“Well, I have to extend a virtual handshake - except for some details about implementation, you and I could easily have a rational conversation about moving forward on reducing gun violence.
Thank you for that. I'm more than happy to take it as given that we have a problem with violence in general and gun use in particular. If we can agree at least on that point, there's plenty of room for discussion.
Tom Silo on Sep 24, 2013 at 23:04:36
“And there it is... a rational conclusion to a discussion on a complex topic.
Just to add, I'm certainly not saying I know the answer - if it was that easy then one would hope that it would have been dealt with already. What I would like to see is the scientific process leveraged and applied to this topic with the use of peer reviewed material forming the basis of fact based discussion and decisions.
“In this case, no - the 1993 restriction meant that you couldn't lawfully carry concealed on a military base. And most companies are allowed discretion to bar weapons on the premises.
Out in public? Perhaps - too many variables are always involved. He didn't have body armor, and was pretty mobile until the police show up, meaning there might have been opportunity for a good shot. This is never a game of certainty, and given the relatively low incidence of CCW compared with the general population, it's hard to say.
I hate the NRA stance of "more guns". Personally, I carry to protect myself and my family, and I do not view CCW as an extension of law enforcement. If the stars line up, great - take the opportunity to help (which I've done). But it should not be viewed as a deterrent or mitigating factor.”
“I can picture all the would-be mass shooters shuffling their feet and collectively going "aw, gee!" when they can't carry out their plans. They will most certainly amble off home, probably buy a candy bar and throw some rocks into a pond before forgetting the whole thing.
Because it's unfathomable that these same people would use any other type of firearm. And it *never* happens that anyone goes to a hardware store followed by a gas station. Never, ever.
“Yes, good point. Now weigh the potential drop in body count (statistically zero) against the lives saved by defensive uses (anywhere from 300,000 to 2.5M depending on your sources).
Let's recap - take away all firearms in order to reduce 30,000 firearms deaths. The suicide rate doesn't change much, accidental discharge is pretty low already, but you can count that as a net plus, and criminals will use other means. So you've essentially preserved the number of accidental discharges - about 5,000 in a year.
Compare 5k to 300k at the low end of defensive uses. If 10% of those 300k are actually lives that would otherwise have been lost, that's still 30k, or six times the loss. You are willing to trade 30,000 people dying due to crime because you removed their rights in order to save 5,000 accidental deaths?
“But no gun crime does not equate to less crime; just a different mode. Look up the recent Harvard study for details. In many places, crime surges after a ban, and stays high. Sure, it's not gun crime, I'll admit. But dead is dead so what you really are saying is you don't care how they died so long as it wasn't by gun. Ok.
By the same logic if we ban stairs in the US, people won't fall down them. And no pool drownings if we ban pools. Yet people will somehow manage to die from falls and drowning. We're human like that.
Fascinating, isn't it?”
DocSkull on Sep 23, 2013 at 17:58:21
“Banning assault weapons will only reduce crime committed with assault weapons. Even if they then pick up a knife it is going to mean fewer victims.”
“That's a fair point, and the same can be said of defensive uses - they aren't logged as thoroughly as criminal homicide.
But also consider that not all impulse buys are done with criminal intent. Some are just like any other purchase. Some are done because there's an immediate threat such as can happen in domestic violence cases - some women (and a few men) have been granted temporary carry permits due to credible threats.
Ostensibly, we pass laws based on both statistics and reason. Mandatory delays have relevant statistics associated with them, so we have to weigh what can be measured: duration between purchase and criminal use.
There are statistics there, but I can't find them right now so won't comment. I do remember the FBI information for *stolen* firearms shows a delay of years between theft and use in a crime. Given that criminals are purchasing stolen goods with criminal intent, and it takes years for it to turn up, one might presume the likelihood of 'heat of passion' crimes to be negligibly small.
Would you consider a more effective effort being put into shoring up the information system that supports instant background checks?”
“Let's play your game and say they don't infringe. Likewise, they have no demonstrable benefit. So why spend resources on a system that is a zero-sum game?
Do you feel it's effective to put regulations in place that have zero net benefit, so long as they inconvenience someone who makes a different choice than you? Because if there's no infringement and no benefit, that's the only thing left.”
StopTalkingDoSomething34 on Sep 23, 2013 at 17:02:07
“All we know is human nature. It's not far-fetched to state that people will purchase a gun to kill someone or do bodily harm, right?
One purpose behind the waiting period is to give people time to think about "why" they are buying a gun. It makes a gun more than just an 'impulse buy.' It's the people who buy guns on impulse (be it good or bad), who mess it up for the responsible gun owners.
You can't "count" the amount of people that this may have saved, because they were saved. Just like I can't prove it works, you can't prove that it doesn't, all we know is human nature as I stated above.”
“That's actually a good point - part of responsible training for concealed carry involves situational awareness. One thing that's usually taught is to maintain a defensive posture and secure your own area, not go after the 'bad guy'.
Some courses also teach how to integrate with police, which usually means keeping your ID out and laying down when the police arrive.
Trying to characterize people who care enough to become emergency responders as "Rambo wannabees" is childish at best. Yeah, there are some out there who fit that stereotype, but then there are liberals out there who fit the "no personal responsibility, the world owes me a living" stereotype. But we both know that's not always true, is it?”
humanbeing1962 on Sep 23, 2013 at 21:32:51
“A well trained, responsible person with a gun, would do as you said. There are indeed some people like that out there. Unfortunately, the training requirements in most places for concealed carry permits are very low. Just a few hours, and no continuing training requirements. Thus, many if the concealed carry people are indeed poorly trained, and in most instances, have not been in a training scenario for many years. It has taken trained, drilled, military personnel several days to take control of this situation. Does anybody really believe that a few, even well trained, concealed carry permit holders would have made one iota of difference? ”
“"The problem is there weren't enough good guys with guns," LaPierre said.
As an owner and non-NRA member, I think this is BS. This line degrades the NRA's credibility at every step because it's just tossed out there like seed. In this case, just as in schools, more guns is a bad idea.
I'm OK with a police officer on the grounds, or better response training for school employees (but not weapons training). Heck, even a panic button for every teacher that alerts all rooms to lock down and hide. I don't think we can prevent these tragedies until we look at behaviors, but we can try to mitigate the horror and damage by having better responses.”
“I can just picture the lines of criminals standing outside the police station with big smiles, just waiting to hand over their bullets and properly showing an empty chamber to the reviewing officers. Do you imagine a library system where you go check out the rounds you plan to use, with an accountability statement?
"Yes, sir! I plan to fire 9 rounds randomly into a crowd, with the hope of hitting at least three people, none of which are the person I'm mad at. Can I have an extra one just in case?"”
I haven't stated a position, Tom - you keep inventing that for me. You also need a well-defined target so you can apply your 1-st grade sticker responses to things I've never claimed. That's why you keep imagining wind mills.
And for all of this, you *still* can't be bothered to address the topic of the thread. Enjoy your bigotry and hate.”
“You are so bent on bigotry you can't even see straight. I'm agnostic, have no love for the NRA, and you have yet to be on topic. Your only tactic is to cherry pick bad data from left field. Want to be refuted? Learn how to read data from science perspective. Here's a Harvard study for you to browse:
that addresses your playground pablum, but I bet you won't read it. Unlike you, I studied Kellerman et al, and weighed both sides of the issue using similar data. I also have a physics degree, so I understand data normalization and controls - he cut his estimates in half in 93 from the 86 report. He also admitted that the numbers are only valid for the crime neighborhoods.
Then you conveniently forget that risk percentage is still incredibly small - count how many firearms are out there compared to the use. Do you understand comparative rates? I'm betting no, because if you did, you'd abandon your slavish adherence to old data.
I provided refutation, but your live of hating "the other guy" makes you blind, and that makes you worthless in discussion.
If you stop trying to paint me into a convenient corner (straw man), you might see that we have something to discuss. But all you do is invent targets because all you want is sophistry, not exchange.
Come back with something to discuss or don't come back at all.”
“Repeat: you aren't addressing the topic of this thread, and you didn't provide a link to the other one.
Repeat: Kellerman, the author of the report, publicly disclaimed his own data and revised it. He went from 54% of gun-related deaths occuring in a home with a gun to 26% in 1993, using the same data set but corrected for various factors. That was still incomplete, and current views of the *same* data set put the number down in high teen percentages.
That's just one example.
Just because a study or data refutes your biblical devotion to hating guns doesn't mean it's an invalid or NRA talking point. You're a fundamentalist who runs from hard data and only promulgates what agrees with your stand. You keep telling me to provide data, but I'm betting you've never even read the reports. And if you did, if you pretend you're even vaguely objective, you'll read data and studies from all sides and come to your own conclusion.
I'll save you more time: you won't because you can't bear the thought of discovering your bible to be a lie.
I'll not bother providing links to contrary studies until you man up and decide that you can be objective.
Overall, the data is largely up for grabs and it comes down to personal responsibility. Is that what you fear, Tom? Personal responsibility?”
Tom Silo on Sep 23, 2013 at 08:49:47
“There you go again. It's a typical NRA/creationist diatribe. "tell me them studies you 'ave and I'll refute dem with good 'ol NRA/christian dogma". And crucial to this tactic is the concomitant refusal to produce any evidence in support of your preformed biased views. We know why, it's because you have no independent research supporting your view.
You can throw tomatoes from the sidelines and misrepresent the truth (known in the vernacular as a "lie") all you like. The fact is Kellermann followed up his original report with additional controls (as I've already stated) and he said the subsequent report substantiates his original one!
In case you still don't understand it, this is exactly the opposite of your claim. But even this doesn't matter because there are literally hundreds of properly researched scientific papers supporting my position and absolutely none supporting your.
And yet the scientifically illiterate NRA devotees rant and rave about "them stealing me guns!"
Come up with a single reputable paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your position....
wait... what's that...? Can you hear that? It's quiet - too quiet....”
“Try what? I'm not entirely convinced you're literate; the question was whether *you* have read a paper. I read plenty. Go look up murder rates - you'll find a rather large gap where guns are *not* used.
Now, do you have an actual argument to back up your claim, or are you going to run around with your eyes pointing different directions and delude yourself that you're having a discussion? Because right now, you're just drooling words.”
“Whatever, Tom - JHU's collection starts from the already-debunked Kellerman report. Kellerman himself noted he used biased data so his conclusions were suspect at best. Why don't you actually read the entirety of the report and look for something relevant and meaningful. There is good information, but the majority is horribly skewed - look at who funded and wrote the lead-in.
And again, you failed to even address the comments in this thread.
What was the other thread? I don't see a notification that you posted to anything else I wrote.”
“Actually, we can presume the shooter to already have a criminal background that would have prevented them from legally possessing a firearm, especially in Chicago. Thus the creative solution from anyone would be "enforce the current laws, lock up the criminals".