Author Topic: gun free zones, cause and effect  (Read 3030 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2018, 04:29:30 PM »
Chicago. LA. Detroit. Guns everywhere, not safe.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2018, 05:08:51 PM »
Chicago. LA. Detroit. Guns everywhere, not safe.

Gangland isn't a good example of the 'arming everyone' principle. The idea would be to arm law-abiding citizens.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2018, 05:16:57 PM »
If you have nice law abiding citizens, how much need is there to go armed? It seems like the need (or value) of being armed goes up proportionally with the degree of violence or anarchy in that area.

It seems less like needing more guns than it is about needing more law-abiding citizens. Add guns to a bad situation, and it is likely to make it worse - no matter that gun advocate groups declare that cities who attempt to restrict guns (like the ones listed) are like that _because_ of their gun laws.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2018, 05:22:57 PM »
If you have nice law abiding citizens, how much need is there to go armed? It seems like the need (or value) of being armed goes up proportionally with the degree of violence or anarchy in that area.

It seems less like needing more guns than it is about needing more law-abiding citizens. Add guns to a bad situation, and it is likely to make it worse - no matter that gun advocate groups declare that cities who attempt to restrict guns (like the ones listed) are like that _because_ of their gun laws.

Isn't OP about decent citizens being armed and therefore prepared for when a random nuts gets on the loose? I don't think the contention is that arming ordinary people is going to be a counter-agent against the mob or gangs.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2018, 08:13:44 PM »
The OP was about the assertion that the mere presence of guns would reduce the likelihood of a shooter deciding to shoot up an area. Beyond that it is about whether it would be effective in reducing the damage.

I could even stipulate that having armed citizens will cut the impact of an active shooter by 50%. I don't think that's true based on the data, but it is still a really bad idea because it makes everyday life more dangerous for people on campus. At least that is my understanding based on the things I've read.

What makes a decent citizen? How do you make sure that only decent citizens are going to be able to carry in that campus environment?

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2018, 09:10:12 PM »
From Seriati

Quote
Pretty much, out of 104, 5 fled, 44 killed themselves, 17 caught by the victims (3 of which used guns, again given who these were the presence of that many guns was surprising), police capture (subdue or surrender) 15 and shoot 23. 

Yes, 3 out of 104 were subdued by untrained armed civilians.  Maybe some of those were trained, you don't say, so it could be lower.  Still the 3% I got from the first source you provided.

You made a claim.
Quote
Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation

When questioned, you provided a source.  Your source does not support your claim. Not even close.  It may be that only 3% of the events were resolved by untrained armed civilians because few people carry guns.  But nonetheless, your source does not support your claim.

How do people with integrity respond to that situation?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2018, 09:56:57 PM »
It was an interesting source to cite. 
But...
3 were caught by the victims through use of a gun.
Did any of the 5 who fled or the 44 who killed themselves do so because they ran into armed resistance?

Even if the answer to that is 0, how common is gun carrying in that area?  Totally unscientific google bashing has a headline of "3 million Americans carry a loaded weapon every day".   Less than 1%

Goes a bit higher if I check my state for % of population with concealed carry permits.  (7%) but not all of them will carry every day.

So even if it stays at JUST 3.  That seems to work out about right.  In fact, better than I'd expect. 

That interpretation has nothing to do with if such a small number, of an already rare occurrence, should dictate policy, but I suppose THAT is how one could respond.  And keep their integrity intact.  :P

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2018, 10:30:12 PM »
No, it's not.  But  I would rather have someone bashings and stabbing than shooting.  How many mass bashing or mass stabbings have you read about with a fatality count greater than 1?  How about mass shootings?

I seem to recall the UK, China, and Japan each having a "mass stabbing event" occur, I have vague recollections of one in the US as well. Although I seem to recall the China instance involved an adult attacking children.

Don't recall the fatality counts, but it was at least one, and the victim count ran close to or beyond a dozen.

Agreed as to their being much more rare in comparison to mass shootings in the US however.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2018, 10:34:49 PM »
Quote
The 'gun free zones' that always perplex me the most are the government buildings.
The ones that perplex me the most are the NRA conventions and Trump rallies.  They claim that "the venue" doesn't allow it.  So find a venue that allows it.

In Trump's case, Secret Service would nix any event that didn't let them screen the audience for all types of weapons before he could set foot in there.

Of course, likewise, they lock down the area and make sure that nobody is armed(besides them) in such venues. Which is far more than can be said about a number of other "gun free zones."

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2018, 10:42:24 PM »

Quote
Quote
Live fire situations are where they can be the most help.  The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out.  Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation (well unless you want to count, letting them run out of bullets as an ending).

Do you have a source for those "actual facts"?  I feel obligated to say that your comment is pretty much white noise unless you have a source.

Of course I have sources, I always do.  In this case, I can't pull up the link to the one that I recall as being most specific.  I think the one you want is the FBI study, "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States." 

From your source.  Page 11
 
Of the 160 events in the report, exactly 5 were resolved by armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel.  21 events were resolved by unarmed individuals.

It should be noted that for someone who sets out with the goal of being a mass shooter, as opposed to someone simply "going postal" in a fit of rage, is the act is very much pre-meditated, and the venue/timing is going to be chosen to maximize their ability to obtain a body count. This also means they're likely to avoid areas where they're reasonably certain an armed(with a gun) individual is likely to be.

During Force Protection training in the military, we often referred to "gun free zones" or more particularly the areas immediately around it(if a security checkpoint existed) as being "free fire zones" (or alternately "guaranteed victim zones")  with "a high level of target availability." Which is why the standing advice was that upon arrival at an airport, get through security ASAP and don't linger in the front of the terminal. At least then a shooter has to get through airport security(who might be armed) before they can get to you.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 10:45:08 PM by TheDeamon »

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #60 on: September 18, 2018, 11:05:18 AM »
It should be noted that for someone who sets out with the goal of being a mass shooter, as opposed to someone simply "going postal" in a fit of rage, is the act is very much pre-meditated, and the venue/timing is going to be chosen to maximize their ability to obtain a body count. This also means they're likely to avoid areas where they're reasonably certain an armed(with a gun) individual is likely to be.

How often does that happen? Most mass shootings seem to be aimed at particular people; school shootings still happen despite the presence of armed guards.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2018, 11:45:27 AM »
It should be noted that for someone who sets out with the goal of being a mass shooter, as opposed to someone simply "going postal" in a fit of rage, is the act is very much pre-meditated, and the venue/timing is going to be chosen to maximize their ability to obtain a body count. This also means they're likely to avoid areas where they're reasonably certain an armed(with a gun) individual is likely to be.

How often does that happen? Most mass shootings seem to be aimed at particular people; school shootings still happen despite the presence of armed guards.

1) Most schools either don't have armed guards, or might as well not have any. (often, 1 person, covering tens of thousands of square feet across dozens of rooms, and often multiple buildings as well)
2) The School shooters know about the "armed guard," (if there is one) and think they'll be able to work around their presence, or lack thereof. So far, their trackrecord indicates they've done a pretty good job of doing so.

It is part of why groups like the NRA have proposed arming the teachers, because the only other effective way to "keep schools safe" is to setup the school grounds to resemble something not much unlike a prison where you have armed guards posted at strategic points with clear lines of fire across as much of the school grounds as possible, and then keep those positions manned.  You do not achieve that in most High Schools, or even Middle Schools/Junior Highs with a single school resource officer pulling double or triple duty. Realistically, you'd need at least 3 or 4 per "average" school, plus at least one to "float" to cover any gaps when another becomes busy.

There's a reason why the security industry refers to a lot of what gets done as "security theater" instead of true security. It only gives the veneer/appearance of security, it doesn't actually provide it.

The cheaper option is to arm (and train) the teachers, rather than hire and train the mini-army that is otherwise needed.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #62 on: September 18, 2018, 01:13:43 PM »
Quote
In Trump's case, Secret Service would nix any event that didn't let them screen the audience for all types of weapons before he could set foot in there.

So the people whose job it is to keep him safe say that having armed citizens is definitively not the best defense. 

True, the calculus changes when you are the President and you have Secret Service protection.  But it certainly casts doubt on the universal claim.

Quote
That interpretation has nothing to do with if such a small number, of an already rare occurrence, should dictate policy, but I suppose THAT is how one could respond.  And keep their integrity intact.  :P

Seriati said that the source proved armed civilians to be the most effective thing.  The source does not show that.  Period.  You can make gross assumptions that are completely unrelated and uncorroborated by the source, that might possibly sort of justify that claim if you squint real hard.  But the claim was definitive, and the source does not support it.

I am not saying the claim is wrong.  I am saying the source clearly, unambiguously, fails to support the claim, even though Seriati said that it did.

How do people with integrity respond to that situation?


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #63 on: September 18, 2018, 01:25:46 PM »
Quote
Seriati said that the source proved armed civilians to be the most effective thing.  The source does not show that.  Period.  You can make gross assumptions that are completely unrelated and uncorroborated by the source, that might possibly sort of justify that claim if you squint real hard.  But the claim was definitive, and the source does not support it.

I am not saying the claim is wrong.  I am saying the source clearly, unambiguously, fails to support the claim, even though Seriati said that it did.

How do people with integrity respond to that situation?
I didn't read the source.  What was quoted here were numbers.  Those numbers appear to make Seriati's case in even the least favorable interpretation.  I put forward that there may be an even more favorable interpretation.

Is your reply made from a position of integrity?


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #64 on: September 18, 2018, 01:30:51 PM »
Is your problem with his claim that it is the "most effective"?  Reading that as relying upon the small percentage of armed civilians are intended to exceed the effect of police ?  (who will eventually arrive)

Or is it that 14 of 17 still managed to get the job done of subduing an aggressor without a fire arm and that somehow is viewed as "more effective"?

When you account for how infrequently an armed citizen is present to oppose an aggressor in these situations, the data seems to do nothing to disprove Seriati's assertion. 

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #65 on: September 18, 2018, 01:53:54 PM »
Seriati said that the source proved armed civilians to be the most effective thing.  The source does not show that.  Period.

***

I am not saying the claim is wrong.  I am saying the source clearly, unambiguously, fails to support the claim, even though Seriati said that it did.

The problem I with responding to Velcro is often grossly misrepresents what actually occurred to turn things into strawman arguments that he can claim to knock down.

I think it is completely unrealistic to believe that even the most responsible and normally clear-headed person, without substantial, ongoing and specific training, is likely to behave in a beneficial way when in a live-fire situation.

Actually, this is the time where you'd be completely wrong.  Live fire situations are where they can be the most help.  The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out.  Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation (well unless you want to count, letting them run out of bullets as an ending).

Quote
Live fire situations are where they can be the most help.  The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out.  Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation (well unless you want to count, letting them run out of bullets as an ending).

Do you have a source for those "actual facts"?  I feel obligated to say that your comment is pretty much white noise unless you have a source.

Of course I have sources, I always do.  In this case, I can't pull up the link to the one that I recall as being most specific.  I think the one you want is the FBI study, "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States." 

So there you have it.  I said, I think this is the one you want, but I can't pull it up.  Velcro read that as "I am saying the source clearly, unambiguously, fails to support the claim, even though Seriati said that it did."

You'll note, my actual claim was that armed response even by the untrained (which specifically means it includes the trained in the claim) was the most effective way to end the situation.  Unless my math is incorrect in my post below, 41 out of 104 events ended by being confronted by an armed attacker, of the 44 that killed themselves some did after police arrived (ie, armed response) and we don't know how many  of the total were confronted by an armed attacker (or were running out of bullets, which I also referred to). 

5 fled the scene and 13 were subdued by unarmed response.  18 total, plus some portion of the suicides.

Unless I missed something, your refutation seems to be complete nonsense.  A play on deliberate misquotes?  Or just sloppy reasoning?

Quote
How do people with integrity respond to that situation?

In this case, they point out that you make false claims.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #66 on: September 18, 2018, 10:16:21 PM »
I’m for gun control. However it is an absurd argument that an armed citizen being present is not a positive in the case of a mass shooter. Make the real and substantial argument that greatly increasing the number of people walking around armed will lead to more deadly interactions. Likewise arming most teachers would likely lead to more students deaths than are saved by mass shootings being cut short.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #67 on: September 19, 2018, 10:27:42 PM »
Great, got it. 

When Seriati says "Of course I have sources, I always do", it means he has them, but can't actually provide them. When I use the one he actually mentions, I am dismissed for using the wrong one.  There is a simple solution.  Don't claim you have sources if you can't actually provide them.  That is, in a word, dishonest.

Let's back up to the beginning.  It was a conversation about whether untrained civilians would be helpful.

Quote
I think it is completely unrealistic to believe that even the most responsible and normally clear-headed person, without substantial, ongoing and specific training, is likely to behave in a beneficial way when in a live-fire situation.

Actually, this is the time where you'd be completely wrong.  Live fire situations are where they can be the most help.  The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out.  Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation (well unless you want to count, letting them run out of bullets as an ending).

It is completely clear that what is being referred to is untrained civilians.  Those people are the "they" referred to by Seriati.  When someone says "Armed response, even by a mosquito, is effective", it very clearly means an armed mosquito would be effective.  It does not exclude other things from being effective, but when you look to prove the statement, you must evaluate mosquitos. 
Pretending that the clause "even by the untrained" has no real meaning, and is therefore not included in the numerical analysis, is disingenuous.

So if armed mosquitos, or armed untrained civilians, stop 3% of active shooters, are they effective?  Could be 0% if the civilians in the study had taken some sort of training, but were not police officers.  I don't think that statistic clearly establishes the fact, given unarmed civilians stop 3x as many active shooters as armed untrained civilians.

Quote
The problem I with responding to Velcro is often grossly misrepresents what actually occurred
I think readers can look at my quotes, and my sources, and draw their own conclusions.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #68 on: September 19, 2018, 10:33:07 PM »
Quote
However it is an absurd argument that an armed citizen being present is not a positive in the case of a mass shooter.

How about the armed citizen at the Gabbie Gifford shooting? He was about to draw his weapon, but realized that the man with the gun he was about to shoot was a good guy.

Quote
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Quote
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

Is it absurd to consider someone a little less self-aware in that situation?  Would he then be a positive?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #69 on: September 19, 2018, 10:42:15 PM »
So, as I suspected, there is no statistical (and exceedingly hard to find even anecdotal) support for the argument that armed bystanders make the situation worse.

Your cautionary tale is some one who COULD have made a tragic mistake?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #70 on: September 19, 2018, 11:09:14 PM »
The Gifford’s shooter is one of the strongest cases for restriction on semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. He was stopped by unarmed bystanders during a reload. The death toll in that shooting is undoubtedly lower because the shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a standard magazine size instead of an ar-15 with a 50 round magazine.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #71 on: September 20, 2018, 08:31:38 AM »
My company blocks all weapons sites, so I can't give a full citation. But you can search on "concealed carry mistakes" "concealed carry negligent discharge"

There are also these stories:

bystander saves the day

Of course, one reason we are stuck with anecdotes and not statistics is that the government carefully avoids ever collecting them. Whether it is the effective moratorium on CDC research (which actually just ended in March), no federal funding for gun research, NIH, FBI, etc.

There should be a nice spreadsheet that lists "number of people injured by negligent discharge in public areas" vs "shooters injured by civilian armed response". But the NRA has been successful in discouraging a factual examination. I say injured, because I think focusing on death skews the numbers.

There is a summary of available studies (pdf) by Johns Hopkins, however. Apologies for the formatting, I don't feel like deleting all the CRLF.

Quote
The most comprehensive, and arguably most
rigorous, study on the effects of RTC laws was
recently published by economists John Donohue
(Stanford), Abhay Aneja (University of California,
Berkeley), and Kyle Weber (Columbia). Donohue
and colleagues found that violent crime rates
increased with each additional year a RTC
law was in place, presumably as more people
were carrying guns on their person and in their
vehicles.b,10 By years 7 through 10 following the
adoption of a RTC law, violent crime rates were
11% to 14% higher than predicted had such laws
not been in place.

Quote
a recent study that found RTC
laws are associated with a 10.6% increase in
homicides committed with handguns.

Quote
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and surveys
nearly 160,000 individuals age 12 and older every
6 months for three years.16 A report of a DGU in
the NCVS is only recorded if the respondent first
reports that a crime occurred or was attempted
against them and if the respondent indicates that
he or she did something in self defense. NCVS
data for the years 2007-2011 show an average of
about 47,000 DGUs per year,17 which represents
about 1% of all nonfatal criminal victimizations.
In 17% of these DGUs, the respondent reported a
DGU in response to only verbal threats.

Quote
A comprehensive analysis by researcher
Louis Klarevas determined that, of 111 mass
shootings involving 6 or more victims since 1966,
just 18 occurred in a “gun-free” or “gun-restricting”
zone

The last one goes a little too far back for my taste, as I think there were few gun-free zones in the 70s. If I dug down into that study, I'd get a better picture.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #72 on: September 20, 2018, 08:47:01 AM »
The Gifford’s shooter is one of the strongest cases for restriction on semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. He was stopped by unarmed bystanders during a reload. The death toll in that shooting is undoubtedly lower because the shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a standard magazine size instead of an ar-15 with a 50 round magazine.
If this was meant as a response to me, then you've changed gears on topic.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #73 on: September 20, 2018, 09:15:59 AM »
The Gifford’s shooter is one of the strongest cases for restriction on semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. He was stopped by unarmed bystanders during a reload. The death toll in that shooting is undoubtedly lower because the shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a standard magazine size instead of an ar-15 with a 50 round magazine.
If this was meant as a response to me, then you've changed gears on topic.

Not really a response to you, just me trying to hit the middle ground on guns. I support some regulation but if there is a mass shooter out for maximum bloodshed I would be happy if there were other people armed around. But that scenario is extremely unlikely so I generally think I'm safer when everyone isn't walking around with a tool solely designed for killing people.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #74 on: September 20, 2018, 09:42:01 AM »
Quote
But that scenario is extremely unlikely so I generally think I'm safer when everyone isn't walking around with a tool solely designed for killing people.
That isn't a bad argument other than this part of it.  The statement could still stand as a generalization of all gun violence and be a valid opinion; (one I come done weighted a bit more heavily towards rights of self defense), but it's not the only reason people would want to go armed.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #75 on: September 20, 2018, 10:35:10 AM »
Great, got it. 

When Seriati says "Of course I have sources, I always do", it means he has them, but can't actually provide them. When I use the one he actually mentions, I am dismissed for using the wrong one.  There is a simple solution.  Don't claim you have sources if you can't actually provide them.  That is, in a word, dishonest.

I find your dishonest personal attacks pretty offensive.  You deliberately misquoted me, when you made this claim: "Seriati said that the source proved armed civilians to be the most effective thing.  "

My source supported by actual claim not your lie about my claim.

You are very dishonest, and refuse to hold yourself up to the standard you seem to think others should live to.   In this case, I'm charged with failing to provide a source that supports a lie you made up.

Quote
Quote
The problem I with responding to Velcro is often grossly misrepresents what actually occurred
I think readers can look at my quotes, and my sources, and draw their own conclusions.

I would hope they can do so, as you've repeatedly misquoted me and mischaracterized what I've said.  But we do live in a world where people endorse their team as often as they endorse the truth, so I still think it's worth pointing out when you're caught in a lie and won't back down.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #76 on: September 20, 2018, 09:26:19 PM »
Quote
But that scenario is extremely unlikely so I generally think I'm safer when everyone isn't walking around with a tool solely designed for killing people.
That isn't a bad argument other than this part of it.  The statement could still stand as a generalization of all gun violence and be a valid opinion; (one I come done weighted a bit more heavily towards rights of self defense), but it's not the only reason people would want to go armed.

I actually think we currently have a pretty decent balance on the number of people choosing to go armed and the reasonable restrictions on carrying. Some gun-free zones are impractical or silly because they are completely unenforceable. However they probably do prevent some minor altercations from escalating to shootings. Bars are probably a good place to be a gun free zone - drunk people and armed people shouldn't mix (even if the armed people aren't drinking). Sprawling university campuses not so much, I think open carry should be discouraged in those places because open carrying in an environment with a lot of people around is kind of like making all your posts in ALL CAPS, no one is immediately harmed but your basically walking around advertising a threat.

Where I disagree with the pro-gun side is that CC is something that should be lauded and encouraged. I think society is better off when only people who are highly motivated (and hopefully therefore skilled and cautious) are routinely armed. I think CC should be a slight pain in the ass because if you are unwilling or unable to jump through a bureaucratic hoop you probably shouldn't be armed in the first place.

Gun safety is no joke and needs to be taken seriously. My father used to work at a prison, he is an avid hunter and had been taught how to shoot growing up. For a while he enjoyed the yearly gun training (he liked getting to shoot with someone else buying the ammunition) but later on in his career he opted out of the training (an option b/c he was the chaplain) because he was worried someone was going to accidentally shoot him during the gun safety and training course. I don't really trust the average Joe on the street to be safe carrying a weapon regularly.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2018, 01:23:05 PM »
Great, got it. 

When Seriati says "Of course I have sources, I always do", it means he has them, but can't actually provide them. When I use the one he actually mentions, I am dismissed for using the wrong one.  There is a simple solution.  Don't claim you have sources if you can't actually provide them.  That is, in a word, dishonest.

I find your dishonest personal attacks pretty offensive.  You deliberately misquoted me, when you made this claim: "Seriati said that the source proved armed civilians to be the most effective thing.  "

I stand by the facts as I stated them.  Please point out a specific personal attack.

Quote
My source supported by actual claim not your lie about my claim.

Your claim was "Armed response, even by the untrained, is the most effective thing in ending an active shooter situation"  If you leave out the phrase "even by the untrained", you might possibly have some ground to stand on.  But you didn't leave out that phrase, and the context of the argument shows that phrase is critical.

So please point out where in your source it supports the claim that even untrained armed response is effective.  3% isn't effective, it is noise. And you have absolutely no idea of how much training the 3% unarmed civilians had, so even that is not proven.

Even if you include every armed intervention, more situations are resolved by suicide than by shooting or capture by armed intervention including police.  One could speculate that the armed intervention contributed, but one could not prove it.  Your claim, no matter how you look at it, is not proven by the source.

Quote
You are very dishonest, and refuse to hold yourself up to the standard you seem to think others should live to.   In this case, I'm charged with failing to provide a source that supports a lie you made up.

Quote
The problem I with responding to Velcro is often grossly misrepresents what actually occurred
I think readers can look at my quotes, and my sources, and draw their own conclusions.

I still think readers can draw their own conclusions.  I will not tell them that you are lying and won't back down, or that you are dishonest.  They can decide for themselves.  I do point out that claiming to have a source, but not having one is dishonest, because it is.

Quote
I would hope they can do so, as you've repeatedly misquoted me and mischaracterized what I've said.  But we do live in a world where people endorse their team as often as they endorse the truth, so I still think it's worth pointing out when you're caught in a lie and won't back down.

What lie? Where have I  "repeatedly misquoted me and mischaracterized what [you]'ve said."   I apologize if I mischaracterized your convoluted claim.
Feel free to clarify it.  But be careful not to "clarify" it to the point where you are just backtracking a false claim so you don't have to admit it was initially false.

What exactly were you claiming?  And what exactly is contained in your source that backs up your claim?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2018, 02:50:55 PM »
Quote
So please point out where in your source it supports the claim that even untrained armed response is effective.  3% isn't effective, it is noise. And you have absolutely no idea of how much training the 3% unarmed civilians had, so even that is not proven.
I didn't go back through this thread to dig into this 3% number again, but (from what I recall) it is appears numerically lower than the actual impact when you consider the percentage/odds of an armed civilian being present. 

And while I understand you are fixated on "proof" it seems almost to the point of willful ignorance to discount armed confrontation leading to active shooter suicide.  (Be it by police response or civilian)

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2018, 01:25:56 PM »
Quote
And while I understand you are fixated on "proof" it seems almost to the point of willful ignorance to discount armed confrontation leading to active shooter suicide.  (Be it by police response or civilian

Fixated is not a kind word.  "Willful ignorance" is not a respectful phrase.

A claim was made.  A source was provided (kindasorta) to back up the claim.  The source does not actually back up the claim.

You can make assumptions about whether the 3% would be higher if there were more armed civilians.  You can make assumptions that none of the 3% were trained.  You can make assumptions about to what extent an armed confrontation would lead to suicide.  (I did not discount it, as you falsely claim.  I said one could speculate it was a factor, but not prove it.  Somehow that turns into almost "willful ignorance").

Or you can ignore the part of the claim most relative to the conversation "even by the untrained".  But that would be dishonest.

So with all those assumptions, you might be able to make the case made by Seriati.  But he did not state those assumptions.  He said the source, all by itself, proved his case.  It doesn't.  And the assumptions are just that, assumptions, not facts.

At this point, it is not worth arguing.  It is clear his source does not prove his claim. One could argue that it points in that direction, but that is about it.

Either way, it is not worth wasting my time on this.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #80 on: October 12, 2018, 01:50:28 PM »
A claim was made.  A source was provided (kindasorta) to back up the claim.  The source does not actually back up the claim.

A statement was made, and a demand for a specific source was made.  Someone took time to provide a source relevant to the topic, by no means a link to everything they've ever read that's relevant.

No effort was made  to analyze it in good faith, leading to a conclusion that the requester is once again trolling a certain poster.

Quote
You can make assumptions about whether the 3% would be higher if there were more armed civilians.

You could, though why you would need to when you could research the question is beyond this poster's understanding.  There are lots of studies on DGUS, including the CDCs analysis of the state of research.

Mass active shooter situations have been studied as well, notwithstanding the comparative low number of events.

Quote
You can make assumptions that none of the 3% were trained.

Why would anyone need to do so?

Quote
You can make assumptions about to what extent an armed confrontation would lead to suicide.  (I did not discount it, as you falsely claim.  I said one could speculate it was a factor, but not prove it.  Somehow that turns into almost "willful ignorance").

There's evidence in the links that this occurs.  That's not proof without further analysis.  That's somewhat stronger than you seem to what to imply.  It's also a topic that you could again find further support for if you bothered to look.

Quote
Or you can ignore the part of the claim most relative to the conversation "even by the untrained".  But that would be dishonest.

So is your whine, that I have not put forward evidence about whether the untrained can more effectively stop a mass shooter incident by being armed or unarmed?  Is there any evidence that they can do so?

The evidence that I did put forward, shows that in school shootings, it does happen that unarmed teachers have stopped high school and middle school aged students.  While the CDC wanted more research done, there analysis of the existing studies acknowledged that there didn't appear to be a more effective method of stopping an armed attacker than being armed yourself. 

Do you have any evidence - at all - that unarmed people are more effective in stopping active shooters?

Quote
He said the source, all by itself, proved his case.

Provide this quote or admit you are lying again.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 01:54:54 PM by Seriati »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #81 on: October 13, 2018, 09:53:31 PM »
160 events
5 by armed individuals, 3% and change by non LEO
21 by unarmed individuals, 13% and change by non LEO


Estimates on percentage of civilian population that go armed looks like 5% at the low end, 10% at the high end but the number is hard to pin down.


Now I suck at statistics but if even 1 in 10 are armed at the high end then it looks to me that having a firearm is more than twice as effective as not.  More than 4 and a half times if the actual number is at the lower end of armed citizen estimates.

So it seems to me, "even by the untrained" is the crux of the issue.  Does that mean non-LEO / non-military?  Or does it mean someone who never took a class but shoots at the range often?  Or does it mean someone who owns a gun and rarely if ever fires it? 

You are correct, I was neither kind nor respectful.  And maybe my math and way of looking at that info is terribly flawed and shows my bias.  But from where I'm standing, you are ignoring an obvious data point that substantiates the statement made and are trying to tackle it as a semantics debate.


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #82 on: October 14, 2018, 09:30:40 AM »
I don't think statistics are reliable with that sample size.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #83 on: October 15, 2018, 12:29:40 AM »
Chicago. LA. Detroit. Guns everywhere, not safe.

Gangland isn't a good example of the 'arming everyone' principle. The idea would be to arm law-abiding citizens.

I thought the idea of the 2nd amendment was for law abiding competent citizens to arm themselves.

While Chicago has had lots of guns for a century, it's only in the past few years that SCOTUS has ruled that law abiding citizens there have a right to armed self-defense.  Shouldn't we be looking at violence stats since the SCOTUS Chicago ruling?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #84 on: October 15, 2018, 11:33:05 AM »
I thought the idea of the 2nd amendment was for law abiding competent citizens to arm themselves.

While Chicago has had lots of guns for a century, it's only in the past few years that SCOTUS has ruled that law abiding citizens there have a right to armed self-defense.

And the SC has yet to rule that citizens have the right to breathe or to look at other people.  I get what you're saying, but with or w/o the SC ruling, it's been understood since before the founding of the country that all people, including law abiding citizens, have the right to armed self-defense.

Quote
Shouldn't we be looking at violence stats since the SCOTUS Chicago ruling?

Hard to get a clean picture in Chicago, since Rahm stopped active police efforts, and the police retreat post BLM activism.  How would you parse out the impact of a change in gun laws against that backdrop?  I guess you could look to see if the percentage of legal versus illegal fire arms involved in crimes has changed.  Maybe, but probably less relevant, would be the absolute numbers in each category.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #85 on: October 15, 2018, 11:41:05 AM »
Here's a couple links that show they look at the issue, which means the "over time" component may be out there, but I didn't see it. 

Washington Post talking about National stats. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1e22561614c

In Chicago specifically.  https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2018, 12:12:19 PM »
I thought the idea of the 2nd amendment was for law abiding competent citizens to arm themselves.

While Chicago has had lots of guns for a century, it's only in the past few years that SCOTUS has ruled that law abiding citizens there have a right to armed self-defense.

And the SC has yet to rule that citizens have the right to breathe or to look at other people.  I get what you're saying, but with or w/o the SC ruling, it's been understood since before the founding of the country that all people, including law abiding citizens, have the right to armed self-defense.

To my knowledge no one questions the right to breathe.  Some feminists and traditionalists have questioned and continue to question the right to look at other people since the dark ages (Tom gets his eyes put out for looking at Lady Godiva as she rides naked in public on her horse), and if they ever take their evil and idiotic arguments to court, SCOTUS may have to rule on them too.

Quote
Hard to get a clean picture in Chicago, since Rahm stopped active police efforts, and the police retreat post BLM activism.  How would you parse out the impact of a change in gun laws against that backdrop? 

Damnation.  Good point. :(  Perhaps we could look at another city affected by the Heller decision?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 12:14:23 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2018, 12:27:43 PM »
To my knowledge no one questions the right to breathe.

Just wait. Nestle is already arguing that there's no inherent right to water, even by people who live on a natural water source.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2018, 01:14:21 PM »
Water rights could fill a whole thread. :P

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #89 on: October 22, 2018, 09:48:56 PM »
160 events
5 by armed individuals, 3% and change by non LEO
21 by unarmed individuals, 13% and change by non LEO


Estimates on percentage of civilian population that go armed looks like 5% at the low end, 10% at the high end but the number is hard to pin down.


Now I suck at statistics but if even 1 in 10 are armed at the high end then it looks to me that having a firearm is more than twice as effective as not.  More than 4 and a half times if the actual number is at the lower end of armed citizen estimates.

So it seems to me, "even by the untrained" is the crux of the issue.  Does that mean non-LEO / non-military?  Or does it mean someone who never took a class but shoots at the range often?  Or does it mean someone who owns a gun and rarely if ever fires it? 

You are correct, I was neither kind nor respectful.  And maybe my math and way of looking at that info is terribly flawed and shows my bias.  But from where I'm standing, you are ignoring an obvious data point that substantiates the statement made and are trying to tackle it as a semantics debate.

I am making a point.  There are people who say "The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out", and under pressure list one source to provide the actual facts. That source, all by itself, is the only thing provided to prove the claim.

That source, with a slew of assumptions, kind of leads towards thinking the claim might not be completely unreasonable, if you ignore the fact that the sample size is so small as to make any real conclusions impossible. 

My point is that people like that should be politely and respectfully called out for misrepresenting a source.  And when they refuse to acknowledge the truth, or distort, or distract, or repeat points that have already been thoroughly disproven, or make personal accusations that are completely unfounded, then they are called out for that too.  Maybe not so politely now, because they are essentially bullies, but they are called out without personal attacks.

Maybe I should be above that.  But these are issues that have real world outcomes, and when people use misleading arguments and distortions, that affects the how the issues are perceived, and affects people's lives. Words matter.

I don't expect people to agree with me.  I expect people to be honest and argue in good faith.  When they don't, I respond by pointing it out, and I don't let it go easily.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #90 on: October 22, 2018, 10:07:21 PM »
Quote
But these are issues that have real world outcomes, and when people use misleading arguments and distortions, that affects the how the issues are perceived, and affects people's lives. Words matter.
This is in direct contradiction with pointing out the small sample size.

We disproportionate weigh such sensational data points because of how much they shock our carefully constructed perception of personal safety.  I firmly believe there is a lot more we can do with gun control in this country to make everyone safer.

When those improvements to our laws or changes to enforcement of existing laws come, I too want them to be grounded in rationality.  If a data set is too small to support one claim, that does not somehow suggest that it supports the opposite.  Maybe, everyone should note that most discussion "triggers" tend to be far more effective at motivating through emotion than they are through logic.

If people ignore data because it doesn't support their "side" point it out.  Just be sure you aren't doing the same. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #91 on: October 23, 2018, 12:02:05 AM »
Water rights could fill a whole thread. :P

Well, it can be a rather deep subject.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #92 on: October 23, 2018, 10:01:21 AM »
I am making a point.  There are people who say "The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out", and under pressure list one source to provide the actual facts. That source, all by itself, is the only thing provided to prove the claim.

Or you could spend far less time writing about me, and far more time making arguments of your own.  It's not a secret that I think you're trolling me, or that you blatantly misquote me when doing so (which you literally did in this thread and got called out on).  I'm not going to ever play research monkey for you, I have read tons of things, including on this topic, over many many years that is not something I can re-distill for someone who doesn't seem to be interested in doing their own research on any topic.  If you played in good faith I would too (as I do for everyone else on the board).

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: gun free zones, cause and effect
« Reply #93 on: October 27, 2018, 06:40:50 PM »
Quote
But these are issues that have real world outcomes, and when people use misleading arguments and distortions, that affects the how the issues are perceived, and affects people's lives. Words matter.
This is in direct contradiction with pointing out the small sample size.

We disproportionate weigh such sensational data points because of how much they shock our carefully constructed perception of personal safety.  I firmly believe there is a lot more we can do with gun control in this country to make everyone safer.

When those improvements to our laws or changes to enforcement of existing laws come, I too want them to be grounded in rationality.  If a data set is too small to support one claim, that does not somehow suggest that it supports the opposite.  Maybe, everyone should note that most discussion "triggers" tend to be far more effective at motivating through emotion than they are through logic.

If people ignore data because it doesn't support their "side" point it out.  Just be sure you aren't doing the same. 

I think you misunderstand.  I simply said that the source does not prove the claim.  If you can point out where I did otherwise, I can address that, but I don't think I used the data to prove anything.

I am making a point.  There are people who say "The actual facts on this don't even come close to bearing you out", and under pressure list one source to provide the actual facts. That source, all by itself, is the only thing provided to prove the claim.

Or you could spend far less time writing about me, and far more time making arguments of your own.  It's not a secret that I think you're trolling me, or that you blatantly misquote me when doing so (which you literally did in this thread and got called out on).  I'm not going to ever play research monkey for you, I have read tons of things, including on this topic, over many many years that is not something I can re-distill for someone who doesn't seem to be interested in doing their own research on any topic.  If you played in good faith I would too (as I do for everyone else on the board).

I explained what you call a misquote, but you ignored the explanation.

I will point out that your original "source" had no link, just a description.  I found the actual link.  So who is the "research monkey"?  And the claim that I don't do my own research - given that I found your source for you, and provide sources for pretty much every fact, and offered to provide sources for those facts that don't have sources - how would you characterize that claim?

You acknowledge you don't argue in good faith. Thank you for that honesty.

-----------------

My point all along is that the source does not support the claim. It doesn't.  The rest is distraction.

I don't want to keep defending myself against your unsubstantiated personal attacks.  Please stop them.

I do not troll you.  I point out when you are making false or misleading statements, when the purpose of your post is to distort the truth or distract from your falsehoods, when your sources do not back up your claims, or when you make personal attacks. 

I will point it out it truthfully, with a source for every single fact, and without personal attacks.

If you stop your offending behavior, I will stop pointing it out, and we will get along fine.  All you need to do is argue in good faith, as you claim to do with everyone else.

Do we have an understanding?