything).

Iím actually not going to tell you youíre wrong, because I think youíve mostly characterized whatís been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and wonít come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. Iíd love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I donít see that. I donít want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how theyíd all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

I mean, Iíd totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parentís gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.