The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PleaseBlitz]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Again, they could by sue in many states now, and I'm not sure why they couldn't in any state.

 

2.  Why is it a bad idea?

 

3.  I continue to post studies and stories on gun control in this thread.  Nobody quotes them or says anything about them.

 

1.  The reason local governments don't enact stricter gun control laws is because the NRA will sue them, and local government's budgets are too small to deal with expensive litigation.  

 

2.  Because it will result in more gun deaths, not less.

 

3.  Go for it, but please stop crying.  

[Popeman38]

I think it's important to point out the statistics. Per the CDC for 2014, there were 11,008 homicides by firearm (last year I could find online). There are 323M people in the U.S.

 

That means there is a 0.000034 or 0.0034% chance you will be killed by firearm.  If you factor out the gang related firearm deaths (estimated at 9,000), that is further reduced to 0.0000062 or 0.00062%.

 

The flu killed 55,227 in 2014.  You would be keeping your children safer by mandating every child and adult receive the flu shot every year.  

 

Gun control is an emotional topic, and events like Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas bring the temperature to a boil. We need to start addressing the gun issue in America, and what happened at the White House yesterday is a good start.  But we need to keep perspective...

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

there's been a lot of research by the military and law enforcement into the effects of strobe lights (for lack of more sophisticated understanding on my part...) and noises and how they can be used for crowd control.

 

what if we install those in schools and a "lock down" kicks those off? can we use that to subdue an entire building (including a shooter) until police arrive?

 

remember, we're talking 5-10 minutes for response time.

That's interesting. At one point, I played with the idea of installing tasers by the entryway that could be remotely fired. It's probably impractical and too science fiction, but it might not be a bad idea to give an intruder a good zap.

[Popeman38]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Weren't you, a few minutes ago, chewing me out because you claimed I was attacking someone for something they didn't say (even though I specifically quoted the post where they said it)?  

See my edit, which was posted 9 minutes before your response.

[Llevron]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

It never made sense to me that the NRA would support it.

 

The way I figure it the same gun gets sold twice and they get money for at least one of them and possibly ammo later on. 

 

I also have never even seen a gun outside of whatever the standard issue pistol cops use are. (surprisingly heavy) 

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

1.  The reason local governments don't enact stricter gun control laws is because the NRA will sue them, and local government's budgets are too small to deal with expensive litigation.  

 

2.  Because it will result in more gun deaths, not less.

 

3.  Go for it, but please stop crying.  

 

1.  It is already legal in 18 states for teachers to carry guns in school with some sort of (local) approval.  The local authorities de facto are making gun control laws and are not being sued by the NRA.

 

2.  Why?

 

3.  Don't cry about the topic that's getting the most attention in this thread.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Popeman38]

12 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I wonder about that. We are already talking about a person walking into a school ready to kill children. I wonder how normal their responses would be. They could snap and shot themselves for all we know. Not disagreeing with you just pondering. 

If we are going to agree that soldiers who are trained for war are subject to the emotions, then you have to assume everyone is subject to the emotions.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I think it's important to point out the statistics. Per the CDC for 2014, there were 11,008 homicides by firearm (last year I could find online). There are 323M people in the U.S.

 

That means there is a 0.000034 or 0.0034% chance you will be killed by firearm. 

 

No it doesn't. 

 

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I think it's important to point out the statistics. Per the CDC for 2014, there were 11,008 homicides by firearm (last year I could find online). There are 323M people in the U.S.

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015. The increase in gun-related deaths follows a nearly 15-year period of relative stasis.

 

http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/

 

I've always felt it was important to include suicides, accidental deaths, etc. I understand why some discount them, but how many people would not opt for suicide without a gun or could be saved? I think the numbers of suicide without access to firearms would be much lower.

[twa]

Burgold, do they separate for justifiable homicides?

I really hate seeing terrorists,armed robbers and mass shooters and such being listed as gun homicide victims.

[Popeman38]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015. The increase in gun-related deaths follows a nearly 15-year period of relative stasis.

 

http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/

 

I've always felt it was important to include suicides, accidental deaths, etc. I understand why some discount them, but how many people would not opt for suicide without a gun or could be saved? I think the numbers of suicide without access to firearms would be much lower.

Suicide doesn't pose a threat to others, for the most part.  So someone else deciding to kill themselves runs no risk to you. 

[Burgold]

Just now, twa said:

Burgold, do they separate for justifiable homicides?

I really hate seeing terrorists,armed robbers and mass shooters and such being listed as gun homicide victims.

I don't know. I haven't read how the CDC obtains its numbers. Since they are reporting gun deaths they may be including everyone and not just victims (criminal, terrorist, mass murderer, self-victims, etc)

[TradeTheBeal!]

“Perspective” = NRA Talking points c&p.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Suicide doesn't pose a threat to others, for the most part.  So someone else deciding to kill themselves runs no risk to you. 

Depends what you mean by a threat to others. It probably doesn't create an immediate mortality threat to others, but I have helped out friends and family members who dealt with a suicide. Their lives were immediately and unalterably changed. Tremendous emotional/psychological carnage and sometimes economic carnage too. There's plenty of shrapnel. Many bystanders get hit and are impacted by it for a long time.

 

Suicide counts in my book.

[PleaseBlitz]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  It is already legal in 18 states for teachers to carry guns in school with some sort of (local) approval.  The local authorities de facto are making gun control laws and are not being sued by the NRA.

 

2.  Why?

 

3.  Don't cry about the topic that's getting the most attention in this thread.

 

1.  So you are citing the fact that the NRA isn't suing over gun-friendly laws?  I'm not sure you are understanding the entire issue.

 

2.  Because (1) arming teachers will lead to more shootings by teachers and (2) armed teachers will lead to more heavily armed school shooters, not deter them from doing it. 

 

3.  LOL, an excellent retort. 

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

1.  So you are citing the fact that the NRA isn't suing over gun-friendly laws?  I'm not sure you are understanding the entire issue.

 

2.  Because (1) arming teachers will lead to more shootings by teachers and (2) armed teachers will lead to more heavily armed school shooters, not deter them from doing it. 

 

3.  LOL, an excellent retort. 

 

1.  No.  I'm citing that there are currently many states (not 18 because in some cases the state has set all of the rules, but of those 18 most of them leave room for local authorities to have approval/set rules so probably something like 14 states) where at the state level it is legal to carry a gun in a school with local approval.  So in those states local authorities are making rules about teachers carrying guns into schools and as such restricting gun rights (i.e. the right to carry a gun in a school), and the NRA isn't suing them. That's what the conversation was about.  "When I talked to Kilmer that's why I emphasized minimum requirements at the state level. It leaves room for locals to add on."  We were talking about teachers carrying guns in school.  Local authorities can add on restrictions for teachers to carry guns in a school.  The state would set some minimum requirements for the teacher to carry the gun in the school.

 

In TX, it is legal with approval by the local school board to carry a gun in the school.  Most of the TX school boards do not allow it as a rule. The school boards are restricting people's gun rights by not allowing them to carry in the schools. The NRA is not suing those school boards.

 

(What happened is you jumped into the middle of a conversation without going back and getting the larger context and so don't understand what was being talked about.  Not that I don't understand the situation.  The person I was talking to had no problem understanding what I was saying.)

 

2.  Why will arming teachers lead to more shootings by teachers?  If I make it a rule, they have to have a biometric trigger lock on their gun and can't use it except for a case where there is an active shooter, why would I get more shootings?  And if you are going to say that teachers aren't going to follow the law, why don't we get more teachers not following the law now and shootings?  What does that mean about teachers carrying and using guns in a school now?  Why would the change result in more shootings?

 

3.  Thanks!

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Suicide doesn't pose a threat to others, for the most part.  So someone else deciding to kill themselves runs no risk to you. 

 

The fundamental problem though is that you then talked about flu deaths in your initial post.  You selected a set of gun deaths and then compared them to all flu deaths.

 

Your initial post was a case of comparing apples to oranges.

 

How many times is the flu used as  a weapon against somebody else and that person dies?

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[tshile]

The trickiest thing about this conversation is the gun statistics.

 

Burgold thinks suicides count.

 

I think a crime committed with a gun where no one was shot (or even a shot was fired) should count in the discussion (and maybe burgold would agree), but suicide shouldn't.  

 

I think accidental statistics should be carefully examined - I do not view an accident while hunting in the same light as a child who finds a loaded gun in the house, for example. They speak to two totally different types of accidents. 

 

It's really hard to discuss it because the data is incomplete (we have bad stats on cops shooting people, for example), and because unless you study it you're at the mercy of other people to study it, and then other people to (know about and then) read the study, and then summarize it for you.  

 

Since it's such an emotionally charged conversation, and most people have very strong views on the subject, it's become impossible to even create a level field on which discussion can begin.

 

Posting an article about X many gun deaths is borderline meaningless. There has to be a thorough review of what the study is counting as what before you can even begin to evaluate what it means...

 

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

2.  Why will arming teachers lead to more shootings by teachers?  If I make it a rule, they have to have a biometric trigger lock on their gun and can't use it except for a case where there is an active shooter, why would I get more shootings?  And if you are going to say that teachers aren't going to follow the law, why don't we get more teachers not following the law now and shootings?  What does that mean about teachers carrying and using guns in a school now?  Why would the change result in more shootings?

 

Isn't it a simple law of probability? If you have zero guns in a school there is a zero chance of a teacher shooting a gun, an accidental fire, or a student somehow getting the gun away from the teacher and managing to fire it. If there are 10 guns in a population of 3.6 million elementary school and secondary school teachers than the odds of mishap or tragedy are still quite low. If we ramp that number up to a 100,000 or 300,000 you are increasing the odds of mishap simply by increasing the numbers. It's like the Checkov rule. If there is a gun on the stage by the third act it must be fired. If there are 100,000 guns in our schools there is an increased probability of tragedy.

 

Now, you can argue the risk of getting a Type A error is worth the outcome. Let's say you think the introduction of guns into the schools will dissuade 20% of potential shooters from acting or that it will reduce casualties by 30%. I just pulled those numbers randomly out of the air. I have no idea if that would be high, low, or spot on. That reduction is a great thing. However, you have to counter that by the number of accidents, mishaps, or intentional shootings are likely by introducing that much lethal potential into every school every day of the year.

 

Can you say with any degree of certainty that introducing 100,000 guns into school systems will result in zero incidents or accidents? What about 50,000? What we have to project is the potential good against the potential bad. The risk versus the reward. What is an acceptable number of teacher-firearm related fatalities or casualties?

 

You can't introduce guns into a school on a mass level with zero risk especially when you are asking the teachers responsible for them to have so many other daily responsibilities that supersede care of the firearm.

[tshile]

I will add we have the same issue with "mass shootings" as we do with gun statistics in general. The definition seems to be 3 (or is it 4?) or more people shot.

 

If there's a gang fight in a street between two groups of people with guns, is that really a mass shooting?

 

I think it's important because it's gun violence, but you're seeing these "number of mass shootings since <whenever>", and it's just hard to know what that even means without looking through the data.

 

(to me a mass shooting is simply when someone attempts to kill any number of people who seem to be random targets. if only 2 people got shot but it was in a movie theater and randomly caused that would count to me.)

Edited March 1, 2018 by tshile

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

The trickiest thing about this conversation is the gun statistics.

 

Burgold thinks suicides count.

 

I think a crime committed with a gun where no one was shot (or even a shot was fired) should count in the discussion (and maybe burgold would agree), but suicide shouldn't.  

 

I think accidental statistics should be carefully examined - I do not view an accident while hunting in the same light as a child who finds a loaded gun in the house, for example. They speak to two totally different types of accidents. 

 

It's really hard to discuss it because the data is incomplete (we have bad stats on cops shooting people, for example), and because unless you study it you're at the mercy of other people to study it, and then other people to (know about and then) read the study, and then summarize it for you.  

 

Since it's such an emotionally charged conversation, and most people have very strong views on the subject, it's become impossible to even create a level field on which discussion can begin.

 

Posting an article about X many gun deaths is borderline meaningless. There has to be a thorough review of what the study is counting as what before you can even begin to evaluate what it means...

 

Great post, Tshile. It's one of the reasons why the first step needed and long overdue is real study. We need to know more. Who knows. The data might prove me entirely wrong and suggest that the risk of gun introduction into schools is minimal next to threat of not having a gun? Maybe it will prove that putting guns into schools creates a desensitization which leads to greater gun violence inside and outside of the school because guns have been even more normalized?

 

Regardless, we need information. I'm not sure experimenting randomly before getting that info is wise.

[The Evil Genius]

Man, Dick's went hard on gun control yesterday.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[PeterMP]

21 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Isn't it a simple law of probability? If you have zero guns in a school there is a zero chance of a teacher shooting a gun, an accidental fire, or a student somehow getting the gun away from the teacher and managing to fire it. If there are 10 guns in a population of 3.6 million elementary school and secondary school teachers than the odds of mishap or tragedy are still quite low. If we ramp that number up to a 100,000 or 300,000 you are increasing the odds of mishap simply by increasing the numbers. It's like the Checkov rule. If there is a gun on the stage by the third act it must be fired. If there are 100,000 guns in our schools there is an increased probability of tragedy.

 

Now, you can argue the risk of getting a Type A error is worth the outcome. Let's say you think the introduction of guns into the schools will dissuade 20% of potential shooters from acting or that it will reduce casualties by 30%. I just pulled those numbers randomly out of the air. I have no idea if that would be high, low, or spot on. That reduction is a great thing. However, you have to counter that by the number of accidents, mishaps, or intentional shootings are likely by introducing that much lethal potential into every school every day of the year.

 

Can you say with any degree of certainty that introducing 100,000 guns into school systems will result in zero incidents or accidents? What about 50,000? What we have to project is the potential good against the potential bad. The risk versus the reward. What is an acceptable number of teacher-firearm related fatalities or casualties?

 

You can't introduce guns into a school on a mass level with zero risk especially when you are asking the teachers responsible for them to have so many other daily responsibilities that supersede care of the firearm.

 

The only way you have 0 guns though is if EVERY teacher is following the rules  ALL THE TIME.

 

If I say the rule is that you cannot draw your gun and you must have biometric safety lock on it at all times except for in the case of an active shooter and EVERY teacher follows the rules  ALL THE TIME, what happens?

 

I only get gun deaths in the case of an active shooter.

 

So if teachers follow rules perfectly, what's the problem?  And if teacher's don't follow rules perfectly, am I really increasing the risks?

 

(I've already said in this thread there will be accidents.  I don't think the accident rate will be very high, and I've laid out my reasoning.  Cops in police stations don't shoot other people accidentally very often, and I can't find a single case where somebody died.  And cops in police stations don't have biometric safety locks on their guns so I've even raised the bar.  I'll trade thousands of things like what happened in GA yesterday for one kids life.

 

Larry, doesn't like my example, but I've already stated in this thread multiple times why the general population statistics are not relevant.

 

1.  Most of the general public does not get much gun training, especially cases of accidents with deaths.  You are throwing in any kid that has no training with a gun that finds their parent's gun at home and ends up shooting somebody where their parent also has essentially no training.

2.  Most of the general public does not get much screening. (the above kid and parent)

3.  Most of the general public is not required by law with enforcement of likely loss of a job to keep a biometric trigger lock on their gun except for in the case of an active shooter. (the above parent)

 

And I don't see him bringing any cases forward where those restrictions are in place.)

)

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Regardless, we need information. I'm not sure experimenting randomly before getting that info is wise.

 

And I'll feel better about the "movement" when the discussion orients around:

- Why do our politicians allow the CDC to be barred from studying certain things?
- Why is our ATF in the situation it's in?

- Why do we have the ridiculous limits we have on inventorying licensed firearm dealers?

 

When the movement seems to be centering on that information, I'll take it seriously. Because I think people who take this issue seriously, know and care about those things.

 

When its reciting various statistics... that tells me it hasn't matured enough. There's too much of a lack of understanding about what is really important.

 

I've mentioned this a few times, but Obama issued an EO to study some of this stuff... the left balked and called it meaningless. I was incredibly disappointed by that. I thought Obama brilliantly balanced walking 3 or 4 different lines at the same time, and the reaction from the people who support him the most (generally) and are the most likely to be pro-gun control, was to crap on it.

 

The movement needs to mature a bit more before I take it seriously.

[Popeman38]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The fundamental problem though is that you then talked about flu deaths in your initial post.  You selected a set of gun deaths and then compared them to all flu deaths.

 

Your initial post was a case of comparing apples to oranges.

 

How many times is the flu used as  a weapon against somebody else and that person dies?

Fair enough.  My point was more that there should not be an overbearing fear of homicide by firearm, either in general or in a mass shooting.  Even the lifetime chances of this happening is significantly under 1% in general and under 1/100% in a mass shooting (which is included in the <1%).