Gun Free Zones

[Symmetry]

Those no good fact-peddlers. Wioutta,


--Andy

It's getting weird how wrong Scotty is on this stuff. An odd mistake here or there is understandable, but he's not simply wrong- he's posting the exact opposite of the truth.

[Phatscotty]

it was an accident. truth be told, I asked about it here yesterday and the day before. didn't get a response

Thanks for pointing it out, Symm

I had heard they found the assault rifle in the trunk...

[Lootifer]

it was an accident. truth be told, I asked about it here yesterday and the day before. didn't get a response

Thanks for pointing it out, Symm

I had heard they found the assault rifle in the trunk...

In your defense I too had heard the murders were done with two handguns. It seems there was a bit of misinformation at the beginning.

[Symmetry]

it was an accident. truth be told, I asked about it here yesterday and the day before. didn't get a response

Thanks for pointing it out, Symm

I had heard they found the assault rifle in the trunk...

Out of interest, where did you hear that?

[Metsfanmax]

As to whether carrying a weapon means you'll be able to stop someone...

[Phatscotty]

As to whether carrying a weapon means you'll be able to stop someone...

FTFY

[Metsfanmax]

So I make the argument that the average civilian with a concealed weapon would not be able to stop a spree shooting from occurring due to the mass chaos and moving targets, as well as the likelihood that an innocent person will be shot. Your counter-argument to this is that you have an example of a person stopping a single unarmed robber inside her own house, with a gun that was lying around and enough time to find it and load it.

Well done.

[Phatscotty]

So I make the argument that the average civilian with a concealed weapon would not be able to stop a spree shooting from occurring due to the mass chaos and moving targets, as well as the likelihood that an innocent person will be shot. Your counter-argument to this is that you have an example of a person stopping a single unarmed robber inside her own house, with a gun that was lying around and enough time to find it and load it.

Well done.

Well, I have already provided a list of average civilians with a concealed weapon stopping a shooting spree. The one in Oregon just about a week ago was cut short by just such an average citizen. That "shooting spree" ended with 2 dead people.

As to whether or not you can stop someone who wants to shoot a bunch of people, you can about as much as you can stop some random person walking past you from lunging at you for no apparent reason with a blade. You probably can't stop that person from attacking you unless you make everyone walk around on leashes and make laws saying no person can come within 50 yards of another person, and then have every single person follow that law.

In either case, there is one way that an attacker can be stopped, and that is by defending yourself with a gun. If you don't have a gun, then you are completely defenseless and at some evil psycho's mercy

[Metsfanmax]

So I make the argument that the average civilian with a concealed weapon would not be able to stop a spree shooting from occurring due to the mass chaos and moving targets, as well as the likelihood that an innocent person will be shot. Your counter-argument to this is that you have an example of a person stopping a single unarmed robber inside her own house, with a gun that was lying around and enough time to find it and load it.

Well done.

Well, I have already provided a list of average civilians with a concealed weapon stopping a shooting spree. The one in Oregon just about a week ago was cut short by just such an average citizen. That "shooting spree" ended with 2 dead people.

An "average citizen?" Nick Meli, the man who stopped the incident, was a former security guard at the mall it happened at and intends to go into law enforcement. That is not the description of the "average citizen" when it comes to gun training. Now, obviously the guy is a hero who may have saved a number of lives. But what he did is not representative of what the average person can do in a tense situation like that. It should not be used as justification for the argument that the average citizen should carry a concealed weapon.

In either case, there is one way that an attacker can be stopped, and that is by defending yourself with a gun. If you don't have a gun, then you are completely defenseless and at some evil psycho's mercy

I don't disagree with this assessment. But when this line of defense itself usually very ineffective, it's very possible that the larger effect on society ought to be considered.

[Phatscotty]

all he did was pull out his gun and aim it at the shooter. I suspect a large majority of concealed carriers, when faced with a psycho starting a shooting spree, would surely pull out their fire arm and aim it towards the shooter.

That's what the gun is there for. You are thinking of carrying a gun from a non carrying perspective. I'm not sure you can understand.

[stahrgazer]

Could do what they do at airlines... pilots can volunteer to go thru an extensive program that then allows them to carry a gun into the cockpits on their flights. Which pilots have signed on for this program is not disclosed to the public, so you cannot know which pilots do and which pilots don't.

If they establish a similar program for teachers/school workers to volunteer for, then potential killers won't know which teacher does and which teacher doesn't.

Schools would no longer be sitting ducks for crazies. Well, there'd still be libraries, churches, and a few other "gun free zones" that might be the next targets, but less likely the victims would all be such young kids.

[crispybits]

all he did was pull out his gun and aim it at the shooter. I suspect a large majority of concealed carriers, when faced with a psycho starting a shooting spree, would surely pull out their fire arm and aim it towards the shooter.

That's what the gun is there for. You are thinking of carrying a gun from a non carrying perspective. I'm not sure you can understand.

And as I linked the shooter didn't instantly decide to shoot himself, he moved away to a different part of the building and it was when police sirens became audible that he shot himself. The police even say that this was probably the reason, rather than being aimed at by a civilian.

The governemnt tyranny argument is flawed unless you give everyone the right to own aircraft carriers, cruise missiles and apache helicopters fully armed with high explosive rockets.

The self defence argument is flawed, study after study shows that either self defence by gun is no more effective than other methods or that without proper training regularly refreshed a civilian caught by surprise stands virtually no chance against a premeditated shooter.

Which means all we're left with is "but it's in the constitution!!1!1!!" So was slavery once. That document is not infallible, and it cannot be used as a justification in and of itself. You have to make clear arguments based on the good of society as a whole, not just claim it's a done deal because it's written on a piece of paper and that will never, ever change.

In 2008 a big song and dance was made about the fact that accidental gun deaths (from either unintentional dischrages or from kids playing with the weapon or similar) was at an all time low. ONLY 592 people died from this cause. Wow isn't that great - ONLY 3 times as many people as died to accidental/unintentional discharges in the US per capita as died to gunshots of all kinds in Japan. Progress!

[thegreekdog]

Does advertising (for lack of a better term), gun ownership reduce the chances of a place to be targeted by a potential spree-killer?

I don't know the answer, but for example, I heard that the Joker killer had his choice of five (or seven) movie theaters to target and chose the theater that had a posted "no guns" sign, even though it was farther away. I don't think that is proof of anything, but I wonder if there is a deterrent factor (rather than an actual "hey I stopped a shooting spree"). I'm trying to recall whether, in any of the recent shooting sprees, any of the potential victims had guns. I think the answer is no.

[comic boy]

Does advertising (for lack of a better term), gun ownership reduce the chances of a place to be targeted by a potential spree-killer?

I don't know the answer, but for example, I heard that the Joker killer had his choice of five (or seven) movie theaters to target and chose the theater that had a posted "no guns" sign, even though it was farther away. I don't think that is proof of anything, but I wonder if there is a deterrent factor (rather than an actual "hey I stopped a shooting spree"). I'm trying to recall whether, in any of the recent shooting sprees, any of the potential victims had guns. I think the answer is no.

It may be a deterrent to certain people in certain circumstances but consider that where I live almost nobody owns a firearm , I have literally never seen one , so the the pool of potential victims is huge yet......
I keep being told the guns are an integral part of US culture, that may be so but can anybody seriously think the the gun death levels are acceptable in a civilised society , the culture needs to change.

[AndyDufresne]

it was an accident. truth be told, I asked about it here yesterday and the day before. didn't get a response

Thanks for pointing it out, Symm

I had heard they found the assault rifle in the trunk...

I think I recall that they found a shotgun in his trunk?


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Does advertising (for lack of a better term), gun ownership reduce the chances of a place to be targeted by a potential spree-killer?

I don't know the answer, but for example, I heard that the Joker killer had his choice of five (or seven) movie theaters to target and chose the theater that had a posted "no guns" sign, even though it was farther away. I don't think that is proof of anything, but I wonder if there is a deterrent factor (rather than an actual "hey I stopped a shooting spree"). I'm trying to recall whether, in any of the recent shooting sprees, any of the potential victims had guns. I think the answer is no.

It may be a deterrent to certain people in certain circumstances but consider that where I live almost nobody owns a firearm , I have literally never seen one , so the the pool of potential victims is huge yet......
I keep being told the guns are an integral part of US culture, that may be so but can anybody seriously think the the gun death levels are acceptable in a civilised society , the culture needs to change.

When people say "the culture needs to change" what culture are they referring to? Are they referring to the gun culture? Are they referring to a criminal culture?

As far as I know and can tell, the members of those two cultures do not operate in the same circles. The people that are members of the NRA tend to not be people shooting others in the streets.

[Metsfanmax]

Then obviously, everyone should join the NRA and we'll all be safe.

[thegreekdog]

Then obviously, everyone should join the NRA and we'll all be safe.

I don't think I suggested that, but I suppose that's one idea. Seems a little divergent from your normal views on these types of things.

Anyway - what culture do you want to change Mets?

[comic boy]

Crimanality occurs throughout the developed world without the resulting levels of homocide, I would venture that gun culture is the X factor in the USA .

[thegreekdog]

Crimanality occurs throughout the developed world without the resulting levels of homocide, I would venture that gun culture is the X factor in the USA .

So if we eliminate the NRA, without changing any laws, violent crime would decrease in the US? I find that hard to believe.

[Metsfanmax]

Then obviously, everyone should join the NRA and we'll all be safe.

I don't think I suggested that, but I suppose that's one idea. Seems a little divergent from your normal views on these types of things.

Anyway - what culture do you want to change Mets?

There's lots of culture I think should change; for example, meat eating.

On the guns topic I don't see it as a culture issue (at least, not from any way in which the government can help this problem). The government's job is to determine the firearms policy that strikes the best balance between civilian protection and access to guns for criminals; this optimal policy would minimize the number of gun-related deaths.

[AndyDufresne]

Crimanality occurs throughout the developed world without the resulting levels of homocide, I would venture that gun culture is the X factor in the USA .

So if we eliminate the NRA, without changing any laws, violent crime would decrease in the US? I find that hard to believe.

I don't think getting rid of the NRA would really change anything. But I think the statistics that look into global gun violence, the U.S. does look like an outlier sort of, in that we seem to rank around countries like Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, and some southeast Asian countries in terms of numbers. Gun stats are always weird.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Then obviously, everyone should join the NRA and we'll all be safe.

I don't think I suggested that, but I suppose that's one idea. Seems a little divergent from your normal views on these types of things.

Anyway - what culture do you want to change Mets?

On the guns topic I don't see it as a culture issue (at least, not from any way in which the government can help this problem). The government's job is to determine the firearms policy that strikes the best balance between civilian protection and access to guns for criminals; this optimal policy would minimize the number of gun-related deaths.

I agree with you in that it is not a cultural issue. I suspect that most people who own guns and are part of a "gun culture" are not using them for nefarious ends. So the issue is, as you indicate, a way to strike a balance (although I think that balance is between protecting civilians and preventing crime, rather than preventing criminals access to guns).

But I think the statistics that look into global gun violence, the U.S. does look like an outlier sort of, in that we seem to rank around countries like Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, and some southeast Asian countries in terms of numbers. Gun stats are always weird.

Yeah, but I wonder if that is because a lot of people own guns (or there are a lot of guns... I actually know very few gun owners) or because of something else. I think we have a lot more crime, generally, per capita than most other countries.

[comic boy]

Crimanality occurs throughout the developed world without the resulting levels of homocide, I would venture that gun culture is the X factor in the USA .

So if we eliminate the NRA, without changing any laws, violent crime would decrease in the US? I find that hard to believe.

You are putting words in my mouth but I will respond in good grace The single most effective way of decreasing violent crime in the US would be an overhaul of the drug laws that both drive crime and criminalise a ridiculously large percentage of the population. The single most effective way of decreasing gun deaths in the USA would be to decrease the volume of firearms in circulation.

[thegreekdog]

Crimanality occurs throughout the developed world without the resulting levels of homocide, I would venture that gun culture is the X factor in the USA .

So if we eliminate the NRA, without changing any laws, violent crime would decrease in the US? I find that hard to believe.

You are putting words in my mouth but I will respond in good grace The single most effective way of decreasing violent crime in the US would be an overhaul of the drug laws that both drive crime and criminalise a ridiculously large percentage of the population. The single most effective way of decreasing gun deaths in the USA would be to decrease the volume of firearms in circulation.

I stole this from someone else, but I think it's relevant:

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.

I don't disagree with decriminalizing drugs and I think that's the biggest step the United States needs to take. I'm not sure what to do about gun crimes, but I'm not convinced that banning guns will fix the problem.