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 » Mass shootings in gun free zones

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Mass shootings in gun free zones
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The topic came up on another board, so I researched the numbers.

In the past twelve months there have been 29 shootings that left four or more people dead.

2 of those incidents occurred in locations easily identifiable as gun free zones. 24 of the incidents occurred in locations easily identifiable as not gun free zones. 3 were mixed or difficult to identify. One took place at a barber shop and a private residence, no information about the status of the barber shop as a gun free zone. Another involved a vacant textile plant, a private residence, and the parking lot of a police building. The third involved a foot bridge in Wisconsin, no information about the status of the foot bridge as a gun free zone.

Even if we count all of the mixed/unknown locations as gun free zones, we only have 5 gun free zone incidents as opposed to 24 incidents in not gun free zones.

If we really wanted to push the idea that these things only happen in gun free zones we could try ignore the incidents where only family members were involved. This cuts out 15 of the 29 incidents.

Now we have 2 incidents in gun free zones, 9 incidents in not gun free zones, and our 3 mixed or unknown incidents. Even counting the 3 mixed/unknowns as gun free incidents, we still only find 5 out of 14 incidents in gun free zones.

Gun free zones do not invite shootings.

Data set for those who want a head start on double checking my numbers:
Location Date fatalities gun free location family
Spring, TX 7/9/14 6 not gun free zone private residence yes
Saco, ME 7/27/14 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
Culpeper, VA 8/4/14 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
Tulsa, OK 8/26/14 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Elmhurst, IL 8/31/14 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Greensville, SC 9/4/14 4 unknown security booth, private residence mixed
Bell, FL 9/18/14 8 not gun free zone private residence yes
Marysville, WA 10/24/14 4 gun free zone school mixed
Trigg County, KY 10/26/14 4 not gun free zone private residence no
Cleveland, OH 11/22/14 4 not gun free zone private residence no
Sisseton, SD 11/22/14 4 not gun free zone indian reservation no
Everettville, WV 12/2/14 4 not gun free zone three locations mixed
Montgomery County, PA 12/15/14 6 not gun free zone private residence yes
Rockford, IL 12/21/14 4 not gun free zone private residence no
Hayes Valley, CA 1/9/15 4 not gun free zone street no
Queens, NY 1/24/15 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Troup County, GA 1/31/15 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
King, NC 2/4/15 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Atlanta, GA 2/7/15 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
Killeen, TX 2/24/15 4 not gun free zone private residence mixed
Tyrone, MI 2/26/15 8 not gun free zone private residence mixed
Tarboro, NC 2/28/15 4 unknown barber shop, private residence no
Indianapolis, IN 3/24/15 4 not gun free zone private residence no
Tulsa, OK 4/2/15 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Phoenix, AZ 4/17/15 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
Menasha, WI 5/4/15 4 unknown foot bridge across lake no
Tuscon, AZ 5/13/15 5 not gun free zone private residence yes
Anchorage, AL 5/14/15 4 not gun free zone private residence yes
Charleston, SC 6/17/15 9 gun free zone church no

If you know of an incident that I missed, or if there is something I got wrong, please let me know.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As someone who feels gun free zones are a bad idea, here would be the line of thinking / criticism to the above.

If it is a targeted premeditated attack where the shooter is after a specific person or persons, it doesn't matter much if it's a GFZ or not. Unless the shooter knows their target is armed until they can't be. Then targeting them when they are most vulnerable because you are willing to commit murder let alone break a gun law makes sense. I don't recal ever hearing a shooter state they waited for this opportunity.

If it is a spontaneous shooting, due to an argument breaking out attempted robbery or the like, it's more likely to NOT be in a gun free zone. Mostly because a GFZ is going to be packed with witnesses. Though a robbery involving 4 seems unlikely so I suppose this would be things in the, "drug deal gone bad" category. The same applies.

Home shootings whether by a resident or by intruders is an odd one as GFZ doesn't legally apply yet may be in effect. If it is relevant or not (in terms of how the potential presence of armed opposition impacts a shooters thought process) comes down to the shooter and the victims knowing whether guns are present/acceptable to the owner.

When an opponent to GFZ says, "THIS only happens in GFZ!" They can be internally consistent. "THIS" refers to mass shootings where the individual doesn't matter. The intent is just to cause casualties to a group of people. Sometimes this line gets blurred where the perpetrator feels a group "deserves it", sometimes not.

The number of those incidents are few and far between but, the perception at least, is that those events of indiscriminate killing (rather than targeted killing) are most often in GFZ's. It can be argued that it's not the GFZ's "I'll be safe from return fire here" logic but rather those same GFZ's being target rich environments is the lure.

Either way, those opposed to GFZ think it would eliminate a possible draw and offer the option of lawful defense if the draw was just the number of people, regardless of their armed state.

The more logical way to debate this is if the risk of a gun related accident or shooting, that would not occur if the area was a GFZ is low enough to counteract the potential prevention of ALL casualties from a spree shooting type situation if guns were allowed in the area.

And that sets the bar very low because odds are that out of the subset of those armed in a former GFZ (school/church/sporting event/non-drinking bar patron) they are not going to stop ALL and often wouldn't even be able to stop any of the deaths due to how fast some of these situations can end.

There would undoubtedly be SOME hero stories (as they already happen despite GFZ laws) Also to consider is the, seemingly frequent, narrative that once confronted with force (cops with guns), the shooter kills themselves or surrenders.

The anti-GFZ takes a "nothing to lose and possible deterrence to gain" approach. This isn't totally accurate because accidental or spontaneous shootings by armed staff/patrons COULD happen. Is it an acceptable trade off?

Most gun carriers say yes. Probably because we see it through the lens of, "Well *I* am a responsible gun carrier."

[ June 22, 2015, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if there were actual evidence that "gun free zones" were more likely targets or that more guns prevent mass shootings, I think it is preposterous and twisted to think that the best way to protect ourselves from possible killers is to be willing to become killers ourselves. Especially in church. What an obscene notion for a supposedly civilized people.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being armed is an insurance policy against civilization failing. Just as are police and the rest of the legal system.

If your church and beliefs promote pacifism and not defending yourself with violence in the face of violence then it makes sense to me that gun carriers would not be welcome. If that was the case then the "best" way to protect themselves would be a TSA style airlock type secured entry with detectors to find weapons... Not a very welcoming atmosphere for a house of worship. So in general civilized people bet on society to not failing them. They are almost always correct.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Less often correct in the US than they should be or are in other developed countries.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Should be? Yes. Are in other developed countries? I think our track record is pretty good for keeping you alive durring worship / religious studies in the U.S.

As far as the solution being "a good guy with a gun in the church could have saved the day." That's related both to our cultural history with the firearm and our entertainment history with a hero saving the day from a villan.

When faced with the (remote) possibility of an real life villan showing up and targeting innocent bystanders, there are a lot of people who say to themselves, "I want to be able to stop them! I WOULD stop them."

As a gun owner and frequent carrier I accept that the odds I ever encountered such a situation are fleetingly remote. Were I to, there are still many ways that would play out where I would die or be unable to save lives. I KNOW all this, yet the (possibly irrational) thought that, "If it DID happen, I wouldn't want to be more helpless because I wasn't armed." still rattles around in your brain.

There are those who never think of such things (despite these stories popping up in the news) and those who do. For those who do, even a chance to prevent such a tragedy is worth taking. Even if statistically the gun doesn't make you safer. All (likely) gun carriers believe that those accidents or having your own weapon used against you is something that happens to other less responsible gun owners.

There are of course other reasons factoring into the decision to own/carry a firearm, but when it comes to GFZ's I expect the above crosses a lot of minds. If however you are a “God has a plan for everyone” or “The police will protect me” type, the appeal of an “I’ll take responsibility for my own safety” line of thinking is probably lacking.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm completely with Kate on this. I was horrified at statements made blaming the pastor for not being armed. We are quickly becoming a gun society. It is sad that people have become so enthralled with the worship of guns that it becomes the victims fault when they are killed.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W., It sounds like you recognize that your thinking (and that of a lot of other folks) isn't rational yet you still want to base public policy on it. How much less safe must we be so that people can irrationally feel safe and in charge?

quote:
There are those who never think of such things (despite these stories popping up in the news) and those who do. For those who do, even a chance to prevent such a tragedy is worth taking. Even if statistically the gun doesn't make you safer.
Even though the prevalence of guns makes such tragedies more likely to occur?
quote:


All (likely) gun carriers believe that those accidents or having your own weapon used against you is something that happens to other less responsible gun owners.

But we know that isn't true.

[ June 22, 2015, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I have heard some statements which can be seen as blaming the victim I don't think that's the typical for gun proponents.

Most of the "pro-gun" group take the stance that there is not any other solution that could possibly work. It's not a "good" solution. It's the only one. The idea of more strongly controlling or even banning all guns is no solution at all.

The group who does stray dangerously close to the "victim blaming" territory are those who are trying too exuberantly to refute statements such as our president immediately made in the wake of the shooting. The victims, sadly, become irrelevant to the political battle over gun control.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
D.W., It sounds like you recognize that your thinking (and that of a lot of other folks) isn't rational yet you still want to base public policy on it. How much less safe must we be so that people can irrationally feel safe and in charge?
That is VERY close to the mark. But statistics can tell you you are likely to be in a car accident yet you can feel that you yourself are a very safe driver so you don't mind getting in the car every day.

I accept that part of gun ownership is a "magic talisman" against harm effect. You feel more in control. It SHOULD be irrational, and the math may even make it fairly irrational to feel a need to be armed.

But we are talking about politics and media manipulation. The same incident that makes you say, "we need to do something to remove these guns from society" makes me say, "If only someone there was armed they could have put down this monster and saved lives."

This isn't all about math. If we made it so, our behavioral changes would go WAY beyond just how we look at gun control.

For the record I don't believe that stricter gun control laws (at least not the type we see proposed today) would make us any more safe. I also believe in the deterrence effect of an armed society. I obviously can't back that up with definitive math to show how many "bad guys" stay home and pretend not to be bad because they don't want to get shot.

There are two choices. Attempt to make doing evil more complicated. Attempt to make confronting evil less complicated. The second obviously demands a lot more personal responsibility (and danger).

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
I would prefer to make doing evil less profitable.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even though the prevalence of guns makes such tragedies more likely to occur?
I still believe that in a gun-less society we would sadly have those who find ways to kill people efficiently. I also believe that the gun is a weapon of equality which pulls us away from a "might makes right" society. Sure a peaceful society is best, but removing the gun doesn't magically make us peaceful.

quote:
But we know that isn't true.
We know accidents happen and that other people's kids get a hold of irresponsible parent's weapons. That does almost nothing to convince an individual THEY will become one of those statistics.

The same culture that makes gun ownership an embodiment of personal responsibility makes those who buy into it predisposed to trivialize accidents which happen because one isn't responsible enough. Those who feel capable of owning a gun are, justifiably or not, the same who believe they are the exception and not subject to negligence related to their weapons.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with you on that Tom. I think we could solve MOST gun crime through a better educational system and a stronger economy. Desperation and lack of opportunity kill more of us than unhinged white supremacists or religious extremists. (apologies if you were instead referring to the gun industry just making boat loads of cash off encouraging a gun culture…)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
D.W., It sounds like you recognize that your thinking (and that of a lot of other folks) isn't rational yet you still want to base public policy on it. How much less safe must we be so that people can irrationally feel safe and in charge?
That is VERY close to the mark. But statistics can tell you you are likely to be in a car accident yet you can feel that you yourself are a very safe driver so you don't mind getting in the car every day.
In fact, I don't. But besides that, in this country (again) we have ordered society in a way that makes it very difficult to function without using cars. The same cannot be said for guns.
quote:


I accept that part of gun ownership is a "magic talisman" against harm effect. You feel more in control. It SHOULD be irrational, and the math may even make it fairly irrational to feel a need to be armed.

But we are talking about politics and media manipulation. The same incident that makes you say, "we need to do something to remove these guns from society" makes me say, "If only someone there was armed they could have put down this monster and saved lives."

Which you acknowledge isn't true. Yes?
quote:

This isn't all about math. If we made it so, our behavioral changes would go WAY beyond just how we look at gun control.

Instead of math, you might say facts. And, well, yes. And that would be a good thing, yes?

quote:

For the record I don't believe that stricter gun control laws (at least not the type we see proposed today) would make us any more safe. I also believe in the deterrence effect of an armed society. I obviously can't back that up with definitive math to show how many "bad guys" stay home and pretend not to be bad because they don't want to get shot.

Why do you believe it?
quote:


There are two choices. Attempt to make doing evil more complicated. Attempt to make confronting evil less complicated. The second obviously demands a lot more personal responsibility (and danger).

And the first is rationally more likely to work. Also, I would argue that shooting a gun is not the only way to confront evil and, is in fact, often evil itself.

[ June 22, 2015, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which you acknowledge isn't true. Yes?
I acknowledge it isn’t probable. I still buy lotto tickets as well…
quote:
Instead of math, you might say facts. And, well, yes. And that would be a good thing, yes?
No, I stick by math over facts. And yes, it would be a good thing. I wouldn’t start with guns, but yes my “perfect society” wouldn’t include guns. Even at the point where gun control rose to the top of the stack removing law abiding citizen’s guns would go out about the same time the police officers chuck theirs into the furnaces.
quote:
Why do you believe it?
Because I believe self preservation is a powerful motivator and that the desire to not risk death without darn good cause keeps a lot of people acting civilized who are no such thing. There are good people, people who don’t do bad because there are risks, people who do some bad despite risks but are cautious and people who do whatever they want and the threat (or guarantee) of death means little to them. The random presence of armed resistance keeps 2 of those groups in check and one of the others isn’t an issue at all and the last group it offers at least a betterment of your odds of survival. So in a way, I see gun carrying akin to vaccination. It doesn’t take 100% saturation to be effective.

quote:
And the first is rationally more likely to work. Also, I would argue that shooting a gun is not the only way to confront evil and, is in fact, often evil itself.
Some attempts towards the first can be helpful. Almost all proposed by our legislators do not qualify. I agree with you that a gun is not the only way or even the best way in all cases. I do however think that there are situations where it is the only way. While others may see any taking of life as evil, I do not view killing an aggressor as such.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you know of an incident that I missed, or if there is something I got wrong, please let me know.
You missed all of them that occurred outside the United States.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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:
There are good people, people who don’t do bad because there are risks, people who do some bad despite risks but are cautious and people who do whatever they want and the threat (or guarantee) of death means little to them.
You're forgetting two more groups, D.W.: good people who once in a while do stupid things, either because they get mad or misunderstand a situation. And good people who are not perfectly responsible.

So you get incidents where someone gets mad for a short time and shoots some he loves, and instantly regrets it. And when someone thinks a burgler is coming in and shoots someone he loves. Or is in deep depression and shoots himself. Or forgets to lock a gun and someone who shouldn't gets it. Or shows a friend a gun and accidently shoots his friends wife.

And while most of them could get other deadly weapons to use, guns are the easiest to use and most effective among the weapons we have (else you would doubtlessly want to carry the other weapon for safety [Wink] ).

You should include those groups in your calculus, too.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
If you know of an incident that I missed, or if there is something I got wrong, please let me know.
You missed all of them that occurred outside the United States.
This is true. Could you show how it is relevant to a discussion of mass shootings in the US?

[ June 23, 2015, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're forgetting two more groups,…
So you get incidents where someone gets mad for a short time and shoots some he loves, and instantly regrets it.

Nope, that’s a bad person. Hate to break it to ya, but someone who “looses their temper" to the point of shooting a person, is not a minor glitch in an otherwise “good” person. Me swearing and yelling in my car at the idiot driver ahead of me (mostly with my windows up) is getting mad for a short time.
You are correct about the misunderstanding a situation such as the “I thought it was a burglar”.

The suicide and attempted suicide I’m on record as dismissing in its entirety from gun issues. (Much to the dismay of several posters here)

The other things mentioning negligence or accidents weren’t relavent to my points. I was suggesting why a gun could be useful. These groups do factor into the risk of gun ownership to be sure. Just not my classification of people in general.

[ June 23, 2015, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
Nope, that’s a bad person. Hate to break it to ya, but someone who “looses their temper" to the point of shooting a person, is not a minor glitch in an otherwise “good” person. Me swearing and yelling in my car at the idiot driver ahead of me (mostly with my windows up) is getting mad for a short time.
What you're missing is that, up until the point when the person uses the gun, that person was a good person just like you. [Frown]

Which is why this calculus is so difficult. Only bad, irresponsible people use guns unjustifiably. But you don't know who is a bad, irresponsible person until they use the gun irresposibly. So how do you keep guns away from bad, irresponsible people?

The obvious answer is you can't without keeping them away from good, responsible people. But the flip side of it is that a normally good, responsible person can become a bad, irresponsible person if he has a gun at the wrong time.

I'm not saying that every good, responsible person who has a gun will turn into a bad, irresponsible person. But there is always a segment of the population that would have not used a gun unjustifiably if that gun had not been available at the wrong time.

And that is where gun control saves lives. By not providing certain people with access to the deadliest weapon we have at the wrong time. It is those lives that have to be balanced against the ones saved by having a gun available.

Because you can't always tell the difference between a "good" person and a "bad" person beforehand. It can change in an instant.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, what you are missing is that people are not easily divided into "good" and "bad". Actions may be. People are a mix. Lots of good people have hot tempers - especially teenagers. People who have led exemplary lives may do something absolutely heinous under pressure. People who may have amounted to nothing may rise to heroics under similar pressure. People who have done a terrible thing may be redeemed. Ordinarily responsible people may have a lapse. The whole of who we are is not summed up by the best or worst thing we ever do. Easy access to guns just makes the worst thing some people do a thousand times more tragic.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is why this calculus is so difficult. Only bad, irresponsible people use guns unjustifiably. But you don't know who is a bad, irresponsible person until they use the gun irresponsibly. So how do you keep guns away from bad, irresponsible people?
Pro-Gun Control says, "Get rid of as many guns as possible, it’s the only way.”
Pro-Gun Rights says, “You can’t achieve that, so have an option to deal with bad people when they act.”

My major problem with legal proposals for the Control camp is they START with (as they must) the law abiding, largely responsible, good, people. This removes the option the Rights camp wanted, because they understand that the police are more (or almost exclusively) about deterrence and punishment than protection.

If you want more gun control, first enforce what’s already on the books. We don’t do a good enough job with the laws we already have. Then, I’m for better more consistently applied background checks and tracking. But I’m not paranoid about Uncle Sam coming for my guns. I’m also not the last line of defense against federal tyranny… So other’s may disagree with me here.

What we DON’T need are AR bans which are cosmetic only as they are from a technical stand point so close to hunting rifles as to not matter at all. We DON’T need “smart guns” that even our police know are ridiculous and unusable and prone to failure in life and death situations (the only time a gun is required).

We DON’T need a local law enforcement official giving a thumbs up or down on any application for a concealed carry permit which is not based exclusively on a background check but can just be because they didn’t feel like it or like your last name or what you entered in the application fields.

quote:
I'm not saying that every good, responsible person who has a gun will turn into a bad, irresponsible person. But there is always a segment of the population that would have not used a gun unjustifiably if that gun had not been available at the wrong time.
This is true, but there are also segments of the population who would do bad things if they didn’t believe that they may lose the “does this person have a gun?” lotto. That is where guns save lives.
quote:
It is those lives that have to be balanced against the ones saved by having a gun available.
Agreed. At issue is only one of those numbers is knowable. Also factored into the pure “lives saved vs. lives lost” calculus is; reduction in theft, reduction in non fatal assaults, reduction in rape and kidnappings.
The “deadliest weapon we have” is effective because the threat of death is simply put, the best deterrent we have. If I attack this woman I may be pepper sprayed… I’ll chance it! Vs. If I attack this woman she may shoot me dead right here in the street… nah not worth it.

quote:
Because you can't always tell the difference between a "good" person and a "bad" person beforehand. It can change in an instant.
Exactly. Assume everyone is good (better for your peace of mind) and be ready to act if proven wrong. To some a welcome tool used to be “ready” is a firearm.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, what you are missing is that people are not easily divided into "good" and "bad". Actions may be. People are a mix. Lots of good people have hot tempers - especially teenagers. People who have led exemplary lives may do something absolutely heinous under pressure.
Again, I DO make that distinction. I don’t know if someone is good or bad. I don’t know even if I knew the history of every person on the street. I may know they are bad but I’ll never know if they fit my definition of “good”.
The instant they do something I consider irredeemably “bad” they become “bad”. One is not a “saint” because you were never given the opportunity to sin. One is not a “believer” when never faced with an alternative world view / theology. One is not “good” when never faced with a situation where being bad may be easier or offer personal gains.

quote:
People who have done a terrible thing may be redeemed.
And they may also be put down by a heroic individual saving an innocent because if you are about to kill a random clerk, kill me and take my possessions or rape a woman in a parking deck, I don’t much care how you may reform your life at some later date. I care only about stopping you.

quote:
The whole of who we are is not summed up by the best or worst thing we ever do.
I carry a gun because of my respect for life. Not despite it. If someone does not share that respect, I very selectively choose not to respect theirs. I feel this philosophy makes the world a better and safer place. Better than a world without any violence? No, but better than a world of predators having their way with anyone they feel they can.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See...that doesn't sound at all like respect for life to me.

And the practical reality is that you will never end up "putting down" anyone but your stance on gun control will (along with those who agree with you) will make it more likely that the person who takes out a random clerk will have the tool to do it.

[ June 23, 2015, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You aren't alone. A lot of people don't think it does. Some prefer a world where our flaws, even our violent deadly flaws, are excused and we are rehabilitated. Some prefer a world with zero tolerance for the extreme cases both to prevent repeat offenders and as further deterrent for others who would follow suit.

Both philosophies cost lives. It’s just a matter of which lives. I have a preference.

[ June 23, 2015, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And the practical reality is that you will never end up "putting down" anyone but your stance on gun control will (along with those who agree with you) will make it more likely that the person who takes out a random clerk will have the tool to do it.
This is almost certainly true. But I believe it ALSO stops a large number of people who may take out that clerk stay in their ****ty job rather than trying to chance it in a life of crime.

An educational, economic and health system related solution to crime and violence would do better on all counts when compared to a gun control solution.

We've been killing eachother long before the invention of the gun. The biggest change here is that strength and martial training is no longer required to be lethal.

[ June 23, 2015, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
And the practical reality is that you will never end up "putting down" anyone but your stance on gun control will (along with those who agree with you) will make it more likely that the person who takes out a random clerk will have the tool to do it.
This is almost certainly true. But I believe it ALSO stops a large number of people who may take out that clerk stay in their ****ty job rather than trying to chance it in a life of crime.

Why do you believe that? In 2012, for example, there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings*, 78 gun suicides one self-defense killing,* and about 34 criminal gun homicides for every one justifiable** gun homicide.***

It sounds like you are more concerned with killing that one than you are about saving the 114. Or that you are so attached to the idea of being able to stop that one that it is overriding your natural reason.


*CDC
**which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
*** FIREARM JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES AND NON-FATAL SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER | 1 Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am more concerned with killing that one than the 78 gun suicides, yes. (at least when it comes to if it should be addressed as a gun issue) The 34 criminal gun homicides against every one justifiable is more the concern for me.

The open question, which I don't feel we can answer, is what value we place on deterrence of criminal acts due to the presense of civilian gun ownership / carrying? I actually prefer it if would be criminals obey the law because someone may shoot them compared to someone disobeying the law and getting shot.

Also factoring in, is if you magically dissapeared criminal gun use (by making guns illegal...) how reduced is that 34 number and how many just shift to a different type of homicide?

To some, the threat of being caught and punished by our legal system is not deterrent enough. Does the existence of our gun culture make the difference in them deciding whether or not to opt for a criminal act? I think so.

[ June 23, 2015, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get that you think so. I am asking why you think so. Do you have data?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I've specificaly said it is unknowable. It boils down to how I expect people feel about self preservation.

Whether someone turns to crime or not, is a factor of their morals and their desperation and the risk involved. I can do little to impact the morals of a stranger, such as beg for mercy. (Though as a society we can try) I can do little to impact the desparation of a stranger, beyond give up my money or tell them what they want to hear. (Though as a society we can try) What I can do, is impact the level of risk involved for them in the criminal act.

How would you even go about gathering such data?

Excuse me, If you thought that everyone you accosted and threatened violence would immediately hand over their wallet or empty their cash drawer without putting up a fight, would you consider a life of crime?

Excuse me, how would the drug trade related gang war you are a part of be impacted were guns unavailable? Would a more physically demanding brutality impact recruitment or change the average age of your gang?

Excuse me, if you were unable to obtain a gun with a high rate of fire and high ammo count, would you consider aerson or explosives for your murder spree?

Excuse me, if you thought that you could get away with rape without risk of anyone having a gun to stop you would you do so? Also, do you already rape people despite this threat? Ok, thanks for your time!

[ June 23, 2015, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
No, I've specificaly said it is unknowable. It boils down to how I expect people feel about self preservation.

Whether someone turns to crime or not, is a factor of their morals and their desperation and the risk involved.

And opportunity. Having easy access to the tools to commit crime increases opportunity. I would guess inclination as well. You have a tool; you are going to want to use it. If I were speculating, I would be inclined to believe that the fear of being shot by a potential victim could very well be more than balanced by the sense of power and invulnerability that one gets from having a gun.

[ June 23, 2015, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
If you know of an incident that I missed, or if there is something I got wrong, please let me know.
You missed all of them that occurred outside the United States.
This is true. Could you show how it is relevant to a discussion of mass shootings in the US?
The thread title calls out only gun free zones, not just US. Why are you deciding to limit it to US only?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 
Yes, we should absolutely append "...of interest to people in the United States..." to the end of all our thread titles, going forward.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of curiosity, are gun free zones a thing in other countries? Other than blanket gun laws. Do other countries have location based bans?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are probably specific bans or stipulations to carrying licenses in Canada. I don't imagine someone's allowed to bring a gun into a bar even if they're allowed to carry one normally. However, any location in Canada that does not have police or armed security can be assumed to be gun free. With the exception of certain parts of Toronto but that's not exactly the domain of law-abiding citizens.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

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