The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm curious, assuming you could get the research approved, what studies would you all like to see regarding guns?

[twa]

seems a rather large imposition when simply providing better security in baggage claims would prevent it in most cases....and someone walking in from outside as well.

 

we make killing fields and wonder why it happens

 

 

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/01/07/another-gun-free-zone-another-mass-killing/

[tshile]

@twa I know, I was just throwing it out there

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, twa said:

1. The NRA uses it's public support, w/o that there is no clout. 

2. Do you deny the bias from previous CDC studies?

1. I understand that. Doesn't make them right.

2. I do not. Do you deny that we could easily get an unbiased study done, that because one group was unabashedly biased in the past is a bad excuse not to, and that there are almost certainly some sensical changes that would come out of it that would save lives?

[twa]

38 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

1. I understand that. Doesn't make them right.

2. I do not. Do you deny that we could easily get an unbiased study done, that because one group was unabashedly biased in the past is a bad excuse not to, and that there are almost certainly some sensical changes that would come out of it that would save lives?

 

1 Doesn't make them wrong either.....simply the majority.

2 We have had studies done and more all the time....studies are not prohibited, that you asserted they are demonstrates your position.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, twa said:

 

1 Doesn't make them wrong either.....simply the majority.

2 We have had studies done and more all the time....studies are not prohibited, that you asserted they are demonstrates your position.

1. True. That isn't what makes them wrong.

2. No ****. I will be absolutely 100% specific next time so that you don't have to pretend like you don't know what I meant.

[twa]

Did you mean we need a CDC study?

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

Why did that happen?

 

Many studies have been done since the CDC got ****slapped for bias.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/

 

 

 

I think your story is garbage.  Lott's work I'm familiar with and is garbage for various reasons that we can discuss.

 

Wright and Rossi appear to have done a survey of felons and their gun usage, etc, which can be used to address questions related to Kellerman's, but is not really addressing the question if having a gun actually makes you more or less safe.

 

Kleck appears to do research on defensive gun use (i.e. survey of gun owners to see how many people have used their gun defensively), which again is a related issue, but does not really directly address the question that Kellerman did.

 

(Maybe these people have done other work that does address the issue, but I can't find it).

 

In addition, I can find other people that replicate Kellerman's results from different data/studies that your piece seems to have missed.

 

For example:

 

"Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are also important risk factors. Efforts to increase home security have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, but the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within."

 

Realistically, I don't see a lot of evidence that the CDC study was biased.  I'm not sure if the pamphlet was funded by a CDC grant or not or what the CDC grant was for.  But certainly communicating results has for a long time been considered part of the scientific methods.  If the results indicate that having a hand gun does increase your risk of being killed, then should the government not communicate that with the public?

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

So clearly studies are being done....and even published.

 

glad you settled that 

[Larry]

I've seen some posts advocating that maybe we need to expand the gun-free zone around airports, to inclute the entire terminal, and maybe the parking lots, too.  Not going to go back and try to find one specific post, to quote, though.  

 

It's occurred to me, though, that I'm seeing a problem, here, that that wouldn't solve.  

 

That the whole notion of creating gun-free zones does create at least a potential problem, like this one.  That what you've got, in places like the ticketing area and the baggage claim, is an area where guns are allowed, but where 99.9% of the people are unarmed, because they either just left a gun-free zone, or they're about to enter one.  

 

No matter where you put the security barrier, at the edge of your gun-free zone, there will be an area just outside it, where guns are allowed, but nobody has them.  

 

It's an interesting problem, no doubt.  

 

6 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Lots of extreme views in this thread on both sides. Therein lies the problem. There is a 100% chance that there are some common sense laws or regulations that would save lives without impeding on people's abilities to hunt or collect or protect their home. 

 

70% of NRA members (and 80% of Republicans) support closing the "gun show loophole".  

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

So clearly studies are being done....and even published.

 

glad you settled that 

 

There's no doubt that for a number of years the CDC felt constrained with respect to funding gun related studies and communicating the results of them.

[twa]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There's no doubt that for a number of years the CDC felt constrained with respect to funding gun related studies and communicating the results of them.

 

Constrained because those with oversight over them found them biased.

 

Others are doing studies though right?

 

why does this remind me of another subject.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Constrained because those with oversight over them found them biased.

 

Others are doing studies though right?

 

why does this remind me of another subject.

 

The CDC should be biased towards what the data supports.

 

The people doing the oversight didn't seem to like that bias.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

The CDC should be biased towards what the data supports.

 

The people doing the oversight didn't seem to like that bias.

 

They saw bias before.

You can claim they are wrong.if you like of course.

 

my opinion is the CDC needs to focus 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm still waiting for what exactly people want studied.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 hours ago, twa said:

seems a rather large imposition when simply providing better security in baggage claims would prevent it in most cases....and someone walking in from outside as well.

 

we make killing fields and wonder why it happens

Oh joy here we go again...twa trotting out the same old worn out "gun free zones" mythology that flies in the face of what the vast and overwhelming super majority of Law Enforcement professionals, leaders, and experts say.

Look twa either you support law enforcement, or you look to make their job harder.

But it doesn't take a frickin' super criminal to know that if you're about to shoot up a public place then you start with the guy packing and then add his gun to your arsenal.

It also doesn't take a super genius to realize that you running around John Wayne ste will get you killed when the LEO's show up and think you're the active shooter.

But by all means keeps trotting out that broken NRA one hit wonder.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Can you point to a few cases where a mass shooter killed a civilian with a gun and then used that gun to keep going?  Or where LE showed up and killed a civilian that was attempting to stop the shooter?  Thanks.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Look twa either you support law enforcement, or you look to make their job harder.

 

 

typical illusion, I can support both to benefit myself or others.....we do it in many areas

 

do you need me to point them out for you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

8 hours ago, twa said:

 

typical illusion, I can support both to benefit myself or others.....we do it in many areas

 

do you need me to point them out for you?

Like clockwork, take one line and ignore the rest. So tell me please why you think the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO experts and professionals are wrong.

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you point to a few cases where a mass shooter killed a civilian with a gun and then used that gun to keep going?  Or where LE showed up and killed a civilian that was attempting to stop the shooter?  Thanks.

Ummm that doesn't happen BECAUSE these are gun free zones...see how that works?

Honestly, if you would have stopped and thought for a second I'm certain you would have figured that out.

I'll pose the same question to you as I did twa (since it appears you're defending the "more guns = safer" argument) 

Please, tell the class why the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO professionals and experts are wrong on this issue. 

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Please, tell the class why the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO professionals and experts are wrong on this issue. 

 

I've got an idea. 

 

How about you support this claim you're making, before demanding that everybody else agree with it?  

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you point to a few cases where a mass shooter killed a civilian with a gun and then used that gun to keep going?  Or where LE showed up and killed a civilian that was attempting to stop the shooter?  Thanks.

There are not many mass shootings for it to have a chance of happening, but as an example a citizen with a gun almost shot the wrong person at the Gifford shooting.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?_r=1

 

(Now, it didn't happen, but it isn't hard to see where it could happen if this was a more common thing.)

 

And there is the case of the Washington Naval Yard shooting:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting#Shooting_begins

 

" While on the first floor, the shooter moved around randomly before turning around and heading towards the front entrance. There, he fired at Richard Ridgell, the security officer stationed there, through a set of windows, killing him and taking his Beretta 92FS9mm semiautomatic pistol afterwards. "

 

The person wasn't a civilian, but I'm not sure the result would have been any different if it were.

 

Due to the infrequency of mass shootings, any conversation is extremely limited.  We do not observe many behaviors because they do not happen very often.  Even twa's graphic is extremely misleading because while many people have been killed it is due to an extremely small number of events.  It also ignores the fact that areas have been made "gun free" for reasons (i.e. in response to events).  Schools were made gun free because there were increases in gun violence in schools in the late 1980s.

 

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Like clockwork, take one line and ignore the rest. So tell me please why you think the vast and over-whelming super majority of LEO experts and professionals are wrong.

 

 

Wrong or just stating their preference from their perspective?

People with guns certainly can complicate their response......I bet they prefer people behave compliantly at traffic stops as well.

 

Not long ago they preferred to secure the perimeter and wait for swat as well.

Things are changing

 

What do you think their opinion on no armed security at baggage claims is?.....since you don't want to ignore 

 

add

here is a common one

http://kqradio.com/index.php/2017/01/07/more-armed-officers-could-help-prevent-airport-shootings-expert-says/

 

how many do you wish to pay for?

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by twa

[Weganator]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There are not many mass shootings for it to have a chance of happening, but as an example a citizen with a gun almost shot the wrong person at the Gifford shooting.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?_r=1

 

(Now, it didn't happen, but it isn't hard to see where it could happen if this was a more common thing.)

 

And there is the case of the Washington Naval Yard shooting:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting#Shooting_begins

 

" While on the first floor, the shooter moved around randomly before turning around and heading towards the front entrance. There, he fired at Richard Ridgell, the security officer stationed there, through a set of windows, killing him and taking his Beretta 92FS9mm semiautomatic pistol afterwards. "

 

The person wasn't a civilian, but I'm not sure the result would have been any different if it were.

 

Due to the infrequency of mass shootings, any conversation is extremely limited.  We do not observe many behaviors because they do not happen very often.  Even twa's graphic is extremely misleading because while many people have been killed it is due to an extremely small number of events.  It also ignores the fact that areas have been made "gun free" for reasons (i.e. in response to events).  Schools were made gun free because there were increases in gun violence in schools in the late 1980s.

 

 

Good example with many good points. I just wanted to point out that the difference is that you KNOW a security officer has a gun on them because it is their job to protect the area and they have a booth and uniform indicating that purpose.

 

The point is that ANYONE could have a gun if it wasn't a gun free zone. Sure, you could probably just focus on the guy with the MAGA hat, but there is the whole 'anybody could be packing' threat that 'attacking the security officer' scenario doesn't cover.

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm still waiting for what exactly people want studied.

 

The biggest thing is to do variations in state and national gun laws reduce violent crime in general and more specifically gun related violent crime.

 

There have been some good studies done that suggest at least in some cases some laws have been effective, but we need more of that.  While studies suggest that other laws (e.g. the Brady Bill) have largely been ineffective.

 

We need a robust number of studies that look at a large number of laws from states-to-state and even in other countries to determine best policies going forward.

 

Can we identify gun laws that seem to actually reduce violence and then can we identify commonalities in those gun laws?

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

There it is folks...twa knows more than law enforcement experts.

 

FWIW @Larry twa doesn't even disagree that LEO's are against adding more guns in these zones.

7 minutes ago, Weganator said:

Good example with many good points. I just wanted to point out that the difference is that you KNOW a security officer has a gun on them because it is their job to protect the area and they have a booth and uniform indicating that purpose.

 

The point is that ANYONE could have a gun if it wasn't a gun free zone. Sure, you could probably just focus on the guy with the MAGA hat, but there is the whole 'anybody could be packing' threat that 'attacking the security officer' scenario doesn't cover.

And UNLESS they have a concealed carry then the gun MUST be carried visibly. Here where I live a good many folks love walking around with their piece strapped for everyone to see.