New Zealand responds to mass shooting

[cjwilt 8]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yes they are.

What stats did I 'spout'?

I simply agreed with the above people that owning a gun (being in possession of it) puts you more at risk of being shot.

There is enough data in the links above to establish that pretty clearly. 

 

I volunteer as a range officer at the local shooting range and have to deal with the entire spectrum of gun owners. I see some folks who are conscientious, careful and safe. Others have no business handling a gun. At all. 

 

The worst part is that the idiots usually think they are 'just great' and won't listen to anything. 

 

The risk for stupid people is likely higher than for careful and well trained owners. 

My apologies.

 

I did edit my post shortly after submitting it as I realized I was thinking back upon other discussions.

 

And I do agree about know it all folks who can't learn anything. They are the scary ones who I stay clear of.

 

The purpose of my original post was the misinformation being fed to folks.

[cjwilt 8]

12 minutes ago, kallend said:

Your posts remind me of the many now deceased, excellent skydivers (some even champions and record holders) who didn't need AAD's because they were SO good.  

What if you are a victim of Dunning-Kruger in your self assessment?

I'm not a pompous and over confident personality, I can assure you I take great strides in both gun safety and skydiving. Not to say it can't happen to me as I'm a realist but I do have the attitude that I can learn from anyone. Even those who think differently than I.

 

I too have lost a number of friends over the years do to skydiving accidents but I have never lost one to a gun. Knock on wood, I hope I never do.

[yoink 321]

9 hours ago, cjwilt said:

I do see the problem which is why I asked.

  

Where do people get this information that owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in a violent attack? I would like to know.

Maybe you missed the entire point of my post.

 

The problem of you making a conclusion on the authenticity of data before having the slightest clue where it originated was the problem I was referring to. 

The obvious bias in your thinking leading you to disregard any possible alternates that don't align with your particular opinion is the end result.

 

You saw some data you don't believe. Fine. You asked for the source, BETTER than fine. You already decided that it must be from an anti-firearms propaganda outlet. BZZZZT. That ain't how logic works, sonny.

[cjwilt 8]

7 minutes ago, yoink said:

Maybe you missed the entire point of my post.

 

The problem of you making a conclusion on the authenticity of data before having the slightest clue where it originated was the problem I was referring to. 

The obvious bias in your thinking leading you to disregard any possible alternates that don't align with your particular opinion is the end result.

 

You saw some data you don't believe. Fine. You asked for the source, BETTER than fine. You already decided that it must be from an anti-firearms propaganda outlet. BZZZZT. That ain't how logic works, sonny.

And no one has posted anything that has anything to do relating gun ownership to being violently attacked. Which is what I originally questioned.

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

43 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

And no one has posted anything that has anything to do relating gun ownership to being violently attacked. Which is what I originally questioned.

 

 

Meh, that just shows you didn't read the article I posted. Sources are provided for many of their numbers.

If your argument is that these studies often discuss 'access to firearms in the home" and this is not equal to "ownership" you are missing the point entirely.

[cjwilt 8]

10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Meh, that just shows you didn't read the article I posted. Sources are provided for many of their numbers.

If your argument is that these studies often discuss 'access to firearms in the home" and this is not equal to "ownership" you are missing the point entirely.

I did read your article which started out with many laughs.

 

And your original statement I questioned is nothing but a lie where you stated ownership, not access.

 

I own firearms, so now I'm likely to be attacked by violence. OK. How would anyone know I own firearms unless I told them?

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, cjwilt said:

I own firearms, so now I'm likely to be attacked by violence. OK. How would anyone know I own firearms unless I told them?

You keep asking how this affects you. But it is not about you. It is about the fact that being around or owning firearms makes anyone statistically more likely to suffer a gunshot injury. As far as how it could affect you? Well, there are cases everyday of family members killing each other. Someone living with you could get angry and shoot you with your own weapon. Maybe for asking the same question over and over again with slightly different phrasing until they could no longer stand it. Or having to explain to you the same thing over and over while you either pretend not to or refuse to understand. But the most likely way (statistically again) is that you could use one of your weapons to kill yourself. Or, you could suffer from an accidental shooting as hundreds of people are every year. Mostly from carelessness, but even some experts have accidents occasionally.

Guns were invented for killing people. They are tools made for that purpose. They can also be used as toys, or as collectable pieces of beautiful machine work. But their original purpose is to kill people. As long as people with human frailties and tempers have such easy means to kill they sometimes will do so.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

We'd still be worse even if we did it your way,

But better then the situation you are in now.

How, you said your way would take generations.  How long before we start seeing results?  If in the 80s we had half the guns we do now, with double the crime rate, what makes you think the crime rate would actually fall if we cut the 300+ million guns in half, back down to numbers seen in the 80s?  How long would that take?

You also said that we should make it harder to get a gun, but if the whole point of your plan is to reduce guns, why are you still allowing guns to be added to the population regardless of how hard it is to get them?

You supposedly have this "better" plan, but you never really defined it other than "guns bad."  You really should be able to answer these very basic questions if your plan really is better and as practical as you imagine, because we're already seeing results with the plan we have now.   At our current rate we'll cut the crime rate in half again within another 20 years.  No need to wait the 30-90 years as you suggest.

 

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

A situation where more school age children are shot dead per year than police officers and active duty military combined. (2,462 vs. approx. 1,144)

It's terrible, and we can do a lot better.  Many of the issues involving children such as gun safety, suicide and inner city violence are already being addressed and we're seeing results even if you refuse not to.  As I said, it takes time and we have a long way to go, but we're still getting there faster than your proposal, practical or not.

Another thing about these promising programs that have been in development for the past 20+ years, is that they address all violence, not just gun violence, and a big part of it starts with how we raise our children right now - that much should be obvious.  If we do right by them, then we can stop the cycle of violence by the time they reach the "crime prone" age group of 15-24. 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/prevention.html

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/technical-packages.html#yv

Age/Crime Relationship

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Coreece

[obelixtim 100]

I saw an interesting comment by an NRA type commenting on the ban on semis in NZ. Basically saying that the 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to hold guns, while NZ doesn't have a 2nd amendment, and somehow implying the USA was better because of it, He finished his rant by saying "its our way of life".

I just thought his wording there wasn't quite right. He would have been more  accurate saying: "it is our way of death".

Especially since more civilian Americans have died at the end of a gun than American military personnel in all wars to date.    

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

13 hours ago, cjwilt said:

 

And I do agree about know it all folks who can't learn anything. They are the scary ones who I stay clear of.

 

The purpose of my original post was the misinformation being fed to folks.

"Know-it-all" folks, like those who dismiss a stated statistic as a 'liberal lie' without even checking it? 

The misinformation seems to be coming from you.

The reality is that owning or possessing a gun makes one more likely to be shot. 
Similarly, owning a chainsaw makes one more likely to suffer a chainsaw injury. 

12 hours ago, cjwilt said:

And no one has posted anything that has anything to do relating gun ownership to being violently attacked. Which is what I originally questioned.

 

 

Who said anything about 'being violently attacked'? As was noted, many of the incidents are accidents (shooting one's self or another) or suicides.

11 hours ago, cjwilt said:

And your original statement I questioned is nothing but a lie where you stated ownership, not access.

 

I own firearms, so now I'm likely to be attacked by violence. OK. How would anyone know I own firearms unless I told them?

 

Ownership and access are pretty much interchangeable. If you own one, you have access to it. If you have access, either you or someone close to you owns it. If you want to split hairs that far, have fun.
If you want a real discussion, rather than a shouting match or an echo chamber, you have to accept that other people have differing views and try to understand them Especially where they may be right. You don't have to agree, but to dismiss opposing views without even examining them won't get you very far. 

 

Again, 'gun violence' and 'violently attacked' are not the same thing. Generally (at least for this discussion) any shooting incident (deliberate or accidental) is considered 'gun violence'. While I don't fully agree, I do have to admit that a small piece of lead (or other material) entering the human body at supersonic speeds is a pretty violent thing. 

And I'm going to guess that everyone reading this now knows that you own guns. I don't know exactly who you are (and no, I'm not going to start stalking you), but chances are that someone on here does. If you've posted pics of new guns on FB or something, then a lot of people know. 
Spouses, kids, other family members (living with you or not) usually know. So does anyone those people have told.
Range buddies know. (funny story on that below)

The people you bought them from know (either a dealer of an individual).
The people you buy ammo from know (or components if you load your own).
The list goes on and on.

 

The idea of owning guns and keeping it a secret is laughable. 

 

Funny story on range buddies: There was a regular who had a really nice M1 carbine with the paratrooper stock (original). One of the other regulars made a joke about walking off with it. I told him he'd never get away with it, because we 'knew where he lived'. He protested that we didn't know that. I said that I may not know where his house is, but I knew where he lived (he was at the range three or four times a week). 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

14 hours ago, cjwilt said:

I own firearms, so now I'm likely to be attacked by violence. OK. How would anyone know I own firearms unless I told them?

Ah, the old if nobody hears a tree fall did it really fall question.

This may be hard to fathom, but even if nobody knows you smoke, your odds of getting lung cancer increase.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

You also said that we should make it harder to get a gun, but if the whole point of your plan is to reduce guns, why are you still allowing guns to be added to the population regardless of how hard it is to get them?

Because I am not in favour of an outright gun ban. 

 

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

How, you said your way would take generations.

To change culture yes, it would. No need to think results wouldn't be achieved. Specially when combined with addressing mental health issues, addiction issues, poverty, income and wealth inequality etc. I find it odd that you seem to think outcomes can only be yes or no, black or white, on or off.

 

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

but you never really defined it other than "guns bad."

I haven't said guns are bad. Guns are but a tool, unfortunately the US has shown an inability to deal with the responsibility of the easy access to this tool.

 

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

Many of the issues involving children such as gun safety, suicide and inner city violence are already being addressed and we're seeing results even if you refuse not to.

Yes, in the age groups above 3 to early teens, though there has been a significant uptick from 2014 to 2016, the latest years I can find numbers for. However, in the age group of 0-3 the rate has almost tripled since the 80's. That can really only been ascribed to more guns being available for them to have accidents with. 

[BillyVance 34]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

I know people who honestly believe that they can drive drunk because they are excellent drivers to begin with, so even after four beers they are better than most people on the road.  And who knows?  They may be right.

But if you want to reduce the number of drunk driving deaths, making it harder to drive drunk (harsher penalties, sobriety checkpoints, laws on bartenders serving drunks) will accomplish that.

And a border wall will reduce the number of illegal aliens slipping through unseen. We can play this game all day.

[BillyVance 34]

Back to the topic of this thread... I've found where the shooter's manifesto and self POV video of the rampage is being hosted online. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, BillyVance said:

And a border wall will reduce the number of illegal aliens slipping through unseen.

Do illegal aliens not know ladders or shovels?

[cjwilt 8]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Who said anything about 'being violently attacked'? As was noted, many of the incidents are accidents (shooting one's self or another) or suicides.

 

 

Skydekker posted this...

 

Quote

The fact that owning a gun increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence is but one of the many indicators of this.

 

You agree with it, I don't. Had he said, The fact that carrying a gun increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence, I wouldn't question it.

 

Happy shooting, stay safe on the range.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

And a border wall will reduce the number of illegal aliens slipping through unseen. We can play this game all day.

Yes, the issue of how to solve a problem is up for debate.  That's no game, that's literally the thing we're doing.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

18 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

You agree with it, I don't. Had he said, The fact that carrying a gun increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence, I wouldn't question it

Because the research indicates such. Whether you agree with it or not. You haven't provided any sources or alternative research to refute it.

[cjwilt 8]

32 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Because the research indicates such. Whether you agree with it or not. You haven't provided any sources or alternative research to refute it.

I don’t know of any accurate information that includes every gun owner who died in violent attacks. Violent attacks could be stabbings, blunt force trauma, people running down pedestrians – the list goes on and on. How does someone go back and say these are the folks killed in acts of violence who owned firearms and these ones did not? The data doesn’t exist unless you know something I don’t. If it did exist the numbers from the studies posted above would be much greater making guns look worse, even if they had nothing to do with the crime.

 

There is accurate data from the FBI that funnels down to sex and race regarding shootings. This is quantifiable data.

[billvon 2,391]

25 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

I don’t know of any accurate information that includes every gun owner who died in violent attacks.

Of course.  Nor do we have accurate information that includes everyone who died of lung cancer caused by smoking.  But we do know that smoking greatly increases your risk of lung cancer.

Needless to say, people who really want to smoke say things like "there's no proof!  My grandpa smoked three packs a day and lived to 100."  But that's because they want to believe it.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, cjwilt said:

I don’t know of any accurate information that includes every gun owner who died in violent attacks

That isn't how research works. We know gravity exists, there is no data stating that somebody has tested gravity at every spot on earth.

 

1 hour ago, cjwilt said:

There is accurate data from the FBI that funnels down to sex and race regarding shootings. This is quantifiable data.

Not by your standard, not every shooting is reported.

[yoink 321]

On 3/22/2019 at 8:36 AM, BillyVance said:

Back to the topic of this thread... I've found where the shooter's manifesto and self POV video of the rampage is being hosted online. 

Firstly, why the fuck would any normal person choose to watch it???

 

Second, I applaud the NZ prime minister for stating that she will never mention the shooter by name or give them any moment of fame. We should all do the same.

Sharing the existence of links like this is pretty despicable, Billy. Even for you.

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

33 minutes ago, yoink said:

Sharing the existence of links like this is pretty despicable, Billy. Even for you.

I'm not surprised. Billy likes things that are shocking. He collects them. I'm a little surprised that he shared the word here. I'll bet you he thought about it long and hard. Anyone who knows how to search for .tor files could easily find that file anyway. There is a huge audience for things that are forbidden.

[rushmc 18]

 Changing the gun laws only makes law-abiding citizens more vulnerable and in some cases they will keep their guns and turn them in the criminals. Congratulations for a knee-jerk stupid reaction to a maniac 

[billvon 2,391]

On 3/22/2019 at 8:33 AM, BillyVance said:

And a border wall will reduce the number of illegal aliens slipping through unseen. We can play this game all day.

Much cheaper (and easier) to just elect someone like Obama, who _actually_ reduces illegal immigration.

Performance matters.