Preventing a shooting in an LDS meeting

[Guest]

According to these numbers the United States is number one in civilian firearm ownership in the world but beats the murder rate of 110 other nations.  Take a look:

 

https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/number-one-bullet

 

I think some nations feel morally superior to the United States because their murders are committed by the killers using knifes, clubs or sharp, pointy sticks rather than by guns.  Murder is murder despite if it is done with firearms, a rock or whatever weapon is available to the killer.

Hmmm, I have some problems with this. My problems do *not* include the per capita gun ownership in the U.S. I would have expected it to be the highest in the world, and it doesn't mean anything other than that we like to own guns. That's fine. I think I have a problem, however, with a comparison of per capita gun ownership and murder rates--regardless of which "side" offers such comparisons. If, as some on this thread have suggested, it's important to look at all murder weapons in addition to guns, then it must also to be fair and informative look at all murders perpetrated in any way. So, I'm not saying that I think you aimed this at my question earlier in the thread. I don't think it. I just want to point it out so I don't become a target, hahaha. (Kidding)

 

As to your remark about other nations feeling morally superior I can't speak to that. I've heard friends from other countries criticize us, but my experience is such a tiny sampling that it would be meaningless.

[Guest]

I was just thinking as I read this thread, some people are afraid of guns because of possible accidental shootings, as has been mentioned.  But I'm reminded that life is precarious...after all look how many people are killed or maimed in car accidents and we don't ban cars.  I realize that cars are created as transportation, and some might argue that guns are created with one intent - to kill - but it could also be said that guns are created to protect.  For example, you might take a gun into the woods with no intent to use it, unless your life is threatened by a bear.  Or you may be a concealed weapon carrier who carries a gun with only the intention to defend and protect. ...

There is no question in my mind that understanding tends to lead toward better decisions in every aspect of our lives. Only for the sake of (friendly, I hope) argumentation and nothing else, however, and because comparison by analogy is often shaky, I am not fond of comparing guns to automobiles. I understand that you are talking about accidents. And I realize that people have accidents both in handling automobiles and handling guns. So, as far as it goes I agree that we should not ban guns and we should not ban automobiles. But what about you? Would you take the comparison of guns to automobiles any farther in terms of what we should or should not do?

[Guest]

I sometimes see the argument in defence of gun ownership that more good people holding and using guns would lessen the number of casualties when bad people do things with guns because the good guys can shoot the bad guys straight away instead of having to wait for the police to show up and do the shooting. Has this theory ever been empirically tested in a manner that would produce sufficiently reliable results as to inform the policy-making process? Could it even be tested or do we just have to rely on a bunch of anecdotes? If the validity of this argument cannot be tested, I think it would be prudent to exercise some caution when trying to draw conclusions from it.  

You make a good point, in my opinion. One of the biggest obstacles is the lack of reliable data and strong evidence.

[David13]

No, but I definitely see one in you.

 

I wouldn't call it bias.  I would call it personal expeerience with police in a professional capacity.

I just don't "do" hero worship when somebody does what they are paid to do.

 

What's your explanation for your bias IN FAVOR of the supremecy of police, per se, as a category.  Or is it selective, only certain agences?

dc

Edited October 3, 2015 by David13

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 I'm Liberal in a lot of my ideas, but not about guns.  I don't carry a gun

   I have some liberal friends who feel the same way. I'm libertarian so obviously I'm very pro second amendment. I have my concleaded carry but I never carry either-(wife does, I wanted one so if we swapped cars or something and her favorite handgun was in it, I'd be ok)-but I'm glad she does.

The sad truth is that there are very bad people in the world, and they prefer unarmed victims.   

Edited October 3, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Let me submit the following data table as an example of something that might be less or even unbiased and pretty reliable. 

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

Does anyone disagree with it as a potentially informative tool? Taken by itself, we can probably draw some fairly competent conclusions or make some fairly accurate claims. And of course there are other conclusions and claims we would *not* be justified in making. Thoughts?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

There is no question in my mind that understanding tends to lead toward better decisions in every aspect of our lives. Only for the sake of (friendly, I hope) argumentation and nothing else, however, and because comparison by analogy is often shaky, I am not fond of comparing guns to automobiles. I understand that you are talking about accidents. And I realize that people have accidents both in handling automobiles and handling guns. So, as far as it goes I agree that we should not ban guns and we should not ban automobiles. But what about you? Would you take the comparison of guns to automobiles any farther in terms of what we should or should not do?

No, I wouldn't take it any farther except to say this...I imagine we all know someone who was killed or seriously maimed in a car accident, and and most all of us have been in car accidents.

Except for the military, I only know one person who was killed by a gun (a suspicious suicide), no wait there was another gun death...Russian Roulette was the story....but that's it.

I haven't looked into the Stas but my guess is that outside of the military and police officers doing their duty, cars kill more people than guns. But we tend to 8gnore that and not only continue to drive but do dangerous things like texting while driving.

Sorry this is long winded, what I'm trying to say is not that gun are comparable to cars, but simply that it is interesting which dangers make people tend to freak out while other dangerous activities are embraced. I hope that helps.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I have some liberal friends who feel the same way. I'm libertarian so obviously I'm very pro second amendment. I have my concleaded carry but I never carry either-(wife does, I wanted one so if we swapped cars or something and her favorite handgun was in it, I'd be ok)-but I'm glad she does.

The sad truth is that there are very bad people in the world, and they prefer unarmed victims.

It's cool that your wife carries. I considered it for a time but my husband said I'd probably shoot myself. It's true, LOL. My hands would be shaking so bad theres no telling what I would hit, and to add insult to injury I'm not much of a marksman on a good day. I prefer a shot gun with bird shot or something like that so I have a better chance of hitting what I am at. But you can't conceal a shot gun. So I'll stick with pepper spray. :)

[Guest]

No, I wouldn't take it any farther except to say this...

Will you disagree with me if I say that I suspect the numbers [of people killed by car accidents] are more directly the result of population density than anything else?

Edited October 3, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Will you disagree with me if I say that I suspect the numbers of people killed by car accidents is more a function of population density than anything else?

No you raise a good point, there are far more people with cars than people with guns.

[Guest]

So if we agree (and keeping in mind that we may be wrong) then could we do anything to reduce the numbers of people killed by car accidents?

Edited October 3, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest MormonGator]

It's cool that your wife carries. I considered it for a time but my husband said I'd probably shoot myself. It's true, LOL. My hands would be shaking so bad theres no telling what I would hit, and to add insult to injury I'm not much of a marksman on a good day. I prefer a shot gun with bird shot or something like that so I have a better chance of hitting what I am at. But you can't conceal a shot gun. So I'll stick with pepper spray. :)

 I always tease people, "If you break into my home believe me, you'd rather ME shooting at you than HER. I'd miss and hit my dog. She'd blow you away with one shot!" 

[mirkwood]

I wouldn't call it bias.  I would call it personal expeerience with police in a professional capacity.

I just don't "do" hero worship when somebody does what they are paid to do.

 

What's your explanation for your bias IN FAVOR of the supremecy of police, per se, as a category.  Or is it selective, only certain agences?

dc

 

 

Oh your bias is very clear.

 

 

Where do I have a bias of supremacy for police?  Show me the post.

[Guest]

Does the prophet always come in with a security guy between him and the congregation? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So if we agree (and keeping in mind that we may be wrong) then could we do anything to reduce the numbers of people killed by car accidents?

If we could get people to stop texting while driving and other risky things that would help. I think the best way to do that is through public education. Car manufacturers are working on more safety features.

For guns we have gun laws 8n an attempt to help,but that doesn't help stop bad guys with guns. In my daughter's college class the day after the shooting the teacher, who is ex-military went over what they could do if their school was attacked. She directed someone who had a belt to tie it on the door hinge so it wouldn't open. Then cover the window. Finally lay the tables down like dominoes and then crouch down behind them.

I think this discussion was a great idea. I would like to see more colleges and high schools prepare in similar fasion.

Is this what you meant?

[Guest]

If we could get people to stop texting while driving and other risky things that would help. I think the best way to do that is through public education. Car manufacturers are working on more safety features.

For guns we have gun laws 8n an attempt to help,but that doesn't help stop bad guys with guns. In my daughter's college class the day after the shooting the teacher, who is ex-military went over what they could do if their school was attacked. She directed someone who had a belt to tie it on the door hinge so it wouldn't open. Then cover the window. Finally lay the tables down like dominoes and then crouch down behind them.

I think this discussion was a great idea. I would like to see more colleges and high schools prepare in similar fasion.

Is this what you meant?

Yes, with any proposed solution it must first be determined if it will even work. Then, of course we have to determine whether the solution will be better than the existing problem, or if it will create other problems. In our scenario it might avoid some accidents. It certainly wouldn't reduce others--like you say, and it wouldn't stop malicious acts with automobiles. And we're back to whether it can be compared to the question in the OP. Probably not. 

[mirkwood]

Does the prophet always come in with a security guy between him and the congregation? 

 

He always has armed security with him.

[Guest MormonGator]

He always has armed security with him.

 I bet he gets threats from time to time.  

Edited October 3, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Yes, with any proposed solution it must first be determined if it will even work. Then, of course we have to determine whether the solution will be better than the existing problem, or if it will create other problems. In our scenario it might avoid some accidents. It certainly wouldn't reduce others--like you say, and it wouldn't stop malicious acts with automobiles. And we're back to whether it can be compared to the question in the OP. Probably not.

Ah, yes I get it now. Car accidents are just that, accidents...but shooting massacres are obviously intentional. Good point.

[kapikui]

Come to think of it, this is the first time I can remember (I may have missed some) that the mass shooter did not shoot himself almost immediately on encountering armed resistance. 

 

It seems I was wrong this shooter killed himself as soon as he saw the cops.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/

Every shooter I can think of has killed himself almost immediately on encountering armed resistance. Such would indicate that the number of deaths due to friendly fire in a shooting incident is going to be smaller than the number of deaths due to the shooting itself since statistics indicate that the vast majority of mass shooters will kill themselves almost immediately on encountering armed resistance. 

[mirkwood]

Off the top of my head, the Boston bombers did not kill themselves, the Trolley Square shooter did not kill himself, Charleston church shooter did not kill himself, Colorado movie theater shooter did not kill himself.

 

A great many do, but not all.

[kapikui]

Off the top of my head, the Boston bombers did not kill themselves, the Trolley Square shooter did not kill himself, Charleston church shooter did not kill himself, Colorado movie theater shooter did not kill himself.

 

A great many do, but not all.

I knew there had to be some, but couldn't think of any.  Thanks.

[NeuroTypical]

In my neck of the woods, the New Life Church killer offed himself, only after confronted and wounded by someone returning fire.

 

Hey - if "they ain't taking me alive" is valued by these sorts of folks, I'm ok with that.  Don't expect me to remember your cause, your manifesto, your appearance, or your name though.

[Just_A_Guy]

Larry Correa's article (rant?) about gun control, written in the wake of Sandy Hook, seems apropos.

[pkstpaul]

Are you saying that there are irrational idiots in the ranks of conceal-carry permit holders?  Data indicate otherwise.

 

Or are you saying that non-permit holders who carry illegally where there is no sign, will somehow decide to not carry in places that have a sign?  Common sense would indicate otherwise. 

 

Help me make sense of your claim here, because I'm not seeing it.

I didn't say either. I'm saying there is a purpose to the gun free zone. It is to assure some level of safety and peace of mind. Some level does not mean 'complete'.  I think it misplaced to think a gun free zone makes it a target. The focus needs to be on the shooter not the gun.