Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thank you. It's a good suggestion.

Note: they have these at many inner city schools, where mass shootings haven't occurred. Why mass shootings don't occur at these schools has not been studied.

Some don't like the thought of school being akin to prison, though.

The statistical odds of a given school having an event like this is effectively zero. Inner city schools have the metal detectors because of a much greater problem of kids with weapons - knives, guns, etc. It's not for this sort of event. Unfortunately, short of having a man trap (which is terribly inefficient for large numbers of people), not sure that the metal detectors are much good in a situation where a suicidal shooting starts a rampage.

Rare as these are, most events happen at high schools, by unhappy teenagers. It seems almost like overkill to do it at the grade school and it sends a tough message to the kids. Aside from this event, I recall the Stockton shootings in the early 90s was also a grade school.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

Your counter proposal to throw away medical privacy laws is a serious, yet obviously misguided one...fails to consider the next order consequences of punishing people for seeking care.

Throwing away due process or basic rights, otoh, is not a serious proposal.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Ahh

I know a SEAL that is a 2nd grade teacher today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Ahh

I know a SEAL that is a 2nd grade teacher today

Cool, but I doubt you'll find SEALs in many elementary school classrooms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Ahh

I know a SEAL that is a 2nd grade teacher today

Cool, but I doubt you'll find SEALs in many elementary school classrooms.

Comercial pilots can be trained

So can the teachers that chose to do so

I hear priviate pilots are not trainable however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Ahh

I know a SEAL that is a 2nd grade teacher today

Cool, but I doubt you'll find SEALs in many elementary school classrooms.

Comercial pilots can be trained

So can the teachers that chose to do so

I hear priviate pilots are not trainable however

OK, suggest a realistic initial and recurrent training regime for a typical 1st grade teacher that would bring them to equivalent ability to react in a tactical situation as a Federal Air Marshal, which is the comparison kelpdiver used.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

It occurred right after an election, so the Democrats don't fear an immediate voter retaliation. OTOH, that also works against them - people might be onboard right now for rights violations, just like they were after 9/11, but that fades. Newt's GOP takeover came in 1994 - same year as the AWB.

It's possible this could get another ban on full capacity magazines...but it's pretty obvious that this is window dressing and had no bearing on the shootings in the late 90s, including Columbine. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a lick of experience that forcing shooters to carry 8-9 rounds per magazine doesn't reduce their ability to kill a lot of people if they choose.

Quote

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Ahh

I know a SEAL that is a 2nd grade teacher today

Cool, but I doubt you'll find SEALs in many elementary school classrooms.

Comercial pilots can be trained

So can the teachers that chose to do so

I hear priviate pilots are not trainable however

OK, suggest a realistic initial and recurrent training regime for a typical 1st grade teacher that would bring them to equivalent ability to react in a tactical situation as a Federal Air Marshal, which is the comparison kelpdiver used.

I was not talking about a federal air marshall

I was talking about comercial pilots

I dont think they have to be at that level

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

Quote

Let's make one thing very clear that many of you have mis-stated and I believe may believe wrongly about that is a very serious and eggregious mis-understanding of our constitution. INALIANABLE rights mean those we are born with, they are natural rights, incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred by any man over another. Endowed by their creator. Further the declaration states that these are "self evident", meaning that the basic human rights require no defense because their virtue is unquestionable. It further states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" meaning we the people are the only ones who have granted the govt the power to govern.
I absolutely abhor seeing or hearing people say or imply that we were "given" these rights by a constitution, or worse yet we are "allowed" to have them by the govenrment. This type of thinking and speaking crates the impression that they can be revoked or altered.
Sorry....pet peeve of mine.

------------------------------------------------------------
Good point. And when military and police are sworn in they are swown to protect the constitution of the united states. Not the president.

[normiss 622]

Interesting piece from Harvard

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You got a serious suggestion - let teachers and administrators carry. No different from air marshalls on planes. You reject it, but that's a personal opinion - you can't say it's not a serious suggestion.

.

I do not see trained federal air marshals and 1st grade teachers as equally able to respond well to such situations.

Well, at least you can now acknowledge you've been given a suggestion.

As for your point - it would seem to be a good one, except that we've already covered how poorly trained the median LEO is in the situation as well. It doesn't not take much training to get that 1st grader to that level - 4 days at Front Sight would go well past it. In two hours I could give someone adequate training for how to lock the classroom door and get behind a desk with a clear line of fire. That's all it takes to protect the people in the nearby classrooms.

--
On a slight tangent, since it won't address this aspect of gun deaths, if we went for national legalization of most recreational drugs we would eliminate half of the gun deaths each year, almost immediately. But this would mostly remove just felon on felon violence, plus a few incidents where bystanders are killed.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Interesting piece from Harvard

Interesting piece from Penn.

Meanwhile, from Harvard:

Social Science & Medicine
Volume 64, Issue 3, February 2007, Pages 656-664

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003

Matthew Miller, a, , David Hemenwaya, and Deborah Azraela,
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract
Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001–2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

Keywords: Homicide; Firearms; Guns; Violence; Epidemiology; USA


Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 432 1459.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

More so when stolen.

[kelpdiver 2]

we've long known that gun ownership is correlated with victimization. Shouldn't really be a surprise.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

More so when stolen.

Many years ago my instructor told us that a firearm in the home was more likely to injure or kill a member fo the household or a friend, or be stolen, than be used to shoot an intruder.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

That's a nice story.

I disagree based on my personal life experience.

[billvon 2,400]

>I disagree based on my personal life experience.

========================
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
New Scientist
15:26 06 October 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

. . .

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
==========================

[regulator 0]

Thats your problem. Youre still living off what some old crusty ass professor said about how YOU should live YOUR life. And you are still following the same mantra... just like a lemming.

How is it that ivy league professors think they know better than anyone else?

[billvon 2,400]

Your one warning. No PA's.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, suggest a realistic initial and recurrent training regime for a typical 1st grade teacher that would bring them to equivalent ability to react in a tactical situation as a Federal Air Marshal, which is the comparison kelpdiver used.

Compulsory two year draft for males and females upon reaching the age of 18.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[normiss 622]

That's funny.

Filthadelphia. The city of brotherly shove.

Comparing MY life experience to inner city Philly???



Always impressed when leverage is applied to statistics.
Drunks and lampposts.

[billvon 2,400]

>Comparing MY life experience to inner city Philly?

Nope. One's a study, one is a personal anecdote. They're not comparable.

Here's another study:

=========================
Guns in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit
Science Daily

Apr. 28, 2011 — Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit. A new study released in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine examined scientific research on both sides of the debate to put hard numbers to this on-going discussion.

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater.

"Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."
============================

[normiss 622]

They ARE comparable.
My life is worlds apart from Philly life - in SO many ways. A few year liberal study of an inner city (interestingly one with a high crime rate, inner city poverty, and high illegal drug use)?
I don't live in that world. In fact those are some of the reasons why I won't live in the Northeast again.

Other than a DUI manslaughter of a best friend, I know of nobody across central Florida from friends or family that have been remotely near a violent personal weapons crime....so I have yet to see the increased health risk.
For starters, I don't live in a crime ridden city, nor have I shot any family members, nor have they because they are unable to access the weapons in the first place.
Interesting you keep missing the responsibility part while willing surrendering your own to an incompetent government.

[billvon 2,400]

>They ARE comparable.

No, they're not. Your experience is your own, and you are 100% entitled to base your decisions on your experience. It is just your experience though, and is no more (or less) valid than the experience of the parents whose children were killed in Sandy Hook.

Wider studies get a better sense of what will happen to the AVERAGE person. Those are two completely different things. What is best for you may well not be what's best for the average person.

Personally I have carried but have never needed guns to defend myself. I was mugged once in NYC and defended myself with basic physical self-defense - so from my experience, guns aren't needed. (And I am very glad that during that one confrontation, all he might have gotten was my wallet.) But again, that's just for me.

>Other than a DUI manslaughter of a best friend, I know of nobody across central
>Florida from friends or family that have been remotely near a violent personal
>weapons crime

Two good friends of mine have been shot and killed. A friend of mine just had one of her former students shot in Connecticut. I'm glad you never have had to experience any of that, and I hope you never do.

[regulator 0]

I think that could apply to someone who purchases the weapon and doesnt have any training and only has it for a 'crisis situation'. However, for someone like myself who was trained by a professional gunsmith and shooter (my father) That won't apply. I am constantly working to be a better marksman and due to the ingraining of gun safety by my father the odds of something happening in my house where someone OTHER than a perp braking in are remote.

Gun safety rules I grew up with:

Always point the end of the weapon downrange
Never load the weapon until you are ready to fire
Always keep the weapon on safety until ready to fire
Never point your weapon at any person...loaded or not.
Lock your weapons and never show children where you keep your weapons


If these rules are followed (and a few more that arent mentioined) then the chances of an in house misfire are going to be remote.