Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 87518 times)

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8793
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #801 on: March 24, 2018, 07:39:01 PM »
Sounds like high schools students have organized 800 protests across the US today demanding better gun control.

Here we have a generation of people that have grown up with school shootings and are fed up with it.    I think the NRA's days are numbered.  Not this year, and not next year, but the end is in sight.

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #802 on: March 24, 2018, 08:35:09 PM »
A few sites are saying it was the largest protest in DC history. Go kids, go.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #803 on: March 24, 2018, 11:06:48 PM »
Yep. My kids just went back to public school this year, really our first foray into the American school system since we were living overseas when my oldest started school. (Homeschooled when w moved back for the last 5 years.) The day they came home to tell me they had their first lockdown drill, I felt sick inside. Any child or parent who is forced to live with constant reminders that this is the new normal is changed by it. This is the core of my opposition to arming teachers and hardening schools - w can do better than this. I want a return to when none of this was necessary. You can't do that by passing out more guns.

kei te pai

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #804 on: March 25, 2018, 03:34:41 AM »
America should be so proud of the kids who have rallied today. I cried when I watched the video of Emma Gonzalez on the Guardian website. It breaks my heart that those in politics will sacrifice these fine young people.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1998
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #805 on: March 25, 2018, 07:03:33 PM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #806 on: March 25, 2018, 07:25:49 PM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.

What a fantastic example of how tone deaf these people are. We don't want to try to make these incidents less deadly; we want them to STOP.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1998
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #807 on: March 25, 2018, 07:31:04 PM »
Interestng article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/

Now to add more context - some of these same white men face a future where many blue collar jobs are on the verge of automation. The future will deliver more worries, not less.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #808 on: March 26, 2018, 06:29:29 AM »
Interestng article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/

Now to add more context - some of these same white men face a future where many blue collar jobs are on the verge of automation. The future will deliver more worries, not less.

Everyone is facing that future, but nobody wants to admit it.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #809 on: March 26, 2018, 07:07:26 AM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.

What a fantastic example of how tone deaf these people are. We don't want to try to make these incidents less deadly; we want them to STOP.

Itís really a question of the NRA lackeys not having much of an argument or defense at this point. So, instead, they try to turn the argument toward something else, to change the subject.

Itís pretty pathetic.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #810 on: March 26, 2018, 07:42:51 AM »
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #811 on: March 26, 2018, 07:49:37 AM »
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #812 on: March 26, 2018, 08:00:45 AM »
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.3646360b8eac

Here's a discussion of the article that person referenced. The CDC gives a range of 108,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year based on numerous surveys, and points out that this data should be studied more in depth due to the unreliability of said surveys. The data isn't great, but even taking the low number estimate (or even divide this number by 2!) is still significant.

It is, of course, about impossible to get good data, given that a big portion of defensive uses involve no gunshot, and result in no crime committed. (defensive brandishing) You are completely reliant on word of mouth for cases like that, I'd think.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #813 on: March 26, 2018, 08:00:51 AM »
Here you go, this is one link to the study.   https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #814 on: March 26, 2018, 08:02:09 AM »
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.3646360b8eac

Here's a discussion of the article that person referenced. The CDC gives a range of 108,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year based on numerous surveys, and points out that this data should be studied more in depth due to the unreliability of said surveys. The data isn't great, but even taking the low number estimate (or even divide this number by 2!) is still significant.

It is, of course, about impossible to get good data, given that a big portion of defensive uses involve no gunshot, and result in no crime committed. (defensive brandishing) You are completely reliant on word of mouth for cases like that, I'd think.

Huh. Yeah, that's not really great data. Nor does it say anything like "the CDC says guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year."

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #815 on: March 26, 2018, 08:08:55 AM »
Read my post, it does point out 500,000 to 3 million in the report (even if you wanted to reduce it to 120,000, that is still more lives saved than lost to gun violence). It has data from all sides and just because it does not follow ones thoughts on guns, does not mean to discredit this report that was conducted based on an order by Obama and Congress. It was given significant funding and resources to perform this research.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #816 on: March 26, 2018, 08:13:07 AM »
Also this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

As far as I can tell the numbers suggested in this study are completely meaningless and should be thrown out. Not even taking the low number and dividing by 2 has any real meaning. Now that the CDC can (maybe) do real research we may have some usable estimates in the future or perhaps something more legitimate already exists, but this is not it.

ETA: Maybe I shouldn't say completely meaningless, but I'm not putting any stock in these numbers. Too many questions remain, at least one being, how many cases where a gun was used in self defense wouldn't have required a gun if neither party involved had a gun? And then about a million more questions.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 08:27:45 AM by Dabnasty »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #817 on: March 26, 2018, 08:14:57 AM »
Read my post, it does point out 500,000 to 3 million in the report (even if you wanted to reduce it to 120,000, that is still more lives saved than lost to gun violence). It has data from all sides and just because it does not follow ones thoughts on guns, does not mean to discredit this report that was conducted based on an order by Obama and Congress. It was given significant funding and resources to perform this research.

I did read your post. I was quoting from your post.

The report doesnít say what you said it did.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #818 on: March 26, 2018, 08:19:42 AM »
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #819 on: March 26, 2018, 08:21:28 AM »
By the way, just like all data, its not solid and can be missing a lot of variables, but we cannot deny that guns do save lives and protect countless people in the USA.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #820 on: March 26, 2018, 08:24:19 AM »
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

I think what's being pointed out is that defensive gun uses are not equivalent to saved lives.  Along with the fact that the particular study that you are citing was conducted by a biased individual and has serious methodological problems.  Not that you quoted the wrong numbers.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #821 on: March 26, 2018, 08:24:52 AM »
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

Defensive gun uses -- which in a self-reported survey might be largely in the eye of the beholder in terms of what exactly constitutes "use" -- are NOT the same as "lives saved." It's incredibly sloppy thinking to insist otherwise.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #822 on: March 26, 2018, 08:37:04 AM »
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

Defensive gun uses -- which in a self-reported survey might be largely in the eye of the beholder in terms of what exactly constitutes "use" -- are NOT the same as "lives saved." It's incredibly sloppy thinking to insist otherwise.

It also doesn't mean a 1:1 correlation between offensive and defensive use. There are presumably a statistically significant number of defensive uses where the defensive gun is the only one in play.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #823 on: March 26, 2018, 08:40:25 AM »
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #824 on: March 26, 2018, 09:04:14 AM »
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.
Ya, and this one time I shot a possum that very well could have had rabies. I mean maybe he didn't, but we don't know that. Count it! Then again, another time I killed a possum with a shovel. Maybe a shovel would have had the same effect in your burglar situation?

I'm not trying to make fun of your near break in, that's a scary situation and I completely understand why you felt safer with a gun and you're probably more adament about owning one after that incident. But the numbers you're citing are not sound data, not even close. Self reported data on this question is almost certain to draw false positives and there were other flaws as well. So all you've really provided is numbers that no one here is going to take seriously and one anecdotal case. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your conclusions but you're going to need more information to make that case. Even if we could determine owning guns for self defense was a net positive, there is still a debate to be had about what guns should and shouldn't be allowed/restricted/banned.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #825 on: March 26, 2018, 09:30:49 AM »
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.

Yeah, I think you're misreading what I said.

Nobody is arguing guns never deter crime. Some people might be arguing that they don't deter enough crime to be worth the social costs, but even that isn't going to be a huge number of Americans.

The bulk of the gun control debate centers around the details of the specific weapons (because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it), and who is buying/selling. Over the past 20 years or so, the NRA has come out hard against meaningful laws dealing with those two things, so this is where we are now.

A majority of American households choose not to keep objects whose primary purpose is "weapon." If you choose to have these things, it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to support restrictions on time, manner and place (amazingly, the same kind of restrictions we place on the First Amendment).

Maybe should turn it around and make it "Fuck you, I don't like guns." But wait, that might hurt somebody's feels.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11389
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #826 on: March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 AM »
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 09:39:30 AM by GuitarStv »

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #827 on: March 26, 2018, 09:39:02 AM »
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)

jimmymango

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #828 on: March 26, 2018, 09:39:33 AM »
Apologies as I've been jumping in and out of this thread, so I don't know if this point has been made already.

The U.S. is unique among developed nations in terms of gun ownership numbers (total number of guns, percentage of the population owning guns). So, considering that a full ban isn't going to fly (a concession from the Left), and that if the goal truly is to reduce the numbers of gun deaths, then federal gun-restriction legislation will have to become a reality (a concession from the Right).

So the solution then would be to examine the things that other nations with little or no gun violence do, and implement all policies that stop short of disarming the populace. Not an easy pill to swallow, but it seems to me to be the answer to solving our gun violence problems.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #829 on: March 26, 2018, 09:40:48 AM »
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)

LOL.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11389
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #830 on: March 26, 2018, 09:46:13 AM »
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #831 on: March 26, 2018, 09:55:51 AM »
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.


Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #832 on: March 26, 2018, 09:58:25 AM »
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

100 percent agree with you :) My whole counter is to not get to the point of gun bans or restrict so much to the point its practically banned. Its just like the parties on the right pushing "safety" laws on abortion in my state of Texas, which makes abortion practically banned. I can't stand when either sides preaches for safety, but really its just leading to a "ban" for the most part. Overall, I agree with you, we do need to enforce the laws in place and maybe even see why things are falling through the cracks and how to shore up those areas a bit. Thank you for your sensible reply.

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #833 on: March 26, 2018, 10:00:40 AM »
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.

Sorry, that is not what I was trying to do, and I still believe my source is not what you think. I just read so much in this thread about how guns are bad this and that, but wanted to add in that guns do and can help people. Its hard to push my point online over texts, I am not the best at writing or grammar as you can probably tell.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #834 on: March 26, 2018, 10:17:58 AM »
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.

Sorry, that is not what I was trying to do, and I still believe my source is not what you think. I just read so much in this thread about how guns are bad this and that, but wanted to add in that guns do and can help people. Its hard to push my point online over texts, I am not the best at writing or grammar as you can probably tell.

To be fair there are plenty of people who are speaking with emotion on both sides but if you want to be involved in a debate about gun control I find it's best to ignore comments that don't really make an assertion that you can counter or support with facts.

If you still think your source carries any meaning, you'll need to counter the numerous flaws that others have pointed out. It feels like you are ignoring these comments.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #835 on: March 26, 2018, 10:20:28 AM »
I've read a whole lot of the gun control wishlists out there. Not a one says "ban all guns in the US". Even if all of them were implemented, you could still own a gun to defend yourself from a burglar. You just wouldn't be able to kill him in a giant hail of bullets. (Unless, of course, you're a felon.)

The first Amendment is absolutely curtailed: you can't slander people. You can lose your job by being an ass on social media. The 2nd absolutely should be curtailed in a way that other people's rights are not harmed. I don't want my kids to be terrified at school, something that is happening by asking them to do shooter drills, walk by armed cops every day, or go through metal detectors. These things harm their psyche more than they protect. If you have more hoops to jump through to own your gun so my kids can stop being reminded constantly that guns threaten them, yes, I fully support that.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 10:23:47 AM by TrudgingAlong »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #836 on: March 26, 2018, 10:21:24 AM »
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)

Except none of that is relevant to what I said, but sure mic drop away from hard conversations.

Burglars are generally trying to avoid people (armed or otherwise) while doing their burglarizing, it tends not to be good for their outcomes. It's perfectly plausible that you could've scared them off without a gun too. There's no way to know with anything approaching certainty.

I fully appreciate the value racking a shotgun provides to someone trying to stop something bad from happening, but gun rights aren't a binary thing.

I also think you might not understand free speech. I know lots of people don't understand free speech.

The First Amendment protects you from government sanctions based on your speech. There are exceptions to those protections (time/manner/place restrictions). The First Amendment doesn't address what happens to you when you say something other people don't like, nor should it. It doesn't enshrine a right to a Twitter account, or the right to a book publishing and distribution deal. So when YouTube decides to restrict gun content and people get all "FREE SPEECH!" it just makes them look stupid, because they clearly don't understand what they're saying.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #837 on: March 26, 2018, 10:55:48 AM »
Too many questions remain, at least one being, how many cases where a gun was used in self defense wouldn't have required a gun if neither party involved had a gun? And then about a million more questions.

Sorry, but this is not a valid criticism of the data. If you do that, then you need to figure out how many murders would still have occurred if neither party had a gun.... then, about a million other questions.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11389
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #838 on: March 26, 2018, 11:06:17 AM »
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 11:12:34 AM by GuitarStv »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1103
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #839 on: March 26, 2018, 12:13:00 PM »
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases)

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

Those are still federal crimes though.

Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.   

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #840 on: March 26, 2018, 12:23:02 PM »
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11389
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #841 on: March 26, 2018, 12:31:34 PM »
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.

Then when considering the detrimental effects of gun use we need a study that covers similar territory.  We need to cover the uses of a gun for intimidation as well as unreported accidents.  If you don't have this number, then you're trying to compare apples (all possible defensive uses of a gun) to oranges (just reported crimes where gun use was proven by police).

I suspect that when comparing like to like you'll find that defensive uses are outnumbered by offensive uses.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11389
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #842 on: March 26, 2018, 12:37:52 PM »
Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.

So we have a case where Chicago has a system to catch straw purchasers.  It is effective in doing so, and is used to prevent these people from buying guns again.  It typically results in no jail time.

In comparison, (in Texas for example) there is effectively no way to catch straw purchases.  Since they're not caught, they don't get jail time.  Since there's no registry/background checks done they're not prevented from doing this again.

You argument appears to be that the former is not treating gun crime seriously, and therefore 'liberals' are not interested in stopping straw purchasers.  You are completely silent on the latter for some reason.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #843 on: March 26, 2018, 03:36:53 PM »
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.

Then when considering the detrimental effects of gun use we need a study that covers similar territory.  We need to cover the uses of a gun for intimidation as well as unreported accidents.  If you don't have this number, then you're trying to compare apples (all possible defensive uses of a gun) to oranges (just reported crimes where gun use was proven by police).

I suspect that when comparing like to like you'll find that defensive uses are outnumbered by offensive uses.

I suspect not.   With the lack of data, all we're left with is  speculation. So here is mine:

Given that there ARE figures for non-fatal firearms related crime, that put it in the 414,000 incidents/year range, and that most incidents where a gun is firearm related ARE reported to police.. The 414K figure factors in that they estimate 39% of non fatal firearm related crimes are unreported.

Given that ~75% of robberies, 70% of aggravated assault, and 91+% of other non-fatal violence was perpetrated by someone who was NOT armed, an absence of firearms would simply result in conversion of most "armed" crimes to "unarmed." IE, the crime would happen anyway. This follows - the goal of armed robbery isn't to be armed while robbing a house - the goal is to rob the house. The goal is to assault the person, to rape, to.. whatever. The gun in most cases, is secondary, and is there only to make sure if they're met by a homeowner with a bat, that they have the upper hand. Or they just carry it because Thug Life.  It is therefore not the gun that is the primary motive, facilitator, or creator of the crime. It is therefore not legitimate to add to the "detrimental" aspect of firearms... at least not a 1:1 ratio. 

Well, how much detriment should be attributed to firearms? It appears that of the 414k non-fatal violence incidents, 7% of them resulted in a serious injury, which may or may not have been a gunshot wound. Everything else involved no unjury, or minor things like bruises. Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

With a defensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure the home owner has the upper hand, if the criminal comes to the house armed with anything from a knife, up to and including a gun. When a gun is brandished against a criminal armed in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and is accredited to defensive uses.

Yes, this is mostly speculation, approximation, and assumption. But it is as good as anything else I've seen out there for this, and I'm using what data is available.


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #844 on: March 26, 2018, 08:11:36 PM »
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.


middo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #845 on: March 26, 2018, 11:08:27 PM »
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #846 on: March 27, 2018, 01:31:27 AM »
Quote
Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

Letís say you live to 85 years old. Thatís 5,700,000 incidents over your life time.

If gun violence continues increasing at 6% per year itís 159,000,000 incidents in ones lifetime.

Either scenario seems far to high risk for my liking.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #847 on: March 27, 2018, 06:04:42 AM »
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, thatís not true.

Itís a common trope on the right that ďthe leftĒ doesnít know anything about guns and therefore you canít have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that ďassault rifleĒ was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 06:11:14 AM by Kris »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #848 on: March 27, 2018, 06:51:38 AM »
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Acting like "assault rifle" doesn't have a specific meaning is intellectually dishonest at best. If you want me to say "assault weapon" instead, fine, but you're just being pedantic. We can quibble about details like what rounds a particular weapon uses, but that's basically misdirection.

-Pistol grip or bullpup design
-Modular
-Usually derived from selective-fire rifles initially designed for the military
-Detachable box magazine

 The vast majority of the weapons we're addressing here are in the M16/M4/AK47 realm. The overarching problem with this class of weapon is that they're designed to put a lot of bullets into targets in a short period of time, while moving. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with people wanting something like an M1 Garand. Yes, it's more destructive from a ballistics point of view, but overall rate of fire is basically limited by reloading speed and design.

I'm not delusional enough to think that gun control will stop violent people from doing violence. The kinds of changes we're talking about are harm reduction measures. The best data we have shows that, if you can't escape or effectively barricade, attacking a shooter is how you reduce casualties. When is the best time for an unarmed person to attack someone with a gun? When they're reloading.

2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.

A. Right to life supersedes pretty much everything else
B. "Opposing gun rights" is a not-so-subtle dig at anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of gun rights
C. Just because something is foreign to you doesn't mean it's invalid or silly
D. Some of the most fearful people I know are gun owners, they've bought into the amped up rhetoric about how violent the world is, and they can't see things any other way
E. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I just don't think any random slob off the street should be able to be any weapon imaginable.  But sure, act like I'm a hysterical know-nothing.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #849 on: March 27, 2018, 07:22:22 AM »
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Here's one definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

I think the federal ban was incomplete and had too many exemptions. I also think we should drop the "Assault Weapon" term, but only because there is not a 100% agreed upon definition and some gun rights advocates like to use that fact to end the discussion. Most definitions overlap but if someone is for an assault weapons ban what that really means is that they are in favor of banning more weapons than we currently do. If someone uses the term "assault weapon" what they're really saying is, "weapon that I think should be banned".

ETA: I assumed you meant "assault weapons" rather than "assault rifles"
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 07:44:30 AM by Dabnasty »