Some 4 years ago, a man lost his child at the Parkland, Fl. school shooting. He has spent the intervening time working on school safety, from bullying to mass shootings and has done a wonderful job at it - his compilation of suggestions is beyond just good.
A Senator has taken his suggestion and suggest a new bill, codifying much of it into law. Unfortunately the Democrats, in the form of Chuck Shumer, stopped the bill dead in it's tracks. It seems Chuck is worried that it might result in more guns in schools and besides, "going to vote on gun legislation", not ways to make schools safer.
What is wrong with that half of the building when it's only goal is to take away guns, When, right after losing another 19 children, a comprehensive bill to increase school security in all areas won't even be discussed, let alone acted on, because it is more important to continue the battle raging for 20 years with zero lives saved it says something about the mindset of those people.
Someone needs to set Shumer in the middle of the next school massacre and allow him to understand what is happening in our country.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … uxbndlbing
"comprehensive bill to increase school security in all areas won't even be discussed"
We need to discuss this as well as being proactive about identifying pertpetrators. We need to do BOTH
Yes we do. But liberals will not allow it, preferring to stick with attempts that have failed over and over while the death toll rose and rose.
Be careful, Cred, or they'll revoke your liberal card! You're talking heresy here.
"Hardening schools would have done nothing to prevent this shooting. In fact, there were guards and police officers already at the school yesterday when the shooter showed up." Schumer said Wednesday. "The shooter got past all of them."
First Schumer is a complete ass for standing against this bill.
Second he is full of crap, there were no guards and police officers already at the school ready or willing to stop the psychopath... They waited outside the school for almost an hour as shots rang out and children screamed... Incompetence and cowardice being the problem.
The school had no means of defending itself, no one on the premises capable of stopping the assailant. That was the problem.
The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on gun issues, found that in Santa Fe and in three other prominent shootings in 2018 — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March — "attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards." In each case, guards failed to stop the shooter from killing.
Last year, a group of public health scholars published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examining 133 school shootings from 1980 to 2019. An armed guard was present in about a quarter of the incidents in the study. Those schools actually suffered death rates nearly three times higher than schools without armed guards. Similarly, a 2020 review of gun policy research by the RAND Corporation think tank found no evidence that the presence of more guns had any effect on gun violence. Criminologists at Texas State University found that unarmed staff or the shooters themselves are far more likely to bring a school shooting to an end than someone with a gun returning fire.
RAND analysts have found that even highly trained NYPD officers only hit their intended target in 19 percent of gunfire exchanges. Winning a gunfight with a shooter only becomes more difficult when the perpetrator carries a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15, as the Uvalde suspect and many others have done. These weapons have a much longer range and are far more accurate than the kinds of pistols typically used by police and civilian concealed carriers, allowing shooters to keep responders far enough away that their own weapons will be of little use. The Uvalde gunman, for instance, managed to overpower two officers whom he encountered on his way to the elementary school.
Addressing this problem needs to begin before a shooter arrives at a school.
It's a little difficult to understand how a greater range would help the shooter with a rifle rather than a handgun. Not when the maximum range possible in the school is only a few yards.
But no, the Uvalde shooter did not "overpower two officers whom he encountered on his way to the elementary school."; there were no officers, or guards of any kind, at the school.
While he is an ass, first reports were that the shooter was met outside by the guard. The one that wasn't there.
It's funny how the MSM media always seems to botch, or leave out critical information, when reporting such tragic events.
The last thing they want to report in this matter is the fact that there was no protection for the children and no-one that challenged the murderer as he walked into the school strapped with weapons and ammo.
After all, there was a Bill on the Senate floor which wanted to provide for protection of schools and children, and it seems no one on the "Left" wanted it to pass... politics come first, always, before facts or truth.
Consider this when regarding this tragic event:
- according to the 11 year old survivor, she was on the phone with 911 dispatch for nearly an hour wondering why the police weren't coming in to rescue her, only to find out later that there were 19 police officers outside with body armor, bullet proof vests, and AR 15s who were too cowardly to try and save her and her fellow students. -
This tragedy does not play out this way, if the Sheriff's Office already has an officer on duty inside the school. If the faculty are well trained to contend with an active shooter, and if the police force for the community is made up of men and women trained and willing to protect and serve, the children above all others.
I don't know that I would classify 19 cops as cowards. I understand that individual cops wanted to go in, and that the Border Patrol that finally ended it was denied the opportunity to do so. In fact, they did so against orders.
Neither would I call all 19 cops cowards. The public still does not know all the details, (except the gory details of the deaths). The 3-day change in press conference 'facts' is proof of that.
The incomplete picture condemns the cops, (all of them), even for my gut reaction, but some details conflict with that first thought.
One that is bothering me is the classroom door itself. I'm sure most of us are familiar with typical classroom doors. My experience is that they are really heavy-duty hardwoods. They make a household door look like a matchstick. Same thought for the hinges and latches. That strength is enhanced by the fact they are hung in industrial-strength steel frames.
That's a lot of resistance for cops to try to bash through with their body force, and probably enough for a few clips of 9mm to try to shatter. Then, the kicker: the door opened outward, into the hallway. It couldn't be bashed through it had to be pried open. Again, unlike a household door, a big screwdriver wouldn't do the job.
So, what were their options? Did maintenance have a big prybar? Did any cops have one in their car trunks? Another question is why it took an hour to find a key for the door? My perception is that the maintenance guy usually has them on a big keyring on his belt. Was that guy evacuated and it took an hour to find him?
I don't know whether to defend any of the police actions or criticize them, en masse, until I find those answers.
I think we will find plenty of reason to criticize the 'hour' it took to take action but maybe not so much as criticism of the cops as a whole.
More food for thought for you - in my area high schools, and most middle schools, are built of cinder block throughout. High school kids just do too much damage to sheetrock walls.
But elementary schools are not. Instead they are usually wood studs, with a few using metal studs, covered by sheetrock. In these schools, it would be far easier, and faster, to simply go through the wall and leave the door intact.
(In my work as an electrician, building schools was one of two "bread and butter" jobs for my employer. We nearly always had a school being built, and often several.)
That wall thing is something to consider. My perception was remembrances of those cinder block walls. Stud walls would make a difference. A fist could punch a hole to shoot through. It wouldn't take much more effort to punch a hole to crawl through. Maybe we'll find out what kind of walls that school had.
I was thinking to carefully and quietly cut the sheetrock from one side. A razor knife would do it. The other side, the inside of the room, would break apart instantly at the application of a body coming through.
That might work.
It might. IF the cops aren't too fat, IF they don't have too much hardware on them, IF the studs are on 24" centers, IF the shooter isn't firing random shots through the wall.
Lots of IF's, and I don't have a clue about any of them. Not even if it was a stud wall.
In addition, though, every school I've worked on (dozens) had a removable tile ceiling, and the only walls that went to the roof were fire walls. What about that?
Exactly. They did so against orders.
When someone of higher authority than you gives you an order that is morally wrong and reprehensible, you must have the courage to go against those orders and do the right thing.
Yes, a coward gave orders to stand down, and those who followed those orders were equally in the wrong.
It's one thing to take a few moments to assess the situation, evaluate, observe, and then take action...it is quite another to stand around for an hour and do nothing.
Those that finally went in were men of action and conviction, they chose to do the right thing and ignore the cowards willing to let children die.
I agree. It is not a good thing to disobey orders because you feel they are wrong; one must also go through the process of getting the information and evaluating it before making that call.
In this case it doesn't take an hour to do that. A few minutes, maybe, talking to others for ideas on how to proceed, but that's it.
Here is a story about someone who took action and stopped a mass murder tragedy before it could become one.
West Virginia woman stops shooter
https://www.wral.com/woman-credited-wit … /20306891/
That's all a school needs, someone trained, armed and committed to protect on the premises.
It doesn't matter how many police you have present, it doesn't matter how many show up, if they aren't willing to act quickly and with conviction tragedy cannot be stopped.
But when the opposite is true, well, you don't really hear about it because the shooter is shot dead.
I can't stop myself, you know I have to go here . . .
"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” said Lieutenant Tony Hazelett. “She was lawfully carrying a firearm and stopped a threat. "
Almost every search result included that quote. I know this incident is probably statistically insignificant, (in the big picture), and nearly anecdotal, but it does feel good to see a real-life example as proof of a point.
You don't mess with those W. Virginia gals. What are the odds that, in daylight, she might be one of those uneducated deplorables?
*This "deplorables" thing is turning out to be a good counter to that "uneducated" jab.
"That's all a school needs, someone trained, armed and committed to protect on the premises."
Well, Ken in this society and culture, that is what EVERYPLACE needs.
As for the story about the heroic woman, can lighting ever strike twice in the same place?
Yeah, everyone armed like in the old west, you may well get shot for just having your dog pee in someone's yard.
Again, it is the responsibility of adults to protect themselves, or not.
The issue here is schools and the reality is Democrats are getting in the way of protecting many schools in many states. Florida is an example of how Republicans make efforts to protect their children, I provide some excerpts from a recent article regarding this:
[Florida] raised the bar considerably with putting [at least one] armed person on every campus [school], [it] created mandatory threat assessment teams, provided funding for hardening of campuses, infrastructure improvement. So there were a number of things that began in 2018 because prior to that, in Florida, we just simply were not where we needed to be.
I think the Tampa Bay schools are really just an example of the changes throughout the state. One of the things that I would say that is probably most consequential, most significant, is kind of an intangible, and that is a culture change within the schools in the prioritization of school safety and security.
The full article:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/community … cI011knav0
So, Ken, I have to be prepared to use lethal force under any situation or circumstance? Conceal or open carry of a gun and a gunbelt, is that how I am to prepare?
I know you make this dichotomy between schools and the rest of society where people can meet and gather. I say the danger for anyone and everyone not prepared for random violence and slaughter is the same. Even when everybody is armed, the ability for anyone of us to instantly prepare oneself for any eventuality is unrealistic.
The changes that are reflected in the current society relative to times past are related in many ways to the inevitable march of modernity. Political change, technological change, cultural changes are ongoing and cannot be halted no more than time can be turned back. People are caught in a quandary as to who they are, troubled and are striking out. There are more people like this that are unhinged, creating a greater danger of their coming out from the woodwork at any time. Now the frustrations, always a part of adolescence when once allow to pass with time, is now expressed through mass murder.
While you focus on the schools, I say the world that you are not advocating, but one I believe we are heading for all the same, is one where they will be no real comfort available for any of us.
Or it could be a time where your "comfort" becomes your responsibility.
The focus, solely, on schools isn't wrong because it doesn't solve the big problem, (the extrapolation of your view of the coming world), it is exactly the right thing to do, (the focus, not necessarily the offered solutions); at least chip away at the problem.
To my statement of responsibility; we all see there is a gun violence problem, and most of us see that the solutions offered, to date, aren't working. What is not working is the ability of our authorities to protect us. So until the problem is addressed who else is going to be responsible for your security and comfort if you aren't?
Well, GA, when I listen to facets of the environment that Arthur enjoys in England, it does not sound like one where fear for their self defense and safety is the prime objective in their lives. My comfort in an economic sense is my responsibility, my safety shouldn't be in the same way.
I don't know if every possible solution has been tried as there seems to extreme political resistance on both sides in regards to solutions.
The time when safety is my responsibility speaks to a society that is de-evolving. Going back to the days of the old west, when your skill in using a firearm may well mean the difference between life and death.
I would take every firearm from everybody before subjecting myself to such a world.
It is problematic that we live in a society where this gun violence problem has reached a point where authorities can no longer protect us. There is an aura or atmosphere that is associated with such an environment and life and it is not positive for life nor living.
I think the societal changes of the 2000s have changed the equation. We are seeing that decades of panacea actions haven't solved the problem. This might be the time when there is a national mood for some change. Letting go of the 'Ban guns' solutions, (in all their variations), from the liberals, and a consideration of compromise from the conservatives.
Doing so could also be political gold for both parties, (if they could stand taking a win without the other side losing). A bi-partisan move to compromise on gun violence measures would be a win-win-win. A win for both parties and a win for society.
I think that falls back on standards, morals, shame... you know that thread on shame we had going?
What are the standards for police?
Is it to have a percentage of women, even if that means they have to take in a 5.4 350 pound woman to fill a police officer position?
Is it to have a source of income for the town, so the officers go out of their way to write tickets and in general harass the populace?
And then, we have people who don't want police at the schools... how can children at schools be protected if you don't allow someone there who can protect them?
We used to have standards in the Army.
They had standards men had to meet, and different standards women had to meet. But various groups and political entities took offense to that. They wanted it so that women could qualify for those combat roles as easily as the men did.
So what eventually happened is those standards got lowered to the point where anyone could pass them. Other various tests were changed, what would have a person fail out of a course in the past became something that could be tried over and over again, or was removed entirely.
This is the world you get, when police no longer are required to meet difficult standards and aren't held to them. This is the world you get when people are still allowed to be pampered and protected as kids long past the time that they are adults.
I could go on and on... what does it matter, wrong is right in today's world, good is actually bad, and those that are bad need to be better understood.
Although I agree with your "standards" thought, that wasn't what I meant by the authorities not being able to protect us. My point was that we are asking them to be mind readers and prophesizers. Along with the duties of social workers and psychologists.
And then there is the judgment thing they all have to deal with: we praise them when they kill a gun assailant after they kill someone, and condemn them when they kill that killer before they actually get the chance to kill.
Bizarre logic from the view point of those outside of the USA – It seems that the NRA and Republican’s answer to gun violence is “more guns”? Whereas logically - the answer to gun violence from the perspective of those living outside of the USA is “Less Guns”.
You shouldn’t have to increase school security; if you have to increase school security with more guns then there is something wrong with society. You don’t see tight school security in countries like the UK beyond CCTV (passive security) – And you don’t get all the school massacres in the UK that you get in the USA.
The last time we had a school massacre was in 1996 when 15 children and 1 teacher was killed – such incidences in a country like the UK, where guns are banned, are extremely rare.
Unfortunately your logic is based on the premise that killers won't kill if they can't get a gun. An assumption that is not true but is often accepted because the alternative is to think there is something wrong with the psyche of Americans that needs looked at.
Not at all: the premise is that without guns there is less killing. The most common weapon in Britain is the knife, and consequently homicides in Britain are far lower than it is in the USA; guns are far more lethal than knives.
If you’re an 18 year old teenager who walks into a school classroom with a gun you can stand in the doorway, blocking the exit, and take your time to pop-off each kid, and the teacher, from where you stand; and neither the kids nor the teachers stand a chance.
Whereas, if your only weapon is a knife, you need to be in physical contact with your Vitim, you can’t just stand at a distance and shoot away, and you can only stab one victim at a time; and while you’re stabbing one kid, the others have a chance to run around you and escape into the corridor and to safety, and any teacher tackling you stand a far greater chance of disarming you and restraining you than if you had a gun.
No, guns are more lethal and making them freely available, as they are in the USA, will continue to result in high levels of homicides of which a high percentage will be gun violence.
I recently heard a comment by Donald Trump, Jr., not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer (pun intended), that he could have fatally killed all those kids in Texas with a baseball bat. Well, yes, you could kill with a baseball bat, but isn't it infinitely easier and faster using an AR-15?
Conservatives here seem to avoid this simple piece of logic a great deal.
And liberals keep coming up with ridiculous scenarios to "prove" how deadly a gun is. Without ever comparing it to equally deadly weapons, in the hope of ridiculing the argument.
Guns are more lethal than knives. Guns are NOT more lethal than bombs, poison, fire, cars, etc.
Why do you assume that without a gun a killer will choose a much less lethal weapon?
Anybody can pull a trigger on a gun and kill people; but not many people can build a bomb, and poisoning isn’t as easy as pulling a trigger on a gun, and fires and cars are more cumbersome and less assured e.g. it’s easier to escape from a burning building or a car driving towards you than it is to dodge a bullet. Deterrent is an effective defence; and when you take away tools that can kill easily (like guns) a lot of people who might have used a gun to kill aren’t going to bother trying to build a bomb.
Anyone with access to Google can build a bomb or mix a poison.
But if you were correct (that no guns means fewer murders) we would find a direct correlation between the number of guns in a society and the murder rate. There isn't one.
It’s not as easy as it looks; if guns are easily accessible, as they are in the USA, then pulling a trigger on a gun is infinitely easier and more sure of killing your victims than trying to build and successfully build a bomb, or trying to successfully fatally poison someone.
And no, there can’t be a direct correlation between the number of guns in a society and the murder rate when you try to make comparisons with different nations; too many other variables. Some people on these forums made the same mistake when trying to compare the difference in the covid death rates in different countries to try to prove that the strict covid regulations (lock downs, masks) and the vaccines were in effective and counterproductive!
It would be far better to look at the high gun violence in the USA and start asking ‘why’ and ‘if’ questions specific to the USA itself e.g. why is gun violence so high in the USA, is it because the gun ownership laws are too relaxed? What if semi-automatics were made illegal, would it reduce homicides and suicides in the USA. I know what your answers would be, and they would be opposite to mine (different country, different cultural values, different attitudes); and I don’t think either of us is likely to change our views in the immediate future.
You're right - we should look at the violence in American and ask "Why?". But we should NOT fall back on the default answer of "There are guns there", instead of actually trying to find out "why".
Trying to answer the "what if's" is much the same; simply falling back to a default answer that you like doesn't do much towards actually finding a correct answer. Without history in America in, for example, your semi-automatic ban, one can only go elsewhere to other nations - to simply say "It will slow the death toll" isn't a reasonable answer at all as it relies solely on opinion that is in turn based on the desired conclusion.
It’s not a desired conclusion as we don’t have gun violence in the UK; so it’s your problem not mine. And it seems obvious to people outside of the USA that far too many Americans have no desire to change things; and to just let the bloodshed continue because of a misguided belief that Amendment 2 of the Constitution is sacrosanct!!!!
You're right - far too many in the USA have no desire to change things...except that they want to take guns away. Nothing else, no other solution, is to be discussed or implemented. Only the one that worldwide experience says will not solve the problem.
Who says "worldwide experience does not says will not solve the problem"; that's your opinion; but from my experience of countries that has tight gun control it can make a big difference.
You can't say that tight gun controls in the USA wouldn't reduce homicides and suicides; that's just your opinion. But what if there was any chance that tight gun controls might save lives - surely that is an avenue well worth considering; rather than do nothing, and let the bloodshed in the USA continue?
Yes, it is my opinion. An opinion based on a study of where the guns are and where the homicides are. Based on a conclusion from that data that more guns does NOT indicate there will be more homicides - that there is no correlation between the gun ownership rate in a country and it's homicide rate. It is also based on the one real example (Australia), where all semi-automatic rifles were taken...without any change in the rate of decline already in place in homicide rates. Based on this data, and conclusions, it is rather obvious that more "tight" gun controls (which are always designed around having fewer guns in a society) will not produce fewer homicides.
What is your opinion based on? You say it is your experience - what experiences have you had that indicates more guns equals more murders? What is the line of thinking that goes from those experiences to fewer guns will produce fewer homicides?
(One correction, though - I have never indicated that I think fewer guns would not produce fewer suicides. I think it would.)
You can’t compare different countries looking for correlations because each is different; too many variables. But looking at individual countries that have tightened gun controls, such as Australia and Canada is a good starting point; but even then, what you read into it depends on who’s presenting the data to you – for example the chart compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (copied below) shows the opposite to what you are saying.
But do you think it’s a coincidence that the one country in the world with the highest level of gun ownership and least amount of gun control has one of the highest homicide rates while countries like the UK and Japan that have strict gun controls have much lower homicide rates? It is difficult to draw correlations because there are too many variables, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some relationship between the level of gun ownership and the level of violence!
Yeah, my opinion is based on my experience and common sense:-
• In Britain it’s almost impossible to get hold of a gun, and our streets and homes are relatively safe.
• Guns, especially semi-automatics, can kill a lot of people indiscriminately, with little effort, in a short period of time. I’d like to see a killer trying to kill as many people using a knife. And most people are not going to bother making bombs if they can’t get hold of a gun, they’ll result to using knives instead. Common sense should tell you there would be far fewer mass killings if guns were restricted.
Your data from Australia hardly shows homicide rates fell after taking the guns. The Great Gun Confiscation occurred in 1996, but homicides rose for another 5 years. After rising, it was another 2 or 3 years (hard to read the small graph) before it dropped to where it was in 1996. Without the guns, how is that possible if it was guns causing it?
"But do you think it’s a coincidence that the one country in the world with the highest level of gun ownership and least amount of gun control has one of the highest homicide"
Sorry, but the percentage of homes with a gun is highest is Switzerland - a country with one of the lowest homicide rates. It is not the US. This is why I say there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates; for every pair of countries showing high numbers of guns and low homicides, two more can be found showing the exact opposite. There cannot be a correlation under those circumstances.
But those are not your personal experiences. Instead, you list living in a country with low guns and low homicides, but one single data point does not make a case either way. You cannot possibly make a reasoned conclusion about the rest of the world based on a single country.
Common sense; the most uncommon thing in the world. Your assumption (assumption!) that killers will use a knife if they can't get a gun is deeply flawed. Not only because they might use a bomb, but also because there are many different ways to kill lots of people. In Australia, the preferred method became matches after the guns were gone, and the death toll from mass murders actually rose slightly after the guns were taken.
But beyond that, the number of people killed (in the US) in mass murders is but a tiny percentage of those killed. When there are more people murdered by bludgeoning (think baseball bat here) than all long guns combined, it kind of throws a shadow on the efforts to take away one specific long gun, don't you think? Wouldn't that effort be better spent on something else (like figuring out why Americans are so violent)?
So your experience giving rise to the conclusion that the number of guns is what causes a high homicide rate is that you live in a country that has low gun ownership and low homicide rates. This is not reasonable IMO; a single data point is not only worthless is predicting other countries but personal anecdotes such as yours are very nearly as worthless. They just do not cover the necessary volume of data, but are very seldom indicative of anything but a very small range of circumstances as well. Far better to gather data from as many sources (countries) as possible and then compare them.
Here is an excerpt from a New York Daily News article and it appears to make some sense, as if it is reasonable to ask why Americans are more violent, inherently.
"If the U.S. were inherently more violence than economically similar countries, we’d expect to see a much higher assault rate compared to other nations. We’re not seeing that. Therefore, purely cultural explanations for violence appear to be unlikely to explain U.S. violence."
"Why then are U.S. homicides so high? This requires more data. However, one likely explanation is simply that the easy availability of firearms makes it more efficient to convert what might have been an assault in the UK or Belgium into an impulsive homicide in the United States. We’re not more violent, but it’s easier to see violence here result in a life being ended.
77 percent of homicides in the US in 2020 was the result of a firearm. That has to make the gun more than just an "inanimate object" in this debate.
I'm not following. Is not a homicide an "assault"? Or do you mean the legal definition, varying from state to state and country to country? If the latter, is it possible that what is an "assault" in one country is not in another? Is that one possibility?
How does it being the preferred method of homicide make it more than an inanimate object? How does preferring it to a knife make it a cause for the violence? The only possibility I can see is the assumption that without a gun no assault (or homicide, take your pick) will occur - an assumption that all the data indicates is false to fact.
Of interest as well as your 77% (that I do not object to) is the percentage of homicides with, say, the fake "assault rifle". You might check that, and check it against the number of homicides with a bludgeon (baseball bat or other club) or even hands and feet. It may have changed with the recent number of mass killings, but up to a couple of years ago there were more murders with that baseball bat than all long guns combined. Same, as I recall, for murders using only hands and feet. Pretty strong evidence that the problem is not with a gun, but with something in the culture.
Of course that ignores the thousands committed with a pistol. My gut tells me that most (certainly not all) of those happens within the inner city, and that an assault would have happened with or without that pistol.
Let me clarify, every homicide is an assault, but not every assault is a homicide. I am not talking about assault rifles specifically, but any and all firearms. That 77 percent statistic is bonafide over several responsible sources, I should add. And in my explanation, I did not discount the inner city shootings or anywhere else where they occur.
Being "pissed" at someone in America could end up getting someone killed, while in France that could mean a just bloody nose. The gun is at the center and is the constant in, otherwise, an equation full of variables.
While the stats say that the incidence of assaults are really no greater in the U.S than that of other comparable Western Democracies, assaults are lethal in the United States because assaults with firearms are much more often lethal than assaults involving other implements. So, any assault in America would more likely be lethal than one in Belgium, let's say.
Here is the article, if you care to examine more closely.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny- … story.html
"Being "pissed" at someone in America could end up getting someone killed, while in France that could mean a just bloody nose."
And there you have it. Assaults in the US are far more likely to be deadly. Rather than a punch in the nose you get a knife in the heart.
Given that, taking guns away won't change anything at the "macro" level; we will still have thousands of homicides each year. It would likely prevent some suicides, but what else would change? Statistics says almost nothing. You might get a few more survivors, but then again when they go at it with knives or something more personal than a gun you might get fewer. In exchange for denying the Constitutional right, the freedom of the people, that "might" just isn't enough.
Let me try it again.
I think what they are saying is that assaults in the U.S are more often fatal because of manner of the assault. Americans are no more prone to committing assault on others over that of other developed Western Societies.
There is a reason why 77 percent of homicides in America are committed with firearms. These weapons are simply not available in comparable societies to the extent and magnitude as to what they are here. Why risk the proximity necessary when assualting with a knife? We both know that one does not have to be expert in anything to just point and shoot, the chance being much greater of inflicting a mortal wound from the head or torso over that of a knife, which requires a certain amount of skill or a lot of luck to kill both quickly and efficiently. If any of the comparable societies had as many guns as well as the ease of obtaining them, they would be saddled with the same problem we currently have as the stats show no difference in incidents of assaults between our society and others. We just access to implements of a more lethal nature. That is the only difference.
An assault committed by an American is no different from that committed by a Frenchman, but not having the far more lethal gun as an available tool, there simply are not as many deaths.
I am not suggesting taking guns away, more than I am attempting to explain why that when it comes to assaults, guns are the reason that they become homicides.
I think what they are saying is that assaults in the U.S are more often fatal because of manner of the assault."
No, that's not my intent at all. I'm saying that assaults in the US are more often fatal because the fight doesn't stop until one is dead. The intent is to cause as much damage as possible; a mere poke in the nose is not sufficient to quell the anger. It is not a matter of what tools are there, it is a matter of KILL HIM!. A psychological difference, not a tool difference.
Yes, guns are more available, but it doesn't mean much when the intent is to KILL rather than give a minor injury. Whether beat to death with a baseball bat or shot in the heart the result is the same. But the bat doesn't kill as easily you say; it doesn't matter when it just keeps on swinging. When the red rage doesn't die with the first blow, it doesn't matter that it takes more blows. Don't forget that simple stat that there are more murders with clubs than with all long guns.
So yes, the assault by an American IS different than that from a Frenchman. The level of violence in our country is appalling, but it is not the tool producing it; it is the psyche that will not quit and walk away.
My opinion is that you simply cannot claim guns are the reason we are so high in homicides when all the data says there is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate. If it were guns, there WOULD be a correlation, and a strong one, but there isn't. You simply cannot have a causal effect without correlation, although the opposite can be true.
(Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. I think it is an important difference in our outlook on guns, but I didn't see it)
Excerpt from original article that I provided via link earlier.
"If we start by looking at the comparative homicide data, we find the expected pattern. Namely, that the U.S. is far out and above other industrialized countries regarding homicide.
In fairness, countries such as Russia, the Ukraine, Mongolia and the Philippines have fairly high homicide rates compared to the U.S. Much of Latin America as well as the Caribbean and South Africa have homicide rates that are through the roof.
Nonetheless, we generally aspire to industrialized nations, where we can see our homicide rate is comparatively embarrassing."
Wilderness, as for your timing, no worries, I have been delving into this thing a little more closely, taking into consideration your comments.
I have been following an article with explanations regarding societies that have many more homicides per capita. I selected Central and South America as an example, taking it from an opposite tack to consider our opposing points.
https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-a … etention-3
I am still putting things together.
I asked why Central and South America has so much more violence and when one looks at the article it indicate that the homicides that occur due to use of a firearm are at the percentage rates found in the United States (75-77 percent). Even though there are many more homicides relative to population size in these regions, than in the US.
Interestingly, however, if we look at serious assault rates, the picture is far different. Specifically, the U.S. is roughly middle of the pack compared to other industrialized nations. One is more likely to be assaulted in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Belgium, France or Australia, compared to in the U.S.
To be continued.....
If you are serious about looking into it, you need to compare industrialized nations to industrialized nations. Leave out those with major crime blocks like Colombia, Mexico and other Western countries in the south. Instead look at Europe, look at Australia and Japan. Look at nations with as much similarity to us as you can (Japan is questionable).
And when you do, don't decide there is a "pattern" because the US is high in both guns and homicides. Instead look for a pattern where higher gun ownership rates predicts higher homicide rates no matter what two countries are being compared.
And that you will not find. Limiting your study to similar nations you will find that you cannot predict homicides by looking at guns. For any pair of countries where that is true there are two more pairs, using the first pair as a starting point, that show the opposite. There is no pattern to find.
That's what I keep saying. You might claim that the UK is low in both and the US is high in both, but I can find half a dozen examples using the UK and other countries where higher guns = lower homicides (or lower guns = higher homicides). Fewer for the US as we are near the top in both, but there are examples there, too. This is true for any pair of countries chosen...and that tells me that there is no correlation to be found. It's not just a few abnormal spikes - it's all through the world in every country.
One more thing if you are studying the problem - do not be misled by people using gun homicides as if they were the only way to die. Make absolutely sure that you are dealing with homicides, no matter what the manner of death. I have found all too many sources giving data for gun homicides and then trying to treat it as if it were all homicides. It does no good to prevent death by gun if the same death occurs by knife, poison or some other means.
Your stats on assault in other countries putting the US in the center of the pack is scary. Will they follow our lead and turn those assaults into murders? Are their homicide rates climbing at all or falling as they should? We're seeing a huge increase, rather than a lowering; are they on the same path or are they rather static in the rate, and damage done, of assaults?
Just so we stay on the proper bearing, you say that the amount of guns in a society does not necessarily correlate with homicide rates with guns directly involved.
I included this....
On average across the region, some 75% of homicides in Latin America are gun-related — that proportion may seem obvious, Muggah said, "but actually global average is closer to 40%. In Europe it's down ... in the low 20s and teens."
According to the FBI, 73% of criminal homicides in the US are gun-related. (The FBI separates criminal and justifiable killings.)
The United States, a Western culture, have gun related homicide rates comparable to some of the most violent regions in the world.
According to the article from the Business Insider they attempt to provide an explanation as to the levels of violence and the why the firearm is the preferred of dispatching someone from this world to the next.
Why are our rates comparable to theirs when the conditions that exist there is not found here to any extent? And we are the only "Western" nation with stats like this. Are the factors that make South American societies more violent rub off on the US? Our rates are comparable to societies in endless turmoil.
Yes, I should compare industrialized nation to industrialized nation, thus I rule out Mongolia or the Philippines, for example.
I say that the gun facilitates the acts of assault and violence and makes a fatal outcome more likely. You will see that while these Central and South American nations are not manufacturer, there is a great deal of importation from America among other sources.
You say that there really is not a provable correlation between the number and presence of guns and their more frequent use in assaults which include homicides.
Not done yet....
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022 … omparison/
America's gun assault and homicide rate is so far off the scale compared with other developed countries that the Apple vs oranges comparison that you want to make correlating gun ownership with levels of gun violence has to be considered irrelevant. See the chart. In the link.
Our numbers are comparable to those of some of the most dangerous nations in the world, again see the Latin America link.
No, I cannot predict homicides or even assaults based on firearm availability and access. But while incidents of assaults are about equal between US and other industrialized societies, the amount of homicides are not. I still believe that the assaults in these other societies become homicides here because of the relative ease of access to firearms in this society. 1.20 guns per every person, they are at least as common as bludgeon bats.
I wouldn't worry about these comparable societies upgrading assaults to homicides, the lack of gun availability will always put an assailant at a disadvantage in assualt to the extent of inflicting a mortal wounds.
"Just so we stay on the proper bearing, you say that the amount of guns in a society does not necessarily correlate with homicide rates with guns directly involved."
I did NOT say that. I have repeatedly said that if we take the guns away somehow that gun deaths will stop or at least slow. I have also repeatedly said that homicides, from all causes, cannot be correlated with the number of guns in a society; halve the guns and the number of homicides may double or triple. Or halve. Or remain constant. There is no correlation.
America's homicide rate is not that far removed from other countries, and neither is it's gun ownership rate. But if you don't want to use what appears to be an anomoly, use any other countries to compare to each other; you will not find that correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates that is assumed to be true.
"I still believe that the assaults in these other societies become homicides here because of the relative ease of access to firearms in this society. 1.20 guns per every person, they are at least as common as bludgeon bats."
If you believe that, how do you explain the enormous disparity between other countries and their own gun ownership? How can you look at the comparisons I provide between the UK and other countries and still claim that having lots of guns = lots of murders?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/355 … ost4248303
Wilderness, actually the highest percentage of homes with a gun is not Switzerland; it is the USA. In Switzerland there are about 27.6 guns per 100 people; making Switzerland the 19th highest gun ownership country in the world. In the USA there are about 120 guns per 100 people, making the USA by far the highest gun ownership country in the world; and making the USA the only country in the world where there are more guns than people. Plus Switzerland guns laws are actually quite tight, far tighter than the gun laws in the USA – So those two factors added together will naturally mean that Switzerland has far less gun violence, and homicides than in the USA.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated … by_country
• https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer … ice-duty-5
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_ … witzerland
Yeah, homicide rates peaked in Australia shortly after the tighter gun restrictions, as they did in Canada, before declining to levels lower than before the restrictions. The speculation is that when new restrictions are introduced that in the first instance those least likely to kill are the first to hand in their guns, while those most likely to kill don’t; so it takes a number of years for the killers to be caught and their guns taking out of circulation.
Bombs don’t really come into the equation; the only people who generally make and use bombs are terrorists. Also your assumption that homicides rates will decline if guns are restricted because everyone who would have used a gun will just choose other weapons seem to be suggesting that all homicides are premeditated. Not all homicides are premeditated, many are spur-of-the-moment where someone just picks up a gun and bang, bang, you’re dead. Whereas, in a spur-of-the-moment rage, if a gun is not handy, hitting back in a moment of anger or jealousy with whatever is to hand is less likely to be fatal so often e.g. hitting or kicking in anger, or threatening your partner with a kitchen knife etc.
It’s only the premeditated murders that would not be affected by making guns restricted; but not all murders are premediated.
You are confusing the guns per person with guns per home. The difference, of course, is that Americans tend to own multiple weapons while the Swiss do not. Approximately 48% of Swiss homes have a gun, while only about 40% of American homes do. When you say that because the Swiss only own one gun per home while Americans own multiple ones, and that because Swiss laws are "tight", it "naturally means" fewer homicides the reasoning escapes me. I cannot follow the logical steps from one gun per home vs three to fewer homicides, nor the steps from "tight" gun laws to few homicides, given that there is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate.
Someone just "picks up a gun" and bang bang...? Either they are already carrying it for the purpose of murder or they have to go somewhere, get it and return to do the "bang bang" thing - something we see fairly commonly. Precious few murders are carried out by people that legally bought a gun and are carrying it as self defense.
But all the rationalization in the world does not change the fact that more guns in a society does NOT mean more homicides.
Wilderness; I’m not confusing anything; the fact remains that there are more guns in the USA than people, and in Switzerland there are only 27.6 guns per 100 people – the fact that more homes in Switzerland may have guns than in the USA is immaterial – it ignores the fact that there are far fewer guns in Switzerland, and you’re ignoring the fact that gun regulations are tighter in Switzerland.
And in your comments you seem to be suggesting that only people with illegal guns in the USA kill; whereas, I suspect that as many killings are done by people who legally own guns; plus the fact that if guns were not so freely available in the USA then illegal guns would also become more difficult t come by.
Yeah, picking up a gun and shooting someone dead, is far easier than picking up a knife or baseball bat and trying to kill someone.
So why vehemently defend something that is so insanely dangerous?
Why so vehemently defend something that results in the deaths of over 100,000 Americans each year; more than a million American a decade? That is just insane to me!!!
I don’t see that either of us will ever see eye to eye on this issue.
How many guns do you think are used at one time? Do you have a vision of someone blazing away with both hands and maybe pulling a trigger with their toe?
Of course it matters how many people have ready access to a gun (at least one in the home) - every one of them is a potential murder weapon. On the other hand the American that has a dozen guns is still only one person, one murderer.
You may suspect that law abiding citizens are the murderers, but all the stats say otherwise. Common sense and gut feelings will always take a back seat to actual facts.
Dangerous? A gun is inanimate; it has no intrinsic danger to it. A car might, if there is a defect somewhere, but not a gun. It is only the insane handler that is dangerous.
Let me ask you; if guns are the cause of high murder rates what happened to England/Wales (data is a few years out of date)?
England/Wales has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 and a homicide rate of 1.5. France has nearly 5X the guns (31.2) and a slightly lower homicide rate (1.3)
Greece has 3X the guns (22.5) and 2/3rds the homicides (1.1).
Iceland has 4X the guns (30.3) and 1/2 the homicides (0.7)
Denmark has 2x the guns (12.0) but 1/20 the homicide rate (.07).
Canada has 5X the guns (30.8) but only slightly more homicides (1.8)
All of these facts plainly show that the more guns, the fewer the homicides. How can that be if it is the number of guns that causes a high murder rate?
Wilderness; there are too many variables to do a simple correlation of different countries between homicides and gun ownership and expect to find a correlation e.g. the differences in on how tight or relaxed the gun regulations are in each country, the level and effectiveness of policing, population density etc. etc. Nevertheless, all the countries you mention have homicide rates ranging between only 0.7 and 1.8 (all less than 2); while the homicide rate in the USA is 4.96, which is far higher than any of the other countries you listed. What all those other countries have in common is that gun ownership and homicide is only a fraction of gun ownership in the USA.
The USA has a high level of gun ownership and a high level of homicides; the other countries have a relatively low level of gun ownership and a relatively low level of homicides. It may not be possible to do a direct correlation, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a relationship between ownership and homicides.
You don’t think that the high level of gun ownership is the cause of the high level of homicides in the USA, whereas I do. And it doesn’t matter how much we debate it, neither of us are going to change our views on this subject.
You're right - all have a much lower homicide rate than the US. But that has zero to do with the question of why two European countries, one with 4X the gun ownership and half the homicide rate, can exist. You say there are many variables, and there certainly are, yet we see the same thing over and over and over. More guns does not equal more homicides. Yet you still insist it does, continuing to compare the US to others even though you also say comparisons do not work. You can't have it both ways.
Wilderness; you can’t make direct comparisons between different countries looking to see whether or not there are any correlation between the level of gun ownership and homicides because gun ownership is NOT the only factor that affects the homicide rates; so the data is going to differ from country to country – although, in my opinion, gun ownership is one of the major factors.
Also, how can you say “You may suspect that law abiding citizens are the murderers, but all the stats say otherwise.” The 18 year old who recently shot dead 19 kids and 2 teachers bought his guns legally.
You cannot use one data point to draw a conclusion. Look at the last 50 and see what you find - were the guns purchased legally by the shooter?
Yes, the data differs from country to country - that's why just a few countries does not give a realistic picture. But if you cannot compare countries, why do you compare the US to a different country, declaring that because the US has more guns and more murders it is because of guns?
I asked why you had that opinion, and your reply was experience, yet the experience you listed was that the UK was lower than the US in both areas. Again, comparisons are all we've got, but one pair does not make for a reasonable conclusion.
We’re just going around in circles with neither budging an inch on the topic; I’m just grateful that it’s not my problem, and you seem happy with the high level of gun violence in the USA!
This article below, sent by an American friend of mine, shows our future king freely mingling with Londoners, with no personal protection and no security guards, just shows how safe our gun free streets are in Britain. In contrast, Trump, when President, was driven around in a highly secure convoy in an armoured plated bullet proof car – What a contrast in our two cultures; and I know which one I feel safest in.
I’m not drawing any conclusions from just “one data point”; I’m just pointing out that Americans with legal guns do use them to kill – If gun controls were tighter in the USA then the 19 kids and 2 teachers would be alive today.
Also, 1,049 people have been shot and killed by police in the USA in the past year; compared to just one in the UK – Doesn’t that tell you something about the gun laws in the USA?
"If gun controls were tighter in the USA then the 19 kids and 2 teachers would be alive today."
You point it out...but have nothing to support your opinion with. Yes, a tiny percentage of Americans with legally purchased guns kill with them...just as citizens of every nation on earth do.
"Doesn’t that tell you something about the gun laws in the USA?"
Yes, it tells me that it is legal for American police go armed, just as they sometimes do in the UK. If I look beyond just the UK, I find that the US is #7 on the list of killings by police, at about 1/6th of the country on top. What does it tell YOU about gun laws in the USA (beyond that it is legal for cops to carry guns)?
An interesting statistic - although it is for any crime committed with a gun, not just murders, only 7% of guns used in a crime were purchased legally.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/doj-repor … ed-legally
Only 7% of guns used in a crime in the USA were purchase legally? Considering how high crime is in the USA then 7% of a ‘high’ number is a ‘high’ number. The number of guns used in crime in the USA is truly infinitesimally small, in real numbers, simply because in the UK neither criminals nor police generally carry guns.
“A tiny percentage of Americans with legally purchased guns kill with them”; again, turn the percentage into real figures and in the USA it amounts to a large number – while in the UK that figure is infinitesimally small, in real numbers, simply because in the UK few people have guns.
Only 5.4% of the British police are armed, compared to 100% of American police. Being 7th on the list of killings by police is nothing to be proud of; that is still appallingly high. 1,049 Americans killed by the police in the USA in just one year, compared to just 1 in the UK – It shows that there is something wrong with the American system!
It seems that little value is put on life in American society - to allow 19 kids and 2 teachers to be murdered and not care!!!!
Not care?!?! The only person in the country that didn't care was the dead shooter.
Obviously false statements like that do nothing for you argument, you know.
John Oliver discusses the push for more police in schools and whether they are the answer to our school safety issues, or a new problem altogether.
That was a struggle, I'm not a fan. There were more than a few 'minutes', (particular points), that I should have just fast-forwarded through. But, he also had more than a few 'minutes' that demand at least a little thought. Mostly because they are contrary to 'obvious' common sense.
One that I had never thought about was the question of the effectiveness of SROs in stopping mass shootings. So now, I can shoot safely because I already told you I don't know what I'm talking about.
Oliver referenced a study that says they have almost no effectiveness. He gave details that seem to support what he said. But the applicable incidents were in the low single digits, so an anomaly of just one or two would change that evaluation.
That's where he went off the rails for me.
He featured an expert that said SROs could actually be a magnet for shooters that may be familiar with their presence at the school, and were suicidal. Geez Jon.
Anyway, the original thought is still a puzzler worth checking out. The SRO issue is more complex than just having a cop there or not, so if that study is credible—relative to the credibility of the data, not the explanatory opinions of what the data says, that would be stuff I should know before marking a spot.
A quick search, to your point about the study (by the Texas State University and the FBI.)
A study by Texas State University and the FBI examined over 160 incidents, including 25 school shootings. The study found that none of the school shootings were ended by armed officers returning fire. Rather, these shootings typically ended when the shooter(s) was restrained by unarmed staff or when the shooter simply decided to stop.
The study is online, but the link I got is a download.
This one is from the Congressional Research Service, but from 2013
School Resource Officers: Law Enforcement
Officers in Schools
"...The body of research on the effectiveness of SRO programs is noticeably limited, and the research that is available draws conflicting conclusions about whether SRO programs are effective at reducing school violence. In addition, the body of research on the effectiveness of SROs does not address whether their presence in schools has deterred mass shootings."
This one is from SUNY and Brown University, 2021
The Thin Blue Line in Schools: New Evidence
on School-Based Policing Across the U.S.
"We find that SROs do effectively reduce some
forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents."
https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/d … 21-476.pdf
That is certainly a range of perspectives: it does, it doesn't, and it doesn't, but . . .. And it sort of makes the point that dry stats—on this issue, are both short in support. and inclusive, with the exception of actually stopping a shooting in progress, or from starting to 'progress'. I don't think that data point alone is enough to work with.
It will be hard for me to not think that their armed presence doesn't have at least some deterrent effect. I surely expected their armed presence to be a 'fail-safe' in an actual event. I guess I'll have to look.
Here are some sources to check out:
https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ … -resources
I have participated in Active Shooter training, and part of that training was watching footage taken from security cameras of real events.
It is possible that an SRO may not have any effect stopping an Active Shooter, however, an SRO has far more chance of doing something to prevent the deaths of children than if there isn't one.
And one of my favorites (why I love living in Florida) is this at minute 4:45 on:
The shame of it is, people like that (video above) aren't often the ones allowed to be in charge and make those decisions. But it is EXACTLY what this nation needs.
A gun owner powerful speech.
I didn't listen to all 36 minutes of it, but what I did hear was a fine, passionate speech...without any real data or truth to offer. Just tears and a demand that we repeat what we've been doing for decades, with the assumption that this time it will work, if he can just get it by the evil politicians that look to truth rather than tears before removing freedoms. Just my opinion.
I heard it the same: it was a great emotional presentation. No data, but plenty of sound points addressing exactly the points I would have.
Of course, it was a performance. He may even think it to be the best he's ever given, but because of the content of the speech, that doesn't lessen its credibility to me. He addressed the specifics of the demographics of most school mass shooters, (great focus point—exactly what is in and on most of the nation's minds), to power the reason for his message.
I didn't hear any assumptions beyond the one that we can address this issue. Unless I missed it I didn't hear any talk of bannings. I want us to have this conversation.
I didn't get by the first ten seconds.
"To make these... Lives lost... matter" click click...
Decent actor... his opinion is worth no more or less than anyone's.
Ha! I knew it was going to be McConaughey's speech. I saw most of it.
He is a [C]conservative. He said it a lot better than I could. I keep telling Cred to look around, there are more of us [C]onservatives than he thinks.
The speech was masterly structured, (Buggers, Fox is saying the same thing this instant, but I had a typing-headstart). I was thinking it before they said it.
Since all of us can only determine what we think the national and political moods are based on media presentations, I think the only safe thing to consider, currently, is any change in tone from the extremes of each side.
I'm hearing possible opportunities from both sides. He may spark that "win-win-win" idea mentioned here. Somewhere.
I do have a worry, but it's too early to be a real worry yet: the talk seems to be for a straight 21-year-old minimum. I want to see some exceptions. Not to rehash it, but one solid opportunity involved military experience and the other might involve public/private partnerships to develop programs of civilian instruction, training, and experience achievements, (something like a year-long involvement with milestones checked off), that could follow the military idea.
We have a shot this time. I think the [C]s and [L]s are going to persuade some [c]s and [l]s, (aka the Rs and Ds), to think about it. And that will get the attention of the R and D politicians. Things won't be 'business as usual.
GA, I look around and I might find 1 out of 100 that could be even considered as reasonable as a Cheney or Romney. As for the direction of Republicans and conservatives that is no more significant than that of an ant pushing against a steam locomotive.
The video was more one of remorse than anything else, the hard nose gun people will never allow for a reasonable compromise. I can't always share your optimism and I hope that I am wrong.
1. I don't like the 21 year old restriction on principle, but I will work with it in the interest of compromise
2. I want background checks as a prerequisite to any legal purchase of any weapon regardless of vendor.
3. I want a reasonable waiting period between purchase and receipt by the customer of any firearm. Reasonable is defined as no more than a week. It gives people time to think about the purpose and allow background check authorities time to look into more aspects and do more through evaluations.
4. Institute "red flag" markers that I believe should come with purchase of body armor for example. (What purpose do civilians have for this item). These random massacre type assailants have a profile, let's refine it and be looking for the indicators as part of the background checks. Conservatives are not going to like this, but the days of just buying a 38 over the counter from a merchant, no questions asked, are over.
We need to get SMART about this, beyond hardening school facilities and placing armed guards everywhere, or even arming teachers. We need to be pro-active and do a better job of identifying these troublesome individuals long before they reach the schoolyard.
I, too, would agree with this...assuming there is no fee to the purchaser for that background check. Where do you stand on that point?
But while I agree, I am not sanguine about just what happens when that "profile" (remember, we can't profile people any more anyway) indicates there may be a problem. Will the purchase be denied? Would it require a mental exam (who pays for that?), and who would be doing that exam. What points would be used to deny purchase? I like the red flag thing, but I have serious doubts it would be useful at all.
I am ok, with your "no fee" stance. I complained about poll taxes and such impeding people exercising the right to vote, I should be as accommodating toward the 2nd Amendment.
Profiling should not be so broad to allow cops to accost anyone just because they were black and young. That was my problem, how it was used.
In this case, we are not focusing on irrelevant attributes, but on those indices that are consistent with the commission of these crimes and the description and behaviors of the overwhelming number of those that commit them, it makes sense. The FBI uses techniques such as these.
I would not deny purchase without clearly explicit disqualifiers such as certain felony convictions or parole status, etc. However, a good background check might look at any brush with the law, misdemeanors charges thay may be consistent with shooter profiles as cause for suspicion as a "red flag". For the Texas shooter, perhaps his purchase of body armor and large quantities of ammunition combined with his age, to include the nature of his past brushes with law, might get someone's attention. The mental exam idea won't work, that could be only identified consistent with a misdemeanor conviction that should show up in a good background check.
And there you go, a Progressive with agreeable discussion points on a gun issue. We did it. We found a place to start from. Now imagine the normal folks of Middle America that aren't as politically obsessed as we are, I bet they, both sides, are going to be considering a 'Hmm . . .'
Help yourself to some optimism bud, if we can do it surely normal people can. We'll let them take care of the politicians that don't get the message.
Then we can get down to criticizing this flat 21 thing. We might even work on the background check if there is an exception for instances like inter-family exchanges—gifts or sales. Your waiting period, meh, I ain't too hot on that one.
As for Red Flag laws, we have room to talk. I'm for the removal concept of them, but there is the possibility that there is too much room for abuse and bad shit by folks that would do both. But we can talk.
Or, recollecting some of your previous 'Minority Report' proposals, we can argue.
Yeah, we found a place to start from, but where do we end up?
We all have been on this topic for some time. Kumbaya? I will have to see it to believe it.
I think waiting periods are essential, if only to do the more thorough background checks that we obviously need.
I don't like the idea of exceptions for gifts, but as long as the weapons can be traced to its original owner, I might live with it. Daddy might gift a weapon to a sociopathic serial killer, but with a good red flag check, he might still trip a wire bringing him to the attention the authorities.
We are all going have to compromise to get a better control on a problem that is ever increasingly getting out of hand.
We are a long way from 'Kumbaya', but maybe the roadblock to the campfire entrance is moving?
The exception I want in the background check idea is for a father or grandfather-type exchange to the next generation. Or from brother to brother. Those are the type of inter-family exchanges I want to be left alone.
That's the ideological gist. I understand it would leave an opening for the potential of an anomaly, (dad giving a gun to a crazy kid, anyway), but the risk cost works for me. I don't think that type of occurrence could represent any significant number. So let's not restrict thousands(?) from a potentially important cultural tradition for fear of a few possible aberrations.
Do you think that would be workable for the [L]'s that are considering movement in their positions? I think it would work for the [C]s.
On that note in Calif basically without going into detail you can only purchase a gun from a gun dealer. I bought those shot guns I mentioned from a private party (a friend), but he had a gun dealer's license. Yet, would it have mattered as who would know.
As far as the concept of passing along a gun to a son and etc. below is what Calif says in that regard. Below that is a link to Frequently Asked Questions about firearms in Calif for perusal.
" Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?
Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category, pdf and the firearm is legal to possess (e.g., not an assault weapon). The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.
If the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate prior to taking possession and must also submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days after taking possession.
The same rules apply to the return of the firearm at a later date.
(Pen. Code, §§ 27870-27875, 30910-30915.)
The link is:
BTW . . . on my recent excursions I learned Maryland bans assault weapons. Isn't that where you live?
That California code works for me. And yep, Maryland is a very blue state.
I think we can still buy Ar-15 style 'assault' weapons, but they have to pass a 'prohibited-cosmetics' test.
Ok, I will let Jimmy bob inherit a weapon from papa. You guys and your "traditions".....
Under MOST of terms found in the California example provided by TSmog, I can work with your exception proposal.
"So let's not restrict thousands(?) from a potentially important cultural tradition for fear of a few possible aberrations."
Funny, that is the same logic I used to support my resistance to raising the age to 21 from 18.
Yep, and that logic is also the same logic I had, and in most issues still have.
My flexibility now, is narrow, and only there if the proposed solution isn't an across-the-board application. I want some exceptions. I think you have seen them, do you think they are open for discussion with the [L]s?
The problem, GA, is that often times "exceptions" can become "loopholes".
From the Left, your exceptions may have exceptions applied, so that there isn't much opportunity to wiggle out from requirements.
I agreed with your tradition of transfer of weapons to immediate progeny under relatively stringent conditions.
I reluctantly agreed to an age 21 restriction for certain weapons sales and ownership. But if there is going to be an exception it is for active law enforcement people and on duty military, with firearms being a necessary accoutrement to their duties, not just because the guy is or has been in the military.
Would you accept an exception not for immediate progeny but for any legal child? That would include adopted children.
There are still some details to work on, but go ahead and forward your ideas to Murphey and let's see what gets on the table. ;-)
I'd take it, give me that age 21 (with exceptions for police officers, military, and well trained and checked security) and I'll give you 2,3 and 4.
It's a shame it can't be done by reasonable people willing to compromise like you and I... instead it is left to politicians which have to pander to their voter base and their funders (lobbyists and campaign donors).
Nathanville: You see clearly. Wilderness doesn't want to see. The solution: Stop sending republicans to Washington. The majority of American people want change. That is the only way it will happen.
Can you explain the stats I noted about the UK and show that they actually show that more guns = fewer homicides? That would be a great start to "seeing", don't you think?
Since the Robb Elementary School shooting I have been on an adventure reading, reading, and reading. And, I have been following the discussion. I understand the point I think Wilderness is making. That is that more guns in society does not equate to more homicides overall. Do I have that right? In other words not more guns equates to more gun homicides. Those are two different things. Am I on the right track?
Anyway, to support Wilderness's view is the link below. It is a Wikipedia source, yet it is the best one I discovered for all countries. It shows intentional homicide rate by 100,000, gun count per country, and guns per capita or guns per 100 residents. What is cool is you can sort the header topics.
If you sort by intentional homicide rate by worse to least the U.S. is ranked 87 out of 171 listed countries with 4.2/100,000. Yet, they are #1 of all countries for guns per capita at 112.6/100 residents. Also, while in that sort order the U.S. is bordered by Turkmenistan with 4.2, yet guns per capita is 3.8. Far less than the U.S. The other country is Yemen at 4.2, yet guns are 54.8 per capita. Still less than the U.S.obviously since the U.S. has the greatest guns per capita. So, that seems to support Wilderness's view.
Note: You can sort by region and sub-region as well. The link follows:
List of countries by guns and homicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … d_homicide
But, addressing more guns means more gun homicides there was a study done using data/info for the U.S.from 1981 - 2010. It is published by the National Library of Science and peer reviewed. It is extremely thorough and extensive. The final conclusion is "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides". Yet, as said earlier that is not the same thing as more guns does not equate to more homicides. The link follows:
The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
If I misunderstand Wilderness, then the above can be negated.
"That is that more guns in society does not equate to more homicides overall."
You are correct. It is not the number of bodies with bullet holes that matters; it is the number of bodies and that is what I look at.
I will throw just one more thought into the mix, something I came across recently. It is not so much the number of guns per capita (precious few people can blaze away with both hands and expect even a little of accuracy). Rather, it is the number of guns per household, and the US ranks well below Switzerland, with it's extremely low homicide rate.
I agree with your last thought; it is a no brainer that if you can get the guns away then the bodies will not have bullet holes in them. You may still have the bodies, but they won't have bullet holes.
(If you are interested I compiled a list of countries and collated them into a graph and chart. The article is on my carousel. I turned my nose up at Wikipedia, using the UN Small Arms Survey and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Presumably a neutral source without an ax to grind. It is a little dated now, but I truly doubt that things have changed that much, at least in regard to the desired question of "Do more guns equal more homicides")
The Wiki source used the Small Arms Survey 2017 for civilian guns per capita by country. The source for intentional homicide rate was UNODC as was yours. And, I have read your thorough article already years ago. That is why I haven't entered the discussion before. I think this Wiki data table that can be sorted would be very useful for people to see what the correlations are with those two variables - intentional homicides and guns per capita.
For me, it was most obvious when graphed. But then I like graphs; they give the best overall look, and at a glance.
Charts are fine when great detail is needed, but graphs are better, IMO, when one is simply looking for a rough correlation.
Agreed with graphs to an extent. My job for fourteen years was data mining for inventory, sales performance, store this and that, and other business stuff. My reports to the owner, the president, VP, and etc always had a graph as a cover followed by the data summary, and then my analysis, which was viewed as an opinion many times.
But, they wanted more when they went on a tangent to discover support for their own theory(s) while also seeking to substantiate their perspective. That would be followed by further research and report building by me. It was always a precarious position for me when I could not support their theory.
Perhaps the Wiki one would be useful for Nathan. On that note I'll post your article since by TOS you aren't suppose to. Hopefully others will see it. Maybe Cred will see it and Nathan too.
Gun Control and Crime Statistics: Does Gun Control Reduce Crime?
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Gun … duce-Crime
That would be a bad (and precarious) position to be in. A good way to lose one's job.
Thanks form the chart and graph. I guess my point regarding homicides and guns needs a fresh look?
Compared with non western nations, considering the number of guns in our population, the level of US homicides can considered miraculous. But I can make my case better when considering Western Style industrialized nations, that USA would be expected to emulate.
by Judy Specht 10 years ago
The president listed 23 items he said he could address by executive order. He didn't mention the culture of violence. Now I am about to step on some toes, but this needs to be addressed. Quintin Tarantino is known for what kind of movies? They are box office hits...
by Sharlee 2 months ago
This one thing will fix it all ! Really, will new gun control really fix it all? And when can we expect this fix? When hell freezes over?Do human beings all of a sudden pick up a gun and go shoot people?How does a person come to this point? Do we need to fix people, not...
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
It seems apparent from reading reports after the terrorist attack in the UK that most of their officers don't have guns.
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
We’re Going to Need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to Recover From Trumphttps://www.thenation.com/article/polit … ciliation/We Need a Truth and Reconciliation Process for the Trump Erahttps://inthesetimes.com/article/donald … -injusticeThe Trump Accountability...
by Leland Johnson 5 years ago
The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools. Gunmen attack soft targets. They like to assault "gun free zones." I believe 20 years of wrangling over...
by Mike Russo 4 weeks ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|