Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 87078 times)

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #650 on: March 15, 2018, 12:13:03 PM »
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh.  This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

It’s an important distinction because mixing all shootings together disguises the real risk of each type individually. We’ve established over and over again that ALL rifles/shotguns account for around 2% (~700/~30,000) firearms deaths annually. So clearly AR-15s are not a statistically valid issue. But if you want to ban them, which the left seems to have an inexplicable hardon to do, you must muddy the waters up by throwing unrelated statistics out there as seen above.

We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #651 on: March 15, 2018, 12:17:20 PM »
Just to pile on the "manipulated statistics" train, the definition of "children" is often stretched up to 18 years (or higher) in order to inflate the number.  The term "minors" just doesn't have the same emotional impact.  Also, they add up all the numbers across an arbitrary (though significant) time period, so that it's a bigger number.

Also, the "mass shootings" statistic is also inflated by using any incident where four or more people were injured or killed, regardless of the circumstances.  It includes police-involved shootings, too.  Just like the title of this thread "11 school shootings in 26 days," it's intentionally misleading.
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems
That's not the argument he's making.  He's pointing out that this specific statistic is rather misleading and makes a poor foundation for public policy.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.
The bolded part is a great example of why the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere.  You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #652 on: March 15, 2018, 12:17:46 PM »
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked.  :P

Thanks for clarifying.  LOL.

My point being, that the violence unique to North America doesn't have to be as bad if you were to implement some sensible gun regulations and controls.

With all due respect, your definition of sensible and mine may vary.  Without rehashing the last 14 or 15 pages, I've heard some ideas I agree with and some I don't.

It also bugs me to no end when the focus is on the firearm homicide rate rather than the homicide rate. 

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #653 on: March 15, 2018, 12:46:44 PM »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #654 on: March 15, 2018, 12:54:17 PM »
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #655 on: March 15, 2018, 01:47:28 PM »
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4


calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Location: Northern California
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #656 on: March 15, 2018, 01:57:54 PM »
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4

So what's the harm in giving them guns if they're just going to kill themselves anyway, right?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #657 on: March 15, 2018, 02:13:20 PM »
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4

So what's the harm in giving them guns if they're just going to kill themselves anyway, right?

The poster above implies firearms are driving up the suicide rate in the US.  I'm not sure that's true.  We have a lower level of suicide than many other countries and a similar level to Canada.  It doesn't seem like access to firearms is the primary driver in suicide (ie people kill themselves with our without firearms.  Look at Japan which has almost no access to firearms and 2x our rate of suicide. 

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #658 on: March 15, 2018, 04:50:28 PM »
You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.

Zolotiyeruki has a very good point here.   The US has something likes 7 times the rate of incarceration as Canada.   Poverty is much more endemic in US cities as well.     And since there are already so many guns out there, the US needs a more holistic solution than just gun control by itself.

southern granny

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #659 on: March 15, 2018, 05:45:06 PM »
Compare the above chart on homicides by firearms to a chart on poverty rates in developed countries and they line up almost perfectly. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #660 on: March 16, 2018, 07:32:04 AM »
You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.

Zolotiyeruki has a very good point here.   The US has something likes 7 times the rate of incarceration as Canada.   Poverty is much more endemic in US cities as well.     And since there are already so many guns out there, the US needs a more holistic solution than just gun control by itself.

Absolutely, that's a legitimate point.  There are underlying problems in the US that need additional time spent to fix.

This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #661 on: March 16, 2018, 08:00:11 AM »
Holistic solution = do nothing

I think that's what's infuriating to some on the left side of the debate.  And, to me, it is comical that the Republican party, which is not exactly hallmarked for having a nuanced view of any issue, all of a sudden sees nuance all around when someone wants to control their guns.

+1.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #662 on: March 16, 2018, 09:14:51 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #663 on: March 16, 2018, 09:36:23 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #664 on: March 16, 2018, 09:44:09 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #665 on: March 16, 2018, 09:53:18 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done. 

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #666 on: March 16, 2018, 09:54:01 AM »
Thank you for a thoughtful response.

You're welcome.

Thank you for refusing to consider the possibility that your opinion about guns and how much you like them isn't fact.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #667 on: March 16, 2018, 10:00:29 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #668 on: March 16, 2018, 10:12:17 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 10:14:27 AM by Midwest »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #669 on: March 16, 2018, 10:20:59 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Give private sellers the ability to call the NICS system, and when it comes back Yay give me a confirmation number to record. I already need to keep a copy of the serial number, lic # of the person I sold to, etc, for 10 years, so recording this number on the paperwork is no biggie.  If my sold gun is used in a crime, I produce paperwork with confirmation number that corresponds with date I called and clear background check, I’m in clear. If I can’t produce the confirmation number, charges.

Done.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #670 on: March 16, 2018, 10:26:38 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #671 on: March 16, 2018, 10:31:00 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #672 on: March 16, 2018, 10:35:57 AM »

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.

Police officers are protected from personal liability for work actions in most situations, which I actually think is pretty reasonable provided the department takes responsibility.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #673 on: March 16, 2018, 10:37:58 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #674 on: March 16, 2018, 10:44:36 AM »

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.

Police officers are protected from personal liability for work actions in most situations, which I actually think is pretty reasonable provided the department takes responsibility.

I wonder where the supreme court stands on dereliction of duty.  The bolded part is interesting considering the overall incompetence showed by his department in that situation and the departments failure to enter the school while other departments did.  Not a lawyer nor a law enforcement officer BTW nor do I claim to be. 

To clarify something, I don't expect every officer to jump in front of a gun to save the children but standing outside and watching the situation unfold is pretty amazing.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #675 on: March 16, 2018, 10:46:11 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
[/b]

The Broward County Sheriff's department dropped the ball.  Other departments entered the school and criticized the BCSD for their incompetence at the scene.  Don't throw all the cops in the area under the bus.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #676 on: March 16, 2018, 10:47:04 AM »
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #677 on: March 16, 2018, 10:50:10 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #678 on: March 16, 2018, 10:56:36 AM »
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

Ignoring that there are multiple overlapping problems is also intellectually lazy, though. Street level gang violence relies on an ocean of cheap handguns, while the modern spree killer favors AR-15's and other "sporting" rifles for their ability to deliver more death per minute. Not all potential interventions will address all problems.

I am against both the well intended but uninformed "we have to do something" faction and the dug in "gun rights are sacred and not one inch will be yielded" factions. Unless you think anyone with enough money should be able to own a surface to air missile then you agree we're talking about where on the slippery slope of "right to bear arms" the line should be drawn that best respects the rights of all involved.

Unfortunately I am 99% certain that our political process is incapable of the nuance required to intelligently find this balancing point.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #679 on: March 16, 2018, 10:58:39 AM »
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #680 on: March 16, 2018, 10:59:11 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
[/b]

The Broward County Sheriff's department dropped the ball.  Other departments entered the school and criticized the BCSD for their incompetence at the scene.  Don't throw all the cops in the area under the bus.

There was also the “investigation” done with the 37 (or whatever) times they went to the guys house and the FBI’s failure to investigate after being notified.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #681 on: March 16, 2018, 11:00:29 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #682 on: March 16, 2018, 11:24:19 AM »

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

You make a good argument for stricter control of hand guns.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #683 on: March 16, 2018, 11:27:34 AM »

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I'll take nearly as bad any day. A 5.56 round is much more lethal than a 9mm, wound for wound. If we can figure out a reasonable way to reduce the latter's availability to killers it'll save lives, even if it's 1 or 2 per event.

Gun people* will endlessly debate whether .380 has enough "stopping power" for a daily concealed carry or if 9mm is the minimum effective round, yet when the debate is about how effectively a spree killer can kill somehow an AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag and a .22 LR pistol are capable of equivalent destruction in the same amount of time. I find that a bit disingenuous. Ask the law enforcement officers charged with confronting these shooters if they see a meaningful difference.

We should be talking about stacking a series of 5% improvements (that respect while perhaps slightly inconveniencing legit gun owners) that add up to significant progress. Again, I'm skeptical our process is capable of it, but I'm willing to give it a try.


*which I don't mean pejoratively, I partially am one...
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 11:55:43 AM by Samuel »

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #684 on: March 16, 2018, 11:31:06 AM »

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

A doctor who treated the Parkland victims recently chimed in: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

(Spoiler: Yes, there is a significance difference in lethality)

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #685 on: March 16, 2018, 11:37:08 AM »
Ask the law enforcement officers charged with confronting these shooters if they see a meaningful difference.

While we're on the subject ... body armor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_armor#Performance_standards

I was under the impression that typical daily-wear armor for American police is IIIA. Is that still the case? I assume these ratings are for the textile-only (doesn't include drop-in steel or ceramic trauma plates)?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #686 on: March 16, 2018, 11:54:38 AM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #687 on: March 16, 2018, 11:59:19 AM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

You are not counting the psychological benefits of being able to consider yourself the type of person who was willing to do something.  That's a lot of value even if it's not related to the problem you are ostensibly trying to address. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #688 on: March 16, 2018, 12:00:41 PM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?

Are you under the impression that law enforcement have a duty to defend adults but not kids??? 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #689 on: March 16, 2018, 12:05:02 PM »

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

A doctor who treated the Parkland victims recently chimed in: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

(Spoiler: Yes, there is a significance difference in lethality)

I don't claim to be a ballistics expert, but it would seem there is a point at close range where you are likely dead from either one.  To take this to an extreme, I'd rather get shot at 10 feet by a 9mm than a 50 caliber, but there's a good chance of dying from either. 

Virginia tech killer killed 32 and injured 17 without a rifle.  The fort lauderdale killer referenced in the article killed 5 people in 90 seconds with just a pistol.  The situation in parkdale went on for 6 minutes.

We would save a lot more lives if we would focus on keeping guns (not just ar-15's) from people like the parkland shooter and from criminals in general.

This tragedy could have been prevented if the sheriff or FBI had taken this kid seriously.  In addition, I wonder how many bled to death while the sheriff's dept waited for backup.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 12:07:42 PM by Midwest »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #690 on: March 16, 2018, 12:13:30 PM »
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?

Are you under the impression that law enforcement have a duty to defend adults but not kids???

No. I'm trying to figure out what Chris is saying here, and what he's implying is the solution. As far as I can follow:

1) Chris said, in response to law enforcement not having an obligation to protect people, "Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection."

2) Since his example of this was Parkland, I found it odd to choose an example in which trained officers were too chicken to go into the school to take down the assailant, and then say that this is why "gun nuts" (his words) want their own guns -- because it seemed that he was implying that other people (presumably teachers) who are even less well trained than law enforcement would be less chicken. But:

3) I was corrected by Bender (and then Chris22) agreed with him that what Chris was saying was that people should be able to defend "themselves." So, I'm wondering who the "themselves" are in this case, and I can only conclude that they are the children. So I'm trying to understand.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #691 on: March 16, 2018, 12:26:15 PM »
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #692 on: March 16, 2018, 12:26:26 PM »
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

It certainly doesn't require it but I think we have reason to believe that in certain stuations a rifle can be more deadly. In close quarters a handgun may be more deadly. More than rifle vs pistol I think we should be talking about ammunition type, magazine size and the ability to customize weapons. I'll admit it's a very difficult topic to debate and I'd take the opinion of someone trained in the use of assault weapons or active shooter scenarios over my own.

In regards to citing previous accounts like Newtown, VA Tech and Las Vegas*, I just don't think there are enough data points (let's hope there never will be) to make any meaningful conlusions about the potential deadliness of different weapons. In the right situation any gun can be deadly and the number killed can be largely up to the ability of the shooter and chance. When debating the deadliness of weapons I think arguments should rely on what could potentially happen rather than what has happened in the past.

*I realize I cited Las Vegas but I was referring more to the scenario than the fact that it actually happened. The deadliness of that event can probably be attributed to the bump stock as much as the weapon.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 12:47:23 PM by Dabnasty »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #693 on: March 16, 2018, 12:41:33 PM »
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #694 on: March 16, 2018, 12:45:57 PM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

You are not counting the psychological benefits of being able to consider yourself the type of person who was willing to do something.  That's a lot of value even if it's not related to the problem you are ostensibly trying to address.

You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #695 on: March 16, 2018, 12:48:12 PM »
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.

Okay, then you are saying that the civilians with guns would be better at protecting themselves than the law enforcement would.

So, then, I go back to what I wrote before:

What I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #696 on: March 16, 2018, 12:49:32 PM »
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #697 on: March 16, 2018, 12:52:51 PM »

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

It certainly doesn't require it but I think we have reason to believe that in certain stuations a rifle can be more deadly. In close quarters a handgun may be more deadly. More than rifle vs pistol I think we should be talking about ammunition type, magazine size and the ability to customize weapons. I'll admit it's a very difficult topic to debate and I'd take the opinion of someone trained in the use of assault weapons or active shooter scenarios over my own.

I regards to citing previous accounts like Newtown, VA Tech and Las Vegas*, I just don't think there are enough data points (let's hope there never will be) to make any meaningful conlusions about the potential deadliness of different weapons. In the right situation any gun can be deadly and the number killed can be largely up to the ability of the shooter and chance. When debating the deadliness of weapons I think arguments should rely on what could potentially happen rather than what has happened in the past.

*I realize I cited Las Vegas but I was referring more to the scenario than the fact that it actually happened. The deadliness of that event can probably be attributed to the bump stock as much as the weapon.

With the exception of Vegas, mass shootings have happened mainly in close quarters and most homicides by guns happen with pistols. 

Given that, it would make more sense (to me anyway) to focus on a) preventing a weapon (of any kind) from getting to someone who is mentally unstable or has criminal intent b) strengthening security at likely targets and c) fixing law enforcement tactics versus the focus on the ar-15.  That kind of approach will save a lot more lives than a banning a firearm that is involved in less than 4% of all homicides despite its wide availability.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #698 on: March 16, 2018, 12:57:26 PM »
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.

Okay, then you are saying that the civilians with guns would be better at protecting themselves than the law enforcement would.

So, then, I go back to what I wrote before:

What I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

No. I’m saying give people a fighting chance, if they want it. I’m also of the belief that there is a deterrent factor as well. I’m under no illusion that it’s a perfect foolproof 100% effective solution. I just think people should have the opportunity to defend themselves if they want it, and the whole “well someone might be fighting back” may deter some potential bad guys, the same way I believe a robber not knowing whether or not a homeowner has a firearm acts as a deterrent.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #699 on: March 16, 2018, 01:05:35 PM »
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Aren’t we on a board that is supposed to prize facts and math over feelings and fairy dust?  Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that the psychological feeling of doing something that is demonstrably worthless is to be given weight?