Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gun control becomes impossible (Page 34)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38   
Author Topic: Gun control becomes impossible
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He had no personal connections to those schools, so why else would we have chosen them?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Universities are target-rich, full of young people and generate a lot of press?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps he wanted to shoot up a school. Just a thought.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

Police stations, military bases, gun shows, gun ranges, and gun stores are about the only locations where there is a reasonable chance of more than 1 in 100 people being armed.

All locations but those listed are 'practically' gun free whether there is an official policy or not. Even those locations with an official policy there isn't that much less liklihood of someone being armed. Indeed, the odds of someone being armed are probably slightly higher due to increased likelihood of security being reasonably close.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Police stations, military bases, gun shows, gun ranges, and gun stores are about the only locations where there is a reasonable chance of more than 1 in 100 people being armed.
Cite please.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One more thing to take as amusing is trying to reason why a mentally ill person intent on killing people chose one venue over another. He had three University targets in mind and picked one apparently at random. Nowhere does it say he selected them because they were gun-free zones.

As for him intending to kill himself with the knife he carried,
quote:
Meis managed to disarm Ybarra and quickly lock his shotgun in a nearby office before coming back and taking away Ybarra's hunting knife, court documents say.

Then, with the help of two other students, Meis held Ybarra for police officers responding to the shooting.

Police say Ybarra had about 50 additional shotgun rounds and told investigators he planned to shoot as many people as possible and then kill himself with the hunting knife if officers did not shoot him first.

One has to wonder why he didn't do it after the unarmed student security monitor took his gun away and walked out of the room. At that point Ybarra would have known (were he rational) that he was done killing and could have finished his mission before the student got back and took his knife away. One wonders what sense anybody can make of any of this, and the more one tries one wonders why they would make such a fruitless effort.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and the more one tries one wonders why they would make such a fruitless effort.
I tend to believe this is a result of our currently culture's attitude toward guns. That they are scary and never to be seen, and this gives them "power" in the minds of psychos like these while also informing those psychos that if they have a gun and no one else does that they will be near-unstoppable.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cite please.
Actually, as I've been asking you for some time to give me an equivalently crowded location where a shooter would have a reasonable expectation of encountering an armed civilian, I'd like to see your response first.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

9.6 million concealed carry permits. US population 314 million.

So if every concealed carry person carried all the time, it would be 3%. If 1/3 carry regularly then that makes it 1 in 100. More likely it is much lower than that. I think it is only 10% of people with concealed carry permits actually do so regularly. So 1 in 300 or so.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

9.6 million concealed carry permits. US population 314 million.

So if every concealed carry person carried all the time, it would be 3%. If 1/3 carry regularly then that makes it 1 in 100. More likely it is much lower than that. I think it is only 10% of people with concealed carry permits actually do so regularly. So 1 in 300 or so.

You are forgetting the states that are constitutional carry for both concealed and open, as well as places where people have unlicensed open carry.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
I was trying to get clarity about whether your additional examples were on the same topic, but from your response I'm kind of doubtfull about that now.
As far as I can tell the additional 20 match the criteria of the original 30 in the list I found in this thread. Multiple people were shot.
Like I've pointed out repeatedly that's not the only relevant criteria, so without additional information (or some showing that you understand why some multiple killings are not relevant) I'm going to assume the 20 additional are not relevant.
quote:
The claim was made that the common thread in mass shootings gun free zones.
The logic on the claim is that shooters choose gun free zones, all other factors being equal. Not that its the only factor. Showing that targetted killings occur in the target's location is noise that a valid study would control for to see if the "gun free zone" condition also had an impact.

There are literally 12-14 thousand gun related homicides each year, and the vast majority of those are targetted killings. I don't know the exact amount, but I'd be suprised if it was under 90%. It's not controversial in the least that most people have a specific motive for killing particular people.
quote:
Another claim was made that the common thread in mass shootings was the targeting of someone or something specific.
There's no claim that this is a "common" thread. Some mass shootings are targetted, some are not. They are two categories of mass shootings. Just like single victim homicides are a different category, even though both fit in the broader grouping of gun related homicides.
quote:
There was disagreement as to which claim was correct.
No, there was disagreement as to whether the creation of gun free zones has an impact on the location preferences of mass shooters.
quote:
quote:
So how did you define mass shootings? Did you include gang violence, which noone else has? Did you include home invasions? Or targetted murder? Did you include intrafamily murder?
Shootings resulting in multiple deaths where the shooter was identified and apprehended.
Which is a different category.
quote:
quote:
Consider a single type of killing, a person murders their whole family and kills themselves in their home. That would be a targetted killing is a zone that clearly wasn't gun free. Including it however, provides no usefull information on whether or not gun free zones increase risk, it just distorts the data pool.
The question I was trying to answer was narrower in scope than your question. I only wanted to determine if the common thread in mass shootings was the gun free zone status of the location, or the targeting by the shooter. If you want to only look at shootings which were non-targeted you have a very small pool to work with.
So you were trying to determine whether its more common for people to have a motive or to kill people in a gun free zone. The question is whether people with a motive are more likely to act on it in a gun free zone, and whether people without a motive are more likely to do so.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I agree that if we are discussing random acts of violence, then the question of gun free zones is more important. I would also contend that mass shootings are more often targeted than random, so ignoring the larger part of the problem would be misleading.
Your own conclusions would indicate that gun free zones are irrelevant as a protection against targetted killings.
It would also indicate that the gun free zone status of a location is irrelevant to whether or not there will be a shooting there.
What you showed was that non-targetted mass killers were more likely to kill in a gun free zone, given that targetted killings have the choice of location determined by the target while non-targetted ones do not, that's pretty damning. It says nothing about why this occurs, or if it would hold in a non anecdotal sample.
quote:
No, in that case you are still looking at all of the games, just ignoring some aspects of those games. My point was that by ignoring some mass shootings that you bias the conclusions you draw from the mass shootings that you do include. I would prefer to be more inclusive than less inclusive.
But your not doing that, what you're actually doing is trying to study two variables simultaneously without controlling for the other. If you want to determine if there's a motive inference, you should hold the location element constant. Are people in gun free zones more likely to be targetting specific people, are people in other locations? But again given that the vast majority of homicide is deliberate there doesn't seem to much to study.

The kind of study you seem to be trying to do, is like a poll on what's the most pressing issue facing the economy. Even if you get a single response that 70% agree on, it says nothing about whether they are also concerned about the other issues.
quote:
What would be the causal path that would result in more mass shootings because gun free zones exist? I'm having a hard time with this idea. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote.
I don't think there necessarily is a strong factor that would do so. The argument is that in a world with mass shootings, gun free zones attract them rather than act as a protection.
quote:
Except for in the context of our discussion where two competing claims were made about the common thread in mass shootings.
By no one. I may have to give up here. Please feel free to continue to demonstrate that most homicides have a motive to your heart's content and to no one's argument.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would like to submit that parks are not known for their bottlenecks. That said, yes, buses and intersections would make interesting venues -- but I think most shooters are looking for more newsworthy sites, and particularly sites full of pedestrians.

Buses are a classic target for suicide bombers specifically becaue they fit the critiria you are looking for, they are less ideal for a shooter because of the possiblity of getting swarmed (which a bomber for obvious reasons is less concerned about). Who really knows why they are not as popular currently, is it the enhanced media attention in schools, is it the association with terrorists, is it rationaly not wanting to be swarmed, is it the fact that in much of the country they are often not running at capacity?
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Police stations, military bases, gun shows, gun ranges, and gun stores are about the only locations where there is a reasonable chance of more than 1 in 100 people being armed.

Not to single you out, this idea seems to present in a lot of places. There are any number of high value targets where there are likely to be armed guards. Banks, Malls, alot of large stores. Presumably we should see a bias away from such locations for mass shooting attempts if Seneca's view holds. There are any number of tourist areas that have massive amounts of unarmed people and armed security, though it may confuse the issue when that security involves police or military forces rather than private security.

I don't think its at all objectionable to think that for many places in the country the "armed bystander" is unlikely enough to not be a strong consideration, while in others it may be a pressing idea. How about controlling the study for frequency of carry in the local area?

In Al's study the author's didn't parse what percentage of the Businesses and other locations were armed/unarmed/guarded. Nor did it appear to control for carry.

Think about it, does any location in NYC count as a gun free zone, whether or not posted, given the state of the law?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How about controlling the study for frequency of carry in the local area?
Great idea! Let's register and track all gun carriers! [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given the state of most CA counties and how the anti-freedom sheriffs were bragging on how they used the "may issue" law to deny all carry permits, one could argue all those counties were effectively gun free zones. All type of carry had been banned there prior to the 9th Circuit striking it down.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The argument is that in a world with mass shootings, gun free zones attract them rather than act as a protection.
Except that's pretty much backward- it's the areas taht tend to have higher population densities and greater risk from a firearms incident, wither intentional or not, that tend to get designated as gun free so as to significantly reduce the chances that an incident will occur.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well see I agree with that Pyrtolin. There's also a media bias that impacts the question. We'd need a good study to see if there is causation.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given the state of most CA counties and how the anti-freedom sheriffs were bragging on how they used the "may issue" law to deny all carry permits, one could argue all those counties were effectively gun free zones.
There are poor parts of Los Angeles county that would dispute that characterization, Seneca. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one ever said criminals didn't carry in gun free zones...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Given the state of most CA counties and how the anti-freedom sheriffs were bragging on how they used the "may issue" law to deny all carry permits, one could argue all those counties were effectively gun free zones. All type of carry had been banned there prior to the 9th Circuit striking it down.

Then any place is as good as any other place. In those areas it would then make sense to see if mass shooters select the same sorts of places as they do in places that are *explicitly* gun-free.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that criminals would be almost as likely as other citizens to stop a mass shooting in progress.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which may explain why there has never been a mass shooting in Southeast L.A.

Even the shooters don't want to go there. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yay! No mass shootings in southeast LA, just more overall shooting deaths per capita because citizens are effectively disarmed at large...

[Crying]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Criminals are citizens too, Seneca. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Yay! No mass shootings in southeast LA, just more overall shooting deaths per capita because citizens are effectively disarmed at large...

[Crying] [Crying]


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You seem to have some delusion that there is a bright line between "citizens" (good, law-abiding people) and "criminals."

"Citizens" can always be trusted with weapons, to carry around at all times. They will never use they illegally. They will only use them to defend themselves from the "bad" people, the "criminals."

"Criminals," OTOH, will always break the law. They have no trouble getting guns. They will break the law whenever they wish and without compunction. And the only thing that slows them down are "citizens" who are armed and will fight back.

You obviously have never lived in an area like Southeast L.A. [Smile]

Life is much, much messier there. Kids join gangs for different reasons: some for the thrill, some for the status, some for protection from other gangs. Some because their fathers, who are good, upstanding "citizens," were once active gang members.

A lot of the shootings occur because one gang is using their First Amendment Right to protect themselves from another gang. Protecting their territory, protecting their loved-ones, or retaliating for the unlawful killing of one of theirs. Things that you expect good, law-abiding citizens to do. Except that they are doing it unlawfully.

Then there are the non-gang members who are armed, get drunk, and end up killing someone in a dispute. Or accidently kill someone because they think he was a burgler. Or shoot their guns into the air on New Years and their bullet hits someone coming down. Not to mention crimes of passion.

The point is that, as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." Someone who has always been law-abiding goes and murders someone else. Someone who is a gang-banger kills someone in self-defense. It's a crazy, murky area where you don't know who is "good" and who is "bad," where those definitions can change depending on the circumstances.

Arming the citizenry doesn't mean that those who are "good" will only use it to fight crime. It means that when two dudes fight, they won't just bash each other's faces for a while; one or both will pull out guns and one or both will be dead. [Frown]

You don't have more shootings in Southeast L.A. because there aren't enough guns. You have more shootings because there are plenty of guns, and a lot of people who don't mind using them.

There's gasoline there, and it's all ready burning. Throwing on more gasoline won't change or help the situation. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A lot of the shootings occur because one gang is using their First Amendment Right to protect themselves from another gang. Protecting their territory, protecting their loved-ones, or retaliating for the unlawful killing of one of theirs. Things that you expect good, law-abiding citizens to do. Except that they are doing it unlawfully.
That's crazy. No one expects law-abiding citizens to do those things. Protection while under attack in the moment of it is one thing, delayed retaliation is illegal and wrong under any circumstances.

quote:
Then there are the non-gang members who are armed, get drunk, and end up killing someone in a dispute. Or accidently kill someone because they think he was a burgler. Or shoot their guns into the air on New Years and their bullet hits someone coming down. Not to mention crimes of passion.
People who are drunk shouldn't carry guns, that's a rule everywhere. Generally you find sensible gun owners elsewhere more or less get that. If it doesn't work well in "gangsta culture" then maybe that's a cultural issue, not a gun issue...
As for shooting bullets into the air, contrary to Joe Biden's insanity, most gun owners know that and don't do it...

quote:
The point is that, as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." Someone who has always been law-abiding goes and murders someone else. Someone who is a gang-banger kills someone in self-defense. It's a crazy, murky area where you don't know who is "good" and who is "bad," where those definitions can change depending on the circumstances.

I understand that this is a popular false narrative the left loves to tell, the problem is that it's false. The FBI's crime stats on recidivism shows that over 70% of firearm crime is committed by a small group of people with prior records. There's very few "first-time" gun criminals anymore.

quote:
Arming the citizenry doesn't mean that those who are "good" will only use it to fight crime.
No, but according to the Centers for Disease Control's figures, it is incredibly likely that they will, at a ratio of near 250/300 to 1...

quote:
It means that when two dudes fight, they won't just bash each other's faces for a while; one or both will pull out guns and one or both will be dead. [Frown]
It is illegal for many of these felons to own guns already. Should we do "general warrants" for whole areas of Southeast LA to find all these illegal guns?

quote:
You don't have more shootings in Southeast L.A. because there aren't enough guns
No, you have shootings because people who aren't in a cultural mindset of being willing to break the law will never possess a gun because the government there tells them they cannot have one, meanwhile the people intent on breaking the law will be the only ones carrying them around. Very simple.
quote:
You have more shootings because there are plenty of guns, and a lot of people who don't mind using them.
The guns are ALL in criminals hands. Everyone carrying a gun in that area is a criminal because having a gun outside the home has been made unconstitutionally illegal in that area.

quote:
There's gasoline there, and it's all ready burning. Throwing on more gasoline won't change or help the situation. [Frown]
I think you are confusing water with gasoline. Do you know how police stop bad guys with guns? Please remind everyone...

[ June 12, 2014, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for shooting bullets into the air, contrary to Joe Biden's insanity, most gun owners know that and don't do it...
Like I said, you never lived in Southeast L.A. [LOL]

Sure, "most" gun owners know not to do it. But how many ignorant ones does it take before it becomes a problem?

I remember being in Pomona, CA a few years ago (quite a few, actually [Embarrassed] ) on New Years. Sounded like a war zone.

Hopefully attitudes have changed since then, but I wouldn't count on it. Aren't there usually one or two casualties a year from bullets shot in the air?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that when two dudes fight, they won't just bash each other's faces for a while; one or both will pull out guns and one or both will be dead. [Frown]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is illegal for many of these felons to own guns already.

So only felons fight? [Confused]

quote:
The FBI's crime stats on recidivism shows that over 70% of firearm crime is committed by a small group of people with prior records. There's very few "first-time" gun criminals anymore.
You still have a bit under 30% is committed by "first-time" offenders--AKA "citizens." That's hardly "very few." Besides, they are the ones who replenish the over 70%.

quote:
No, you have shootings because people who aren't in a cultural mindset of being willing to break the law will never possess a gun because the government there tells them they cannot have one [to carry around], meanwhile the people intent on breaking the law will be the only ones carrying them around. Very simple.
Except that many times, these same people who are carrying them around shoot at others who are carrying them around. Gang-on-gang shooting are one of the top reasons for shootings in these areas, if not the top reason.

What makes you think they will act differently if more people (not just their popular targets) start carrying?

quote:
People who are drunk shouldn't carry guns, that's a rule everywhere. Generally you find sensible gun owners elsewhere more or less get that.
Sure, "sensible" gun owners get that. But do the drunks? [Wink]

And if you want more people to carry, how are you going to stop the drunks from carrying? You think they should go defenseless because maybe they have a drink or two? [Eek!]

And you still haven't addressed my main point: as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." If you want more people to carry, how are you going to keep these guns out of the hands of petty criminals who don't currently carry; out of the hands of drunks; out of the hands of pot smokers; out of the hands of the guy who's had a really bad day and gets stopped by a cop for what appears to him to be no good reason?

You say "sensible" gun owners won't do abuse the use of guns. But if you want a lot more people to carry, so as to prevent bad guys from using them, then you are going to have less "sensible" people carrying them. Ones like I described above. If we all have guns, then even people we don't want to have guns will have them. And even if they normally wouldn't carry them, there will be more pressure to do so, since everyone else has them and they'd be unprotected.

As I said, you still have the mindset that there are "good" guys and "bad" guys out there, and we should arm more of the "good" guys. But really there are only guys. And along that spectrum from good to bad, there is a lot of gray area.

Arming everyone means arming the gray area, too.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So only felons fight? [Confused]

quote:
The FBI's crime stats on recidivism shows that over 70% of firearm crime is committed by a small group of people with prior records. There's very few "first-time" gun criminals anymore.
You still have a bit under 30% is committed by "first-time" offenders--AKA "citizens." That's hardly "very few." Besides, they are the ones who replenish the over 70%.

A common point of confusion. Further analysis of those stats reveal people progress to crime from other violent crime, which means that there usually isn't "first time gun crime" unless you are excluding the other felonies behind that person's record.

Hrm, it seems things have changed. According to this, 90% of murder suspects have previous criminal records.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2472

Any way you look at it the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who shouldn't have been let out of jail at all. Easiest way to stop gun crime is a life sentence with no parole for using firearms on others. At that point you'd put firearm murders well below murders from knives and strangling.

quote:
And you still haven't addressed my main point: as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." If you want more people to carry, how are you going to keep these guns out of the hands of petty criminals who don't currently carry; out of the hands of drunks; out of the hands of pot smokers; out of the hands of the guy who's had a really bad day and gets stopped by a cop for what appears to him to be no good reason?
What's your idea? I already asked you about "general warrants" to search all of SE LA. What's your idea?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I said, you still have the mindset that there are "good" guys and "bad" guys out there, and we should arm more of the "good" guys. But really there are only guys. And along that spectrum from good to bad, there is a lot of gray area.

Arming everyone means arming the gray area, too.

That's well-framed.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
People who are drunk shouldn't carry guns, that's a rule everywhere. Generally you find sensible gun owners elsewhere more or less get that.
So lets looks at the reality.

quote:
Gun owners who carry concealed weapons or have confronted another person with a gun are more than twice as likely to drink heavily as people who do not own guns, according to a study by UC Davis researchers.
quote:
The UC Davis study, which appears online in the journal Injury Prevention, analyzed telephone survey results for more than 15,000 people in eight states. The highest levels of alcohol abuse were reported by gun owners who engaged in dangerous behavior with their weapons. For example, gun owners who also drove or rode in motor vehicles with loaded guns were more than four times as likely to drink and drive as were people who did not own guns. But gun owners who did not travel with loaded guns were still more than twice as likely to drink and drive as were people who did not own guns.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/5416
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Almost 20 year old data from a selection of 8 states with a tiny sample? Absurd.

From the study:

quote:
Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota and Ohio. Participants
HI and NJ are places where carry permits are exceedingly rare, essentially like unicorns. I doubt the veracity of this garbage.


There's a lot of other concessions about how flawed the study was, at the end of the day I'd consider it worthless.

This is by far the worst part though:
quote:
According to a 2004 study done by the Harvard School of Public Health, there are 260 to 300 million guns in civilian hands in the United States. The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center estimates that 32 percent of American households contain firearms. In 2009, more than 30,000 gun-related deaths occurred around the nation, and more than 78,000 people suffered non-fatal gunshot wounds. About one third of firearm-related deaths involve alcohol. In the last three years, about 25 percent of gunshot-wound victims treated at UC Davis Medical Center tested positive for alcohol.
"1/3 of firearm related deaths involve Alcohol." But how many of THOSE were from firearm users who were in illegal possession of the firearm? We've already seen the stats on gun murders being overwhelmingly committed by people with prior felonies, and thus are in illegal possession of a gun.

These numbers don't wash.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you still haven't addressed my main point: as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." If you want more people to carry, how are you going to keep these guns out of the hands of petty criminals who don't currently carry; out of the hands of drunks; out of the hands of pot smokers; out of the hands of the guy who's had a really bad day and gets stopped by a cop for what appears to him to be no good reason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's your idea? I already asked you about "general warrants" to search all of SE LA. What's your idea?

That's the problem--there is no "idea."

General warrants won't work for someone who may decide in the future to become a criminal. They don't work for people who drink too much once in a while (unless you happen to catch them drunk). They don't work for people who only smoke once in a while. They don't work for people who get angry once in a while.

You can't keep them out of irresponsible people's hands.

Right now, most of these people volutarily don't carry because they don't want to get busted for weapons violation. But make it legal, and encourage everyone to carry for their own safety, and I see no reason why many of them won't start carrying. Do you?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Almost 20 year old data from a selection of 8 states with a tiny sample? Absurd.
Hmm, you're picky about numbers you don't like.

quote:
No, but according to the Centers for Disease Control's figures, it is incredibly likely that they will, at a ratio of near 250/300 to 1...
But really loose with the numbers you DO like. I've pointed out before that the stat you're citing here is not a claim that the CDC made. You should really stop representing it as "the Centers for Disease Control's figure". The CDC mentioned several studies with wildly varying estimates for defensive gun use.

It's really disingenuous to pretend that the highest estimate is one that the CDC has endorsed, when the whole point of that section of the report was that there are different estimates and ongoing controversy about the actual incidence of defensive gun use. If you want to use that figure, cite the study it came from, not the CDC.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

if was a survey of 15,000 people. Not 'tiny'. For comparison, your average defensive gun use survey are around 1000 to 5000.

The reason the data is from 20 years ago, is because the NRA lobbied to freeze all federally funded research into gun violence so there hasn't been much data collected since then on the topic.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you still haven't addressed my main point: as you look around those neighborhoods, you can't tell the "citizens" from the "criminals." If you want more people to carry, how are you going to keep these guns out of the hands of petty criminals who don't currently carry; out of the hands of drunks; out of the hands of pot smokers; out of the hands of the guy who's had a really bad day and gets stopped by a cop for what appears to him to be no good reason?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's your idea? I already asked you about "general warrants" to search all of SE LA. What's your idea?

That's the problem--there is no "idea."

General warrants won't work for someone who may decide in the future to become a criminal. They don't work for people who drink too much once in a while (unless you happen to catch them drunk). They don't work for people who only smoke once in a while. They don't work for people who get angry once in a while.

You can't keep them out of irresponsible people's hands.

Right now, most of these people volutarily don't carry because they don't want to get busted for weapons violation. But make it legal, and encourage everyone to carry for their own safety, and I see no reason why many of them won't start carrying. Do you?

Then it's a good thing that according to the CDC and FBI people use guns for lawful defensive purposes at an astronomical ratio to illegal offensive uses. yes, guns will be used for crimes but in the cost-benefit analysis they are far more worth it than not. Just accept that even the most conservative estimate of legit DGUs places them at 5-10 times the number of gun deaths and at the most liberal estimate 300 times the number of gun deaths.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

if was a survey of 15,000 people. Not 'tiny'. For comparison, your average defensive gun use survey are around 1000 to 5000.

The reason the data is from 20 years ago, is because the NRA lobbied to freeze all federally funded research into gun violence so there hasn't been much data collected since then on the topic.

Even if that were true that hasn't stopped private fools like Hanauer and Bloomberg from funding their own studies. They like to brag about how they outspend the NRA, why haven't they done a study?

I also see no response to why they picked two states where carry permits are virtually non-existent of. Why HI and NJ?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They didn't pick the states. They used all available survey data and only those eight states had collected that data.

[ June 12, 2014, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then the states are engaging in pointless exercises. If HI and NJ don't hardly allow anyone to carry outside their home, the data is most likely bad at the source.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

it is the best data available and the effect size is rather enormous (ie not 1.1 times but 2 to 4 times the likelihood). So unless you find a study that contradicts this, it shows pretty clearly that your assumptions about those who CC being way off base.

Also from what I can find, restrictive concealed carry in Hawai'i and New Jersey both occurred after the study.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

it is the best data available and the effect size is rather enormous (ie not 1.1 times but 2 to 4 times the likelihood). So unless you find a study that contradicts this, it shows pretty clearly that your assumptions about those who CC being way off base.

Also from what I can find, restrictive concealed carry in Hawai'i and New Jersey both occurred after the study.

It appears you are incorrect.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1