The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Popeman38]

I'm sorry. I forgot. The good guy with a gun only counts if he's in the same room.

So if a good guy charges in and starts shooting he is being irresponsible and proves regular Joe's shouldn't be carrying, and if he doesn't charge in irresponsibly he proves that having a good guy with a gun doesn't stop mass shootings. Got it.

[PeterMP]

The good guy with the gun everywhere counts, but the chances of the good guy with a gun with the training being in the right place to actually do something useful is pretty low.

 

And the more easy you to make it to carry concealed weapons, the less good with good guy with the gun with training is likely to do because the more likely he's going to be stop/impeded by the good guy with a gun without training.

So if a good guy charges in and starts shooting he is being irresponsible and proves regular Joe's shouldn't be carrying, and if he doesn't charge in irresponsibly he proves that having a good guy with a gun doesn't stop mass shootings. Got it.

 

It is very unlikely the good guy with the gun with training is going to stop a mass shooting in today's society because those people are rare and mass shootings realistically are still rare.  They just aren't likely to be in the same place at the same time.

 

The Oregon case is an example of that.  It demonstrates the basic statistics of the situation.

 

And regular Joes (people without training) shouldn't be carrying a gun because using a gun in such a situation effectively is a highly specialized skill.

 

The two things aren't opposed to one another.  They are both true.

Edited October 7, 2015 by PeterMP

[tshile]

We've had several links now that contained stories about people with concealed weapons shooting and even killing innocent people by mistake.  I'd hope those people would have had their permits revoked.

 

Right, and there are stories where people legally carrying a gun help a situation. That's the problem with anecdotes.

 

If an increase in handing out permits actually contributes to an increase in gun violence (like you suggested) then we should see that in reflected in the number of permits revoked.

 

I would think a quality journalist writing about the issue, or quality researcher studying the issue, would bother to look into that and cite it.

 

I don't follow a lot of the studies to know how often that thing is included. I was thinking you might, but I certainly wouldn't blame you if you didn't

So if a good guy charges in and starts shooting he is being irresponsible and proves regular Joe's shouldn't be carrying, and if he doesn't charge in irresponsibly he proves that having a good guy with a gun doesn't stop mass shootings. Got it.

 

That's pretty much how that one goes.

 

It just proves that it's both sides that have no interest in doing anything reasonable, or compromising on anything. It's frustrating.

[bcl05]

So...the good guy with a gun (hypothetical, idealized) is basically the dictionary definition of a vigilante, right?

This strikes me as not something to aspire to. We should be better than that.

[Burgold]

Actually, just a personal opinion, but I think the gun nuts are pretty spot on with their interpretation.

)

I disagree with you, but that's okay the Supreme Court disagrees with me so you're in pretty good standing.

I think the words "well regulated militia" can't mean a militia composed of me, myself and I.

I think the 2nd is being badly interpreted and abused. Like I said though the Supreme Court says I'm wrong and their rulings carry much more weight unfortunately.

[tshile]

And regular Joes (people without training) shouldn't be carrying a gun because using a gun in such a situation effectively is a highly specialized skill.

 

So the regular joes without the training (realistically you're talking about SWAT and special military training) that did stop someone they... what, don't count? Don't exist?

 

Are statistically irrelevant? Wonder what the people around them think about being statistically irrelevant.

 

Are the mass shootings statistically irrelevant? You say they're statically rare.

[PeterMP]

Right, and there are stories where people legally carrying a gun help a situation. That's the problem with anecdotes.

 

If an increase in handing out permits actually contributes to an increase in gun violence (like you suggested) then we should see that in reflected in the number of permits revoked.

 

I would think a quality journalist writing about the issue, or quality researcher studying the issue, would bother to look into that and cite it.

 

I don't follow a lot of the studies to know how often that thing is included. I was thinking you might, but I certainly wouldn't blame you if you didn't

 

Which is why I SPECIFICALLY came back into this thread to post studies about concealed gun laws.  And the facts show that when states change loosen their concealed gun laws or loosen their self-defense laws, they don't see significant reduction in crime, but tend to see increases in things like violence.

 

twa wants to keep talking about anecdotes and what he wants his kids to do, but we can talk about the facts, and the actual data, and the actual data doesn't support concealed gun laws doing any good.

 

It isn't hard.  There is a reason why the military trains people.  There is a reason why swat teams train in the manner they do.  There is a reason why police use swat teams and the like when they think a situation is likely to be violent.

 

Dealing with an active shooter is a specialized skill and requires training.  The average person doesn't have that training or skill.

[Larry]

So if a good guy charges in and starts shooting he is being irresponsible and proves regular Joe's shouldn't be carrying, and if he doesn't charge in irresponsibly he proves that having a good guy with a gun doesn't stop mass shootings. Got it.

Nope.

If he goes in guns blazing and shooting irresponsibly, then it proves that in that case someone went in guns blazing and shooting irresponsibly.

 

If he does nothing, then it proved that in that case, someone did not stop a mass shooting. 

 

There are lots of things that could happen, when there are multiple armed people engaging in a public firefight. 

 

Some of those things are bad.  (Some are not.) 

 

 

 

[tshile]

So...the good guy with a gun (hypothetical, idealized) is basically the dictionary definition of a vigilante, right?

 

 

Not quite. Look up the dictionary definition of a vigilante.

 

Although some try to be (see the link about the shoplifting shooting earlier), but I fail to see how those people fall under the category of 'good guy with a gun.' Seems more like idiot with a gun to me.

Which is why I SPECIFICALLY came back into this thread to post studies about concealed gun laws.

In all the studies you read, did they talk about permits being revoked and those numbers?

[Larry]

---

 

So...the good guy with a gun (hypothetical, idealized) is basically the dictionary definition of a vigilante, right?

No, I think that in the case of the idealized person, the word "hero" fits better.

To start with, one difference between "vigilante" and "hero" is that one goes out looking for a fight. The other hopes it doesn't happen.

---

 

In all the studies you read, did they talk about permits being revoked and those numbers?

I see we're still stuck on the "The only way gun permits can make things worse is if permits get revoked" meme.

Cling to it.

---

I think the words "well regulated militia" can't mean a militia composed of me, myself and I.

But the words "the people", do.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Larry

[tshile]

I see we're still stuck on the "The only way gun permits can make things worse is if permits get revoked" meme.

Cling to it.

 

That's not at all what I'm saying, but please continue to just make **** up and moderate others' conversations. It's such a great contribution you make. You can tell it's widely appreciated by the number of people that just flat out ignore you for it.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[PeterMP]

So the regular joes without the training (realistically you're talking about SWAT and special military training) that did stop someone they... what, don't count? Don't exist?

 

Are statistically irrelevant? Wonder what the people around them think about being statistically irrelevant.

 

Are the mass shootings statistically irrelevant? You say they're statically rare.

 

I'm not really necessarily talking about SWAT and military training for a concealed permit.  I think realistically something could be done for ordinary citizens, but the first part of that would have to be that you do what the vet did in this case.

 

You don't go towards the shooting.  If you are where the shooting actually is that's one thing, but if you are not right at the scene, you don't go to it.  You take who you can into a safe area where there is no shooting.  The 2nd thing would be to contact the police with your location and your situation (i.e you are armed).  From there, you only shoot in the case of a life actually being threatened.  You don't try and shoot somebody for stealing a car.

 

The cases where ordinary people that do something beneficial with a gun in these situations are easily off set by the ordinary people that do something harmful.

 

We can play the game both directions.  You wonder how the people that were saved feel.  I wonder how the families feel from the people that have been killed by ordinary citizens trying to help prevent crimes.

 

Whether they are statisically significant I suspect depends on what level you are talking about.  Are significant with respect to all causes of death in the US?

 

I suspect not.  I suspect they are rare enough cause of death that there isn't any statistical significance to them.

 

If we want to talk about murders using a gun, the situation changes.

In all the studies you read, did they talk about permits being revoked and those numbers?

 

I've not seen any. What would that number matter?

 

People tend to talk about violence and death.

 

But more important, your idea of permit isn't even valid in some cases.  Specifically, the AZ law that I posted a study on eliminated the need for a permit.

 

So the idea of revoking permits doesn't even make sense.

[tshile]

I'm not really necessarily talking about SWAT and military training for a concealed permit.  I think realistically something could be done for ordinary citizens, but the first part of that would have to be that you do what the vet did in this case.

 

Depends on what we're talking about. The 'going after' a shooter... military vets won't do it. That's what I was referring to with the SWAT and special military training. We have examples (this case) of it, we have others opining on it (this thread), with military training that will not go after a shooter. So you need something more advanced than standard military training.

 

For the case right in front of you? Yeah, there's some basic training you should get on that. Though police and military people still have problems, so I don't know what level of training you would want.

 

Interestingly enough, it's pretty common to see those more vocal about having strict gun control to mock those civilians that do take that training; they'll also talk about how it is to be required. Just another item to add to the disingenuous portion of the conversation.

 

 

We can play the game both directions.

That was my only point, that when you start discussing things like that you're playing a game.

[mistertim]

 

Interestingly enough, it's pretty common to see those more vocal about having strict gun control to mock those civilians that do take that training; they'll also talk about how it is to be required. Just another item to add to the disingenuous portion of the conversation.

 

Who is mocking people who take training?

[PeterMP]

 That was my only point, that when you start discussing things like that you're playing a game.

 

Except the studies show that there are more people in the direction of being hurt by laws that loosen restrictions than the other way.

 

Yes, sometimes the average Joes with guns do some good, but by and large that affect seems to be off set by other issues.

[tshile]

Except the studies show that there are more people in the direction of being hurt by laws that loosen restrictions than the other way.

 

Yes, sometimes the average Joes with guns do some good, but by and large that affect seems to be off set by other issues.

Right, except that's not really my point.

 

You cite these studies about an increase in gun violence correlating with an increase in concealed permits.

 

You (and I presume the studies you cite) then say one is caused by the other.

 

Yet we have a way of measuring the actual influence (to a degree) of concealed permits on gun violence, and that's the revocation of concealed permits.

 

I don't expect it to be a one-for-one, in either direction. You can have your permit revoked for things other than gun violence, and I'm sure there are situations where the person isn't identified so you cannot revoke a permit, or maybe there's not enough evidence to say what they did was wrong so they cannot revoke the permit (even if what they did was wrong.)

 

Yet you don't don't seem to know what those numbers are, or even a trend, so I take that to mean that information is not in these studies you cite.

 

You don't see a problem here? You're drawing conclusions about something while leaving out a very meaningful piece of data related to it. You're making conclusions using two numbers going up at the same time, completely ignoring another number that should be strongly tied to the conclusion you're making if that conclusion is indeed valid.

 

Why is this information missing? Why should I give any study any level of credibility when they do not include this piece of information?

 

I'm sure they could even get a list of permits revoked only for gun violence, if they asked nicely. They wouldn't even have to play the game of "well maybe some of these are revoked because he got caught with <preferred drug of choice>"

 

Who is mocking people who take training?

 

You can't be serious?

 

They get mocked and put in the same category as the people who build a bunker in their yard and stock it with 10 years worth of food.

 

I'm not saying you or anyone here is mocking them, but they are mocked by the vocal pro-gun-control crowd.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[mistertim]

You can't be serious?

 

They get mocked and put in the same category as the people who build a bunker in their yard and stock it with 10 years worth of food.

 

I'm not saying you or anyone here is mocking them, but they are mocked by the vocal pro-gun-control crowd.

I think it depends on the type of "training" you're talking about. To me there is a difference between someone taking a tactical pistol course where they go over situational awareness, target acquisition, CQC, and how to keep your head in stressful situations, and the more "doomsday prepper" militia sort of stuff.

 

To me the former is practical and makes sense, while the latter tends to attract conspiracy nutters.

[TheGoodBits]

I'm sorry, did you just state as a fact that the NRA caused these mass shootings to become a regular occurrence?

Having trouble reading today?

[tshile]

I think it depends on the type of "training" you're talking about. To me there is a difference between someone taking a tactical pistol course where they go over situational awareness, target acquisition, CQC, and how to keep your head in stressful situations, and the more "doomsday prepper" militia sort of stuff.

 

To me the former is practical and makes sense, while the latter tends to attract conspiracy nutters.

 

And I agree with that.

But for some the former is just more of the 'lol good guys with guns' stuff. I've seen it enough to know it definitely exists.

[Popeman38]

So if a responsible gun owner with a CCW takes training that simulates firing your weapon under stressful conditions, that would make some more comfortable with a CCW holder actually carrying. At the same time, that gun owner taking a course in firing your weapon under stressful conditions would trigger some to call for that person to be placed on a watch list and possibly lose their right to own a gun, because why does a regular citizen need to take that training. It becomes a red flag to anyone anti-gun folks and a person who is "training to kill." Seriously.

[twa]

So...the good guy with a gun (hypothetical, idealized) is basically the dictionary definition of a vigilante, right?

This strikes me as not something to aspire to. We should be better than that.

 

More like a citizen that defends themselves or others under the rule of law.

 

a vigilante operates outside the law.

 

Rights matter....as does law

[Larry]

That's not at all what I'm saying, but please continue to just make **** up and moderate others' conversations. It's such a great contribution you make. You can tell it's widely appreciated by the number of people that just flat out ignore you for it.

If concealed permits lead to violence, then that means the people with the permits are part of the violence. Which means we should see permits being revoked,

Granted, if you've got some OTHER explanation why you continue to respond to "studies show" with "show me the permits being revoked", perhaps actually making said point would work better than attacking the poster who is accurately quoting what you posted.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Larry

[tshile]

Granted, if you've got some OTHER explanation why you continue to respond to "studies show" with "show me the permits being revoked", perhaps actually making said point would work better than attacking the poster who is accurately quoting what you posted.

I have.

 

You're just ignoring it.

 

Please continue to make up what I said. I've haven't said "show me the permits being revoked" in this thread. In fact, no one has in the last few pages. Unless the find in my browser is broken.

 

"accurately quoting what you posted."

 

So you're a liar; and not even a good one.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[Predicto]

I disagree with you, but that's okay the Supreme Court disagrees with me so you're in pretty good standing.

I think the words "well regulated militia" can't mean a militia composed of me, myself and I.

I think the 2nd is being badly interpreted and abused. Like I said though the Supreme Court says I'm wrong and their rulings carry much more weight unfortunately.

 

 

The NRA made damn sure that the Supreme Court never got a case interpreting the Second Amendment because they knew they would lose and their extreme interpretation would be shot down.  

 

 

 

In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state....  

 Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus within the culture of informed lawyers and judges—a conclusion that was so widely taken for granted that it seemed to him to be a fact, and not an opinion at all.

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/archive/76368/second-amendment-gun-rights

 

Burger was no liberal.  His view really was shared by pretty much every legal scholar in the country, conservative or liberal.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control.  Even the NRA itself agreed, and it WROTE gun control legislation for some states.  

 

But then the NRA changed, and as part of its change, it started funding selected legal writers to reach the opposite conclusion.   And it began funding political writers to change the public's view on the issue.

 

 

 

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s  American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

 

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856#ixzz3ntqWjljM

 

 

But the NRA still had to wait until the time was ripe, for a time when the Supreme Court was heavily stacked with the new brand of ideological conservatives.  That is why this issue was not addressed by the Court for half a century, not until Heller in 2008.   The NRA did not want to litigate the issue until it knew it would win.  

 

As someone who does constitutional interpretation every single day, just reading about this whole thing is extraordinarily frustrating.     

Edited October 7, 2015 by Predicto

[twa]

Except the studies show that there are more people in the direction of being hurt by laws that loosen restrictions than the other way.

 

Yes, sometimes the average Joes with guns do some good, but by and large that affect seems to be off set by other issues.

 

could you cite a few?....preferably ones not adjusted for other factors