New security measures for church events


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Do you remember when we had this discussion before and you gave the analogy of the virus in a safely contained petri dish?

I relented and stated that if a friend really objected to my bringing a gun to their home, I'd have a discussion with him about it and explain my position the best I could.  If he still objected, then I would have to make a choice to either not go to his house or leave the gun at home.

The equivalent here is that I've spoken with the bishop and he doesn't have a problem with it.  So, what more do you expect?

Ahh, yes . . . good times. ;) My posts to this thread are primarily a response to your rhetoric, not your practice. 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

[1]They said it's inappropriate.  That does not equate to prohibited.  You know that.  This is not a grammatical hair.  You know that. 

[2] And my desire to exercise a Constitutional right in a legally approved manner is not the opposite of what they've stated.

Are people forgetting that The Constitution of the United States is an inspired document?  Is not the right to bear arms an important (and I'd say integral) part of that document?  Is it not a continuing principle in the Lord's eyes?  To me it is.

So, when I see something written in what I consider scripture that is a principle we're told still applies vs. a single line of a policy statement, I feel justified in making a decision that a scriptural injunction is more important.

[3]This is not some whimsy or frivolous reason.  It's not a choice of hair color or clothing.  It is not a tattoo or a pair of sunglasses.  It is the right to bear arms

[4]It is not an intrusive or distracting choice.  It in no way distracts ANYone from their worship.

1.  To me, it reduces to the following:  Russ Nelson doesn’t want you packing heat in the church house to which he owns legal title.  True, or false?  

The answer, of course, is “true”.  Beyond that, it’s the mere difference between “this is wrong and you shouldn’t do it” versus “THOU SHALT NOT” on the one hand; and the difference between “I don’t care” and “[EXPLETIVE] YOU!!!” on the other.  In other words—a difference only of degrees.  

2.  Not everything that is legally sanctioned by—or even *protected by*—the Constitution, is OK within a gospel context.  Exhibits A, B, and C would be obscenity, slavery, and abortion.  I love the Constitution; but to suggest it can or should supersede the current instructions we get from inspired Church leaders seems . . . troublesome.

3.  No one ever thinks their own disagreement with the 1Pres/Q12 is whimsical or frivolous.

4.  Sure; it’s objectively unobtrusive and non-distracting—as long as you don’t foul up.  It is also, to build on my earlier analogy, both unobtrusive and non-distracting for a duly credentialed lab tech to bring a vial of live smallpox into my sacrament meeting—but I still would prefer it didn’t happen, and would want to know about it if it did.  

Why is it that gun owners get extraordinary latitude to defend themselves against some statistically infinitesimal threats; but non-gun-owners don’t even have the right to at least know about the existence of other statistically infinitesimal threats sitting in their own pew when the Church has told them they are right to expect that no such threat exist there?

We seem to be drifting into “self-defense for me, but not for thee”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ahh, yes . . . good times. ;) My posts to this thread are primarily a response to your rhetoric, not your practice. 

1.  To me, it reduces to the following:  Russ Nelson doesn’t want you packing heat in the church house to which he owns legal title.  True, or false?  

The answer, of course, is “true”.  Beyond that, it’s the mere difference between “this is wrong and you shouldn’t do it” versus “THOU SHALT NOT” on the one hand; and the difference between “I don’t care” and “[EXPLETIVE] YOU!!!” on the other.  In other words—a difference only of degrees.  

2.  Not everything that is legally sanctioned by—or even *protected by*—the Constitution, is OK within a gospel context.  Exhibits A, B, and C would be obscenity, slavery, and abortion.  I love the Constitution; but to suggest it can or should supersede the current instructions we get from inspired Church leaders seems . . . troublesome.

3.  No one ever thinks their own disagreement with the 1Pres/Q12 is whimsical or frivolous.

4.  Sure; it’s objectively unobtrusive and non-distracting—as long as you don’t foul up.  It is also, to build on my earlier analogy, both unobtrusive and non-distracting for a duly credentialed lab tech to bring a vial of live smallpox into my sacrament meeting—but I still would prefer it didn’t happen, and would want to know about it if it did.  

You are much more patient than I, and I applaud you for that.  

I certainly wouldn’t concede it’s unobtrusive and non-distracting in all cases.  I’ve been told by a number of saints that it has created anxiety for them.

And, of course, if the Brethren believed the 2nd Amendment trumps Church policy, then bringing your gun to Church would per se be appropriate.  Instead, it’s been deemed the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder if that is true.  As the saying goes, "an armed society is a polite society".  Switzerland is proving that to be true, is it not?

The theory is that when everyone is aware that any simple altercation may escalate to a deadly situation, people will do what they can to stay clear of that line.  Again, I'm not sure how true that is either.  But I at least see the logic in it.  And I've heard at least a few anecdotes where that has proven to be true.

Florida stands out as a counter example to this idea. 

There may also be a big difference between a society that owns weapons and a society that carries weapons.

But again, questions we don't really have data to answer. 

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I certainly wouldn’t concede it’s unobtrusive and non-distracting in all cases.  I’ve been told by a number of saints that it has created anxiety for them.

I guess I’m a little more middle-of-the-road.

I think generally, functional people need to come to grips with the fact that guns exist and that they are out in society.  But in private surroundings where the owners/applicable authorities have created or acknowledged a reasonable expectation that firearms will not be present (or will only be present under particular circumstances); I think a deviation from that expectation should be cause for notice and the possibility to plan around it.  

Even so, exhibiting “trauma” or “anxiety” at such deviations seems a little like overkill. The gun was there, it didn’t hurt anyone; next time let’s just please let people know what they’re getting into.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2018 at 11:59 AM, Carborendum said:

Wording is everything.

Multiple people from different wards in three states I know of have all told me that someone spoke with their bishop about concealed carry in their wards.  The bishop was fine with them.

HOWEVER, I believe that the Church has taken measures to satisfy the requirements of the State of Utah to prohibit carry within the walls of the churches.  That same action is not sufficient in other states. Texas, for example, requires a bit more to prohibit carry at church.  And the Church has made no efforts to tell the leadership in the many states to "perform whatever measures are required" to legally prohibit the same in their buildings.

Or maybe the church expect/ hopes that members of the church will respect and follow its position not to bring guns to church builds. Even if they have not complied with ever legal rule or posted every sticker on every door that different states make up.

Edited by raven2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fether said:

As I agree with your fear... I can’t think of a single story where this is the case. Rather I hear stories of assailant having free reign over powerless victims or an armed citizen stopping the shooter from doing more damage than he/she already had done.

Can you find a single story where an armed citizen acchidentally shot a civilian while going after a gun man?

I did a quick research and found this one....

...."Fifteen minutes into the movie, Gallion’s gun somehow went off, police say, striking the woman sitting in front of him.....".   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/man-who-feared-mass-shootings-brings-gun-to-movie-theater-accidentally-shoots-woman/?utm_term=.550f027dfbac

And I found this one......

"People with firearms training performed better than those without it.......''

"The Washington Post noted the latter “didn't take cover. They didn't attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy – they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough – they didn't shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.”   https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0728/Research-Untrained-gun-users-prove-ineffective-at-self-defense

I am not protesting against the Second Amendment- I'm a firm supporter. I only think that putting an untrained armed person in a crowded area is an accident looking for a place to happen.  

It's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Grunt said:

This is a false statement born of fear, not reality.

Not fear Grunt.

Common sense.

Responsible people who own and carry a gun should be proficient in shooting said weapon. There should be basic common sense in knowledge and use of a weapon that can take a life.

Knowledge means training.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I guess I’m a little more middle-of-the-road.

I think generally, functional people need to come to grips with the fact that guns exist and that they are out in society.  But in private surroundings where the owners/applicable authorities have created or acknowledged a reasonable expectation that firearms will not be present (or will only be present under particular circumstances); I think a deviation from that expectation should be cause for notice and the possibility to plan around it.  

Even so, exhibiting “trauma” or “anxiety” at such deviations seems a little like overkill. The gun was there, it didn’t hurt anyone; next time let’s just please let people know what they’re getting into.  

Wholeheartedly agree.  I’m not saying such anxiety is any more well-founded than anxiety some feel when someone comes to Church who looks different (e.g. tattoos, piercings) than some are comfortable with.  

We should all look forward to, and work for,  the day where no one feels such anxieties but, unfortunately, we’re not there yet and claiming there’s no one who feels such anxiety about guns in Church just misstates reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I know that there are many who play semantics to get out of certain responsibilities or justify bad behavior.  And I recognize that I'm being accused of that right now.  So, let me tell you how I look at it.

  • I was making a statement as to the legalities of the situation because I viewed the statement to which I was responding as an attempt at a legal statement as well. (I'm using the term "legal" in the broad sense.)
  • The garment argument is false because we have been specifically instructed to not expose them to the world.  It's just not in the "church attendance" section of the Handbook.
  • Any time a person challenges a rule, one must decide how strongly one feels about a course of action vs. the strength of the request to do otherwise.  I feel very strongly about gun rights.  So, the language must be equally strong to dissuade me.  Is that so much to ask?
  • Notice the bold part above.  I have yet to hear any decent argument to indicate why a legally authorized CCW holder should be barred from carrying a concealed gun is in any way "bad behavior".  How does my carrying a concealed gun make anyone else worship any differently?  I'm just not seeing it.  And should I choose to carry a gun to church, it would not affect my worship any more than if I carried my credit card or cell phone to church.  So, give me a compelling reason why my carrying a concealed gun changes anything with regard to the worship service.

Give me a compelling reason to believe that.  And I'd really like to understand why.  Without any additional commentary from the brethren specifically addressing those who feel strongly about gun rights, I don't see this as any stronger than "it is requested that those administering the sacrament wear white shirts when available."

First off, my apologies that my response was seen as if I was accusing you of justifying bad behavior. Since your response mentioned this, I was simply providing my thoughts in relation to this instruction from the Church. I just know when I use the word "inappropriate" it means do not bring at all, and from what I read from the Church Handbook that is how I interpret it.

I was referring to garments as you specified (which I can see that is not the best argument); although, I was also using garment as in any particle of clothing that is considered underwear. It is inappropriate to wear a bra and panties for women to church, as it would be inappropriate for a man to show up in whitey tighties even though it does not specifically say it is not allowed. The principle is to wear our Sunday best, so I guess if the only thing a person had was undies, they should come, but I would hope fellow saints then would run to the store (even on Sunday) to purchase appropriate attire.

I personally do not think carrying a concealed weapon is "justifying bad behavior." I wouldn't place this in that same realm. As this is something between the individual and the Lord. Coming to church in undies (when you have appropriate clothing) is bad behavior. The wording to me and the simple fact that the Church has made a point to specify such shouldn't be ignored. Again, if a person though were to pray in this regard and receive specific revelation to carry (maybe a prompting even that day) then be my guest and carry. And I am not one to think this is contrary, as God is the author of the law and the reason of the law, therefore he also knows when to carry and when not to and when is appropriate and when it isn't appropriate to carry a gun in his Church.

I believe the only compelling reason is obedience, refer to my previous paragraph as to my understanding of obedience. :)

Again, my apologies for causing the opposition for you to feel I was calling you out. I wasn't. I was just specifying my thoughts on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lindy said:

Not fear Grunt.

Common sense.

Responsible people who own and carry a gun should be proficient in shooting said weapon. There should be basic common sense in knowledge and use of a weapon that can take a life.

Knowledge means training.

 

Your implication is that they aren't trained.  That being said, even without training gun handling is common sense.  You don't need a degree, just familiarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Your implication is that they aren't trained.  That being said, even without training gun handling is common sense.  You don't need a degree, just familiarity.

You've never met my daughter........ scary.

 You would eat those words really fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2018 at 10:36 AM, MarginOfError said:

After the Saratoga Springs shooting, a counselor in my bishopric really wanted to discuss whether it made sense to discourage concealed carry in our buliding. I had to dig up all sorts of FBI resources, religious security guidelines, and other materials to demonstrate that the vast majority of violence that happens in houses of worship is related to civil disputes. The attacker almost always knows and is targeting the victim. 

Didn't help the 46 victims at Sutherland Springs.  What did help was an armed bystander who kept the shooter from going back in. (Or continuing on to find more victims, as he apparently intended to target his inlaws.)

Quote

The likelihood of a mass shooting event is in the realm of one in a billion on any given week.

Which, over the average lifespan puts it roughly on par with dying in an airline crash.  Lots of people make far bigger adjustments to their lifestyle to avoid flying than simply putting on an extra piece of equipment in the morning routine.

You're 33,000 times more likely to die of heart disease, so why not some restrictions on bringing unhealthy foods to potlucks?  20,000 times more likely to die in a car wreck, so why not televise all services and mail out bread and water for the Sacrament?

Quote

Less if you exclude politically motivated shootings.

Why?  Do those only kill you sort of dead?

Maybe we should also exclude shootings with calibers that contain a three, so we can make the result even more irrelevant.

Quote

But the probability of a shooting related to a civil dispute is a couple orders of magnitude higher.

And as we've seen from multiple incidents, innocent bystanders are at risk from those as well.  (Only one of the Sutherland Springs victims was related to the shooter's wife, and it's unlikely that one was his intended target.)  Even more so if they have the human decency to try to help the victim in any way.

Quote

Statistically speaking, a policy permitting concealed carry within houses of worship could have an expected value for injuries and deaths greater than the expected value resulting from the improbable mass shooting.

Realistically speaking, the situation you're pretending is hypothetical is happening all over the country without any of the problems your "statistics" predict.  Are you claiming that LDS are less competent and/or mentally stable than other faiths, and thus wouldn't be able to handle themselves as well?

Quote

While I understand the worry of being unarmed that you speak of, all signs indicate that a pervasively armed untrained* populace is far more dangerous the its citizenry than an unarmed one.

The signs you're looking at are made up by people pushing the same agenda as you.

Quote

* I do not count basic concealed carry as training here, as it does not really teach decision making under pressure in any way similar to what police and military experience.

"Basic concealed carry training" varies from state to state, as does police and security training.  Frankly, my concealed carry renewal classes were more comprehensive in terms of how and when to use deadly force than the state training for an armed security officer.  My initial class was taught by a retired Royal Marine firearms instructor, with input from a criminal defense attorney who helped write Texas' concealed carry laws and update some of the self defense laws.  The security training requirements, on the other hand, made it clear that Paul Blart: Mall Cop was entirely too close to the truth.  (Not to say I didn't work with some excellent security officers who took our work seriously, but there were also plenty who were only there because they couldn't keep a fast food job.)

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

Didn't help the 46 victims at Sutherland Springs.  What did help was an armed bystander who kept the shooter from going back in. (Or continuing on to find more victims, as he apparently intended to target his inlaws.)

Which, over the average lifespan puts it roughly on par with dying in an airline crash.  Lots of people make far bigger adjustments to their lifestyle to avoid flying than simply putting on an extra piece of equipment in the morning routine.

You're 33,000 times more likely to die of heart disease, so why not some restrictions on bringing unhealthy foods to potlucks?  20,000 times more likely to die in a car wreck, so why not televise all services and mail out bread and water for the Sacrament?

Why?  Do those only kill you sort of dead?

Maybe we should also exclude shootings with calibers that contain a three, so we can make the result even more irrelevant.

And as we've seen from multiple incidents, innocent bystanders are at risk from those as well.  (Only one of the Sutherland Springs victims was related to the shooter's wife, and it's unlikely that one was his intended target.)  Even more so if they have the human decency to try to help the victim in any way.

Realistically speaking, the situation you're pretending is hypothetical is happening all over the country without any of the problems your "statistics" predict.  Are you claiming that LDS are less competent and/or mentally stable than other faiths, and thus wouldn't be able to handle themselves as well?

The signs you're looking at are made up by people pushing the same agenda as you.

"Basic concealed carry training" varies from state to state, as does police and security training.  Frankly, my concealed carry renewal classes were more comprehensive in terms of how and when to use deadly force than the state training for an armed security officer.  My initial class was taught by a retired Royal Marine firearms instructor, with input from a criminal defense attorney who helped write Texas' concealed carry laws and update some of the self defense laws.  The security training requirements, on the other hand, made it clear that Paul Blart: Mall Cop was entirely too close to the truth.  (Not to say I didn't work with some excellent security officers who took our work seriously, but there were also plenty who were only there because they couldn't keep a fast food job.)

 

Looks like someone wants to play the statistics game.  Okay, I'll bite.  Check this out:

In 2016, there were 37,461 automobile related fatalities in the United States (source)

In 2013, there were 33,636 firearms related injuries.  (source)

When compared side-by-side and adjusting for population, that amounts to 11.59 fatalities per 100,000 people due to vehicles and 10.6 firearms deaths per 100,000 people.  Now, you may be sitting there thinking, "yup, see, that means firearms are safer!" But I'll take the opportunity to point out a couple of things.  First, the firearms data is three years older, and the rate of firearms deaths has been increasing since then, with 2016 figures putting it at "about 12" per 100,000 (source). So really, these figures suggest firearms and vehicles are equally dangerous.  (We're also going to ignore things like statistical significance that would almost certainly show insufficient evidence to conclude that 11.59 is meaningfully different than 10.6).

But wait! There's more!  11.59 vehicle fatalities per 100,000 population is a very broad risk category because it calculates all human time, including time that a human wasn't exposed to the vehicle.  A more precise figure of risk would be based only on the time that people are exposed.  So let's get to work.

The US Department of Transportation estimated that Americans spent on the order of 84 billion hours driving during 2015 (source). Please note, and this is a low estimate for our purposes, because it is based on driver hours, not passenger hours. Dividing the number of automobile fatalities by the number of hours at risk gives us the instantaneous probability of a fatality: 0.000000404762 (or about 4 in 10 million). 

Now we need an estimate of the number of hours Americans spend exposed to firearms.  These data are extremely difficult to come by.  I'm going to justify my estimate by citing a few things we do know.  First, it is estimated that only about 31% of American households have a gun (source). Second, about 3 million Americans carry a gun daily (source). So only about 1 in 100 Americans are in the vicinity of a person carrying a firearm on a daily basis. So let's make an estimate that I expect will be kind of high.  For every gun carrying American, we will count 24 hours of gun exposure, and for every non-gun-carrying American, we will count 8 hours of exposure.  The math shows

3,000,000 * 24 + 322,000,000 * 8 * 365 = 966,520,000,000 (966.5 trillion hours of gun exposure each year)

Now, to level the playing field in favor of firearms, let's remove suicides from the total firearms deaths.  This gives us 11,994 non-suicide firearms deaths per year.  So the instantaneous probability of being killed by a firearm in 11,994 / 966,520,000,000 = 0.00000001240947 (or about 1.2 in 10 million)

Let me put those numbers on top of each other for easier comparison

0.000000404762 (probability of being killed in a motor vehicle accident this year)
0.00000001240947 (probability of being killed by a firearm this year)

Working that out, the probability of a fatality is actually only 30 times higher than the probability of dying by firearm. (this is notably less than 22,000).  And again, this doesn't include passenger hours.

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

Bonus point: careful playing the statistical game.  If we made gun control decisions based solely on statistics, I can't imagine any possible way to justify the Second Amendment (for that matter, you can't justify driving either). Which is why, as a practicing statistician, I want to be clear that statistics by themselves are terrible decision making tools.  But they're great for making decisions when properly contextualized in cultural norms and values.

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

And now, for further fun, let me reply to a few of your comments

 

Quote

MOE: The likelihood of a mass shooting event is in the realm of one in a billion on any given week.

NightSG: Which, over the average lifespan puts it roughly on par with dying in an airline crash.  Lots of people make far bigger adjustments to their lifestyle to avoid flying than simply putting on an extra piece of equipment in the morning routine.

What an odd comparison.  When a person makes an adjustment to avoid flying, the adjustment usually explicitly the removes the mode of death--the airplane.  A more apt comparison for wanting to avoid dying by firearm would be to remove the mode of death--the firearm.

Quote

NightSG: You're 33,000 times more likely to die of heart disease, so why not some restrictions on bringing unhealthy foods to potlucks?  20,000 times more likely to die in a car wreck, so why not televise all services and mail out bread and water for the Sacrament?

Well, we've already shown that, in the best case scenario, your car wreck claim is false. I could run through the same thing with heart disease, but you'll find that humans spend a lot more time with their hearts beating than they do in vehicles, so it's probably safe to assume that your heart disease claim is inadequate to your case as well.

Quote

MOE: Less if you exclude politically motivated shootings.

NightSG: Why?  Do those only kill you sort of dead?

This is a stupid statement.  The vast majority of houses of worship have negligible political significance. Historic black churches, however, are in a totally different risk profile, which is why it would be fair to exclude them for an evaluation of general risk.

Quote

MOE: Statistically speaking, a policy permitting concealed carry within houses of worship could have an expected value for injuries and deaths greater than the expected value resulting from the improbable mass shooting.

NightSG: Realistically speaking, the situation you're pretending is hypothetical is happening all over the country without any of the problems your "statistics" predict.  Are you claiming that LDS are less competent and/or mentally stable than other faiths, and thus wouldn't be able to handle themselves as well?

You actually have something of a point here.  I need to revise my statement to "a policy encouraging concealed carry" or "a policy expanding concealed carry". Because, as has already been shown, only one in 100 Americans currently carry a gun on a regular basis.  My concern is not the status quo, my concern is the unsubstantiated claim that the solution to violence is more guns. 

Quote

MOE: While I understand the worry of being unarmed that you speak of, all signs indicate that a pervasively armed untrained* populace is far more dangerous the its citizenry than an unarmed one.

NightSG: The signs you're looking at are made up by people pushing the same agenda as you.

Please, do tell...what agenda am I pushing? Because as I recall, so far in this discussion, the only thing I've stated is that the expected value of deaths resulting from more guns in the population from civil disputes is probably larger than the expected value of deaths from mass shootings. Which, by the way, is probably true. If more guns were put into the daily population and resulted in as little as one more death per week from civil disputes will easily out pace the deaths from mass shootings. "more guns" is not the obvious solution.

Quote

MOE: * I do not count basic concealed carry as training here, as it does not really teach decision making under pressure in any way similar to what police and military experience.

NightSG: "Basic concealed carry training" varies from state to state, as does police and security training.  Frankly, my concealed carry renewal classes were more comprehensive in terms of how and when to use deadly force than the state training for an armed security officer.  My initial class was taught by a retired Royal Marine firearms instructor, with input from a criminal defense attorney who helped write Texas' concealed carry laws and update some of the self defense laws.  The security training requirements, on the other hand, made it clear that Paul Blart: Mall Cop was entirely too close to the truth.  (Not to say I didn't work with some excellent security officers who took our work seriously, but there were also plenty who were only there because they couldn't keep a fast food job.)

Here you are either fundamentally misunderstanding what I am saying, for fundamentally misrepresenting what I'm saying.  I'm not concerned about the extra deaths that occur when someone tries to stop a mass shooting.  That's a drop in the bucket, given how rare mass shootings are.  The added deaths I'm concerned about are from the guys that get shot in a parking lot over a parking space dispute. 

Quote

MOE: After the Saratoga Springs shooting, a counselor in my bishopric really wanted to discuss whether it made sense to discourage concealed carry in our buliding. I had to dig up all sorts of FBI resources, religious security guidelines, and other materials to demonstrate that the vast majority of violence that happens in houses of worship is related to civil disputes. The attacker almost always knows and is targeting the victim.

NightSG: Didn't help the 46 victims at Sutherland Springs.  What did help was an armed bystander who kept the shooter from going back in. (Or continuing on to find more victims, as he apparently intended to target his inlaws.) 

And here is the real crux of your position. So far, all I've claimed is that more lives will be lost if more people carry guns. I haven't said anything about which lives will be lost.  That's the funny things about statistics and expected values...they can tell you a lot about populations, but they can't tell you what will happen to any one person.  

So let's be clear about what your argument is here: when you say "Didn't help the 46 victims..." or "That won't help me if it happens at my church..." or some other such thing, what you are are saying is "I value my life more than I value anyone else's." Or maybe it's a variant, like, "I value my family's life more than I value anyone else's."  We can even make it personal: "I value my family's life more than I value your family's life."  

And that's fine.  It's a human response and a human emotion.  But I will stand by my belief that public policy positions should not be based primarily on such assertions.  Instead, public policy ought to be based, primarily (not entirely) on objective, unemotional evaluations of what will benefit the population.

Edited by MarginOfError
Early morning math mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t math very well, @MarginOfError (hence my employment in the most math-less field imaginable!) but unless I’m erring somewhere (which is very possible!) your figures on people/hours spent in the vicinity of a firearm strikes me as possibly being very low.  

—First, your calculation of 2.648 billion hours of gun exposure—shouldn’t that be per *day*, not per *year*?

—Second, if 3 million carry daily, their families are exposed to firearms roughly 16 hours a day; not 8.  Assuming that the 31% of firearm-owning homes also have about 31% of the population, then that’s 100,750,000 Americans.  Of those, 3 million actually carry (24-hour exposure—72,000,000 hours per day).  Their families are with them when not at work or school, so let’s call that 16 hours of exposure per day for 97,750,000 Americans (1,564,000,000 hrs/day) and keep that average of 8 hours for the remaining 222,180,000 Americans (1,777,440,000) hrs/day) on the theory that *someone* at school or work is probably packing heat whether they should be or not.  That indicates total American gun exposure of around 3.2 billion hours per day; or (not counting weekends) about 832 billion hours of gun exposure per year; compared to the 84 billion hours on the roads as cited by the DOT.

If my back-of-the-napkin math isn’t several orders of magnitude off, then even if we add the suicides back in it seems that we may have roughly equivalent fatalities between guns and cars even though Americans spend roughly ten times as many hours around guns as they do in cars.

What am I missing?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t math very well, @MarginOfError (hence my employment in the most math-less field imaginable!) but unless I’m erring somewhere (which is very possible!) your figures on people/hours spent in the vicinity of a firearm strikes me as possibly being very low.  

—First, your calculation of 2.648 billion hours of gun exposure—shouldn’t that be per *day*, not per *year*?

—Second, if 3 million carry daily, their families are exposed to firearms roughly 16 hours a day; not 8.  Assuming that the 31% of firearm-owning homes also have about 31% of the population, then that’s 100,750,000 Americans.  Of those, 3 million actually carry (24-hour exposure—72,000,000 hours per day).  Their families are with them when not at work or school, so let’s call that 16 hours of exposure per day for 97,750,000 Americans (1,564,000,000 hrs/day) and keep that average of 8 hours for the remaining 222,180,000 Americans (1,777,440,000) hrs/day) on the theory that *someone* at school or work is probably packing heat whether they should be or not.  That indicates total American gun exposure of around 3.2 billion hours per day; or (not counting weekends) about 832 billion hours of gun exposure per year; compared to the 84 billion hours on the roads as cited by the DOT.

If my back-of-the-napkin math isn’t several orders of magnitude off, then even if we add the suicides back in it seems that we may have roughly equivalent fatalities between guns and cars even though Americans spend roughly ten times as many hours around guns as they do in cars.

What am I missing?

You're missing that I'm doing this at 5 in the morning when I already can't sleep.  dagnabit.

Now I need to go figure out how many hours people spend "operating" guns.

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lindy said:

You've never met my daughter........ scary.

 You would eat those words really fast.

This is quite the insult.

You think that every person who carries a gun have no problem shooting innocent people.  Really?  You don't think they worry about killing innocent people?  Like, that doesn't bother them at all????

I have a 15-year-old who can shoot a one-inch cluster at 15 yards with his .22 pistol.  He got on the rifle team, saw the range they were shooting at (a concrete wall behind the target) and refused to shoot until they get a better range.  He told the instructor that at 15 yards, that wall can cause a ricochet if you miss the target and you'll have unpredictable stray bullets.  That's a 15-year-old who, in Florida, is not trusted to carry a weapon.  His father and grandfather both have concealed carry permits.  The grandfather was a bishop a while back and carried everywhere including church.  My husband leaves his firearm in the car.

Those who are afraid of gun carriers have a low opinion of everyday people.  Your daughter shouldn't have a gun.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going to put these here:

John 18
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

D&C 45
32 But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved; but among the wicked, men shall lift up their voices and curse God and die.
33 And there shall be earthquakes also in divers places, and many desolations; yet men will harden their hearts against me, and they will take up the sword, one against another, and they will kill one another.
----
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t math very well, @MarginOfError (hence my employment in the most math-less field imaginable!) but unless I’m erring somewhere (which is very possible!) your figures on people/hours spent in the vicinity of a firearm strikes me as possibly being very low.  

—First, your calculation of 2.648 billion hours of gun exposure—shouldn’t that be per *day*, not per *year*?

—Second, if 3 million carry daily, their families are exposed to firearms roughly 16 hours a day; not 8.  Assuming that the 31% of firearm-owning homes also have about 31% of the population, then that’s 100,750,000 Americans.  Of those, 3 million actually carry (24-hour exposure—72,000,000 hours per day).  Their families are with them when not at work or school, so let’s call that 16 hours of exposure per day for 97,750,000 Americans (1,564,000,000 hrs/day) and keep that average of 8 hours for the remaining 222,180,000 Americans (1,777,440,000) hrs/day) on the theory that *someone* at school or work is probably packing heat whether they should be or not.  That indicates total American gun exposure of around 3.2 billion hours per day; or (not counting weekends) about 832 billion hours of gun exposure per year; compared to the 84 billion hours on the roads as cited by the DOT.

If my back-of-the-napkin math isn’t several orders of magnitude off, then even if we add the suicides back in it seems that we may have roughly equivalent fatalities between guns and cars even though Americans spend roughly ten times as many hours around guns as they do in cars.

What am I missing?

Okay, it is edited.  No one can claim I am not academically honest.  The post now reflects that the instantaneous probability of being killed by vehicle is 40 times higher than the instantaneous probability of being killed by a firearm.

While I hadn't pointed this out when the math was more in my favor, I will point out now that the comparison is kind of wonky.  It uses "hours of exposure" as the base unit of risk. But is an hour inside a vehicle really the same risk profile as an hour in the vicinity of a person carrying a firearm?  Gun advocates will use this to say "that's exactly my point, it's less dangerous!"  But the reality is, being in a moving vehicle is inherently dangerous. Being exposed to a gun is not the same level of risk until someone in the vicinity loses their temper, or a crime occurs.

The point being, the fact that, based on these figures, the probability of being killed by a vehicle is only 40 times higher than being killed by a gun doesn't say nearly as much about the safety of guns, but of the remarkable safety of vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Just going to put these here:

John 18
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

D&C 45
32 But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved; but among the wicked, men shall lift up their voices and curse God and die.
33 And there shall be earthquakes also in divers places, and many desolations; yet men will harden their hearts against me, and they will take up the sword, one against another, and they will kill one another.
----
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

 

 

Oh please.  I'm a pacifist.  I firmly believe violence is damaging to the soul and is always (yes, I said always) wrong. 

But it's sometimes the only course of action that will defend the innocent.

You can abuse scripture to justify any point you like.  Find a better argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

Okay, it is edited.  No one can claim I am not academically honest.  The post now reflects that the instantaneous probability of being killed by vehicle is 40 times higher than the instantaneous probability of being killed by a firearm.

While I hadn't pointed this out when the math was more in my favor, I will point out now that the comparison is kind of wonky.  It uses "hours of exposure" as the base unit of risk. But is an hour inside a vehicle really the same risk profile as an hour in the vicinity of a person carrying a firearm?  Gun advocates will use this to say "that's exactly my point, it's less dangerous!"  But the reality is, being in a moving vehicle is inherently dangerous. Being exposed to a gun is not the same level of risk until someone in the vicinity loses their temper, or a crime occurs.

The point being, the fact that, based on these figures, the probability of being killed by a vehicle is only 40 times higher than being killed by a gun doesn't say nearly as much about the safety of guns, but of the remarkable safety of vehicles.

I agree with your statement about the wonkines of of what we are trying to quantify, for the record. ;)  And of course, there are always  going to be individuals who I do not trust with either a gun or a car no matter what the statistics say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Oh please.  I'm a pacifist.  I firmly believe violence is damaging to the soul and is always (yes, I said always) wrong. 

But it's sometimes the only course of action that will defend the innocent.

You can abuse scripture to justify any point you like.  Find a better argument.

yet men will harden their hearts against me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with your statement about the wonkines of of what we are trying to quantify, for the record. ;)  And of course, there are always  going to be individuals who I do not trust with either a gun or a car no matter what the statistics say. 

And for what it's worth, the bulk of the conceal carry crowd in our population today don't really bother me.  What concerns me is the advocacy of 

"The world is falling apart. Get yourself a gun and defend your own"

as a public order solution concerns me. Those that are driven to gun ownership and use out of an overhyped fear are the ones that are going to be quick to pull the trigger and do the most damage. I really do get the concerns about rights to bear arms, self protection, etc.  I also understand the arguments from the gun control side.  But for the love of all that is holy, can we shut out the whackadoos on each side and have a reasoned discussion about the issues? If this is going to be an all-or-nothing proposition, everyone loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share