Mass Shootings


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else concerned with what appears to be mass shootings?  There is a lot of party politics around the second amendment - but I am not able to determine if substance abuse was involved.  I would also like to know if marijuana (including medical marijuana) is involved?   But I never see (especially in the media) that the question of substance is even being asked???

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

First off, my heart breaks for the victims of mass shootings. I want to be very clear about this. I'm as crushed as the rest of us. But I want to remind you of something. What is your bigger risk in life? Dying in a car accident or dying in a mass shooting? Go look at the numbers. 

I think we (generic) like to blame things that we don't like or understand because it wrongly gives us the moral high ground. Don't like heavy metal? Blame that. Don't like video games? Blame them. Don't like marijuana? Blame that. 

No, marijuana has nothing to do with that.  No, heavy metal has nothing to do with it. Video games have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of some people having no respect for human life. That simple. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the headline grabbing multiple shooting events are getting more common, but through the cold, emotionless lens of statistical analysis, they're no more significant then they used to be.   Even at three in a row, that remains true.

I'd sure hate it if this were the new normal though.  The one in Texas makes me anxious, because I don't think it was a gun-free zone like just about every other single one of them in the last century.

People who study mass-shootings like this, tell me that the great, great, great majority of them happen in areas where the right of individuals to bear arms for their own defense is limited in some way.  I have personal (well, secondhand) experience with this on three different occasions in my area.

1- The Aurora theater shooting, where the bad guy got in his car, drove past three different theaters that allowed concealed carry, and opened fire in a theater with a no gun policy.

2- The Planned Parenthood shooter (five miles away from where I work), where the bad guy literally walked past the "no guns allowed" signs and started shooting.  (I've gone there and taken pictures of the signs, can show them if anyone is interested.)

3- The New Life Church shooting.  It started somewhere else, where the bad guy killed two people at the YWAM training center in Arvada, then drove down to Colorado Springs to the NLChurch, killed two more in the parking lot, and went inside (where conceal carry is allowed), armed to the gills and ready for round two.  Where someone conceal carrying fired back and immediately stopped the killing.  We homeschooled our kids there a few years.  My wife was there a year after the shooting when a balloon popped, and half a dozen people panicked and hit the floor.  Those people were raw with the tragedy.

The data, and those who study it, tell me it's almost always the case.  Until it isn't, I guess. And that has me very anxious.  

Safety is important.  I don't want us to have to move so closely to Israel that field trips involve teachers with AR's slung across their backs.  But we sure the heck didn't move the other direction after El Paso.  

Within 50 miles of me, is a school district that sends half a dozen teachers to the Front Sight Training institute in Nevada every year for a 4 day defensive handgun class.  They started after Columbine (which also happened here in Colorado 20 years ago). 

The best, quickest, safest way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.  I honestly wish I could just remain in last year, arguing endlessly with you people about it, as we live in relative safety.  I'm glad the overall rate of violent crime continues to slowly fall.  I'm anxious that the rate of sensational headline-grabbing mass shootings, while still statistically insignificant, are happening so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Safety is important.  I don't want us to have to move so closely to Israel that field trips involve teachers with AR's slung across their backs.  But we sure the heck didn't move the other direction after El Paso.  

Within 50 miles of me, is a school district that sends half a dozen teachers to the Front Sight Training institute in Nevada every year for a 4 day defensive handgun class.  They started after Columbine (which also happened here in Colorado 20 years ago). 

I'm certainly not against people learning how to defend themselves. But I think the minimum required training for a CC license overlooks the fact that, without ruthless repetitiveness, training goes out the window once there are actual bullets flying past you. That's why police and military train people on the same scenarios until they're sick of it, then train them some more. It gets burned into your muscle memory in the hope that you're able to instinctively act on your training in a real-world scenario. 

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The best, quickest, safest way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. 

The Ohio shooter was shot and killed less than a minute after he began his attack. He still managed to shoot over 30 people. Again, I'm not against good folks being armed. But I don't think that alone is going to change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gun is a tool. Nothing more or less. People have lost touch with their basic humanity.  There have been mass killings from the dawn of time. We hear about it because it suits the news to be anti gun.  People wants us like sheep. Helpless and following where they lead. 

 My heart hurts for the lives lost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using data from Wikipedia, I've put together some mass shooting related graphs for the United States.

Important notes:

  • The list of shootings includes those captured by six different definitions of "mass shooting," but generally speaking, include events involving a firearm and three or more casualties.
  • for events that span multiple days, I've used the date that was easiest to extract through scripting.  Not the most rigorous approach, but the days are close enough that it shouldn't affect the overall impression.
  • For injuries, casualties, and deaths, I've used the lower number listed on Wikipedia.
  • Injuries, casualties, and deaths include those of the perpetrator.  

What I would like to do some day is spend more time investigating motives.  We've had three in recent memory (Christchurch, Gilroy, and El Paso) that seem to have been motivated by white supremacy. There are a couple that seem to be motivated by Islamic propaganda (San Bernardino, Pulse Night Club), some that were motivated by misogyny (Isla Vista, California and Nashville, TN). And there are a plenty of examples of domestic disputes, workplace grievances, and the unexplained motivations (likely mental health related).

The ones that concern me are the ones motivated by "otherness" for lack of a better term.  I think we need to stop thinking of shootings motivated by ideology as "mass shootings" and start calling them what they are--domestic terrorism. 

 

Looking over the list of shootings, I'm not sure that NeuroTypical's distinction of "gun-free-zone vs not-gun-free-zone" holds up very well. Although it does seem to stand better when you remove those events related to domestic disputes. In particular, the ideology driven events seem to seek out vulnerable targets. Shootings that occur in domestic disputes aren't necessarily targeting vulnerable locations, but specific people. Sometimes they coincide with vulnerable locations (I know I can find my ex-wife at church on Sunday), but the vulnerability is not the appeal of the target. 

What's more, I'm becoming less and less convinced that the "good guy with a gun" strategy is as effective as we claim in the general use.  Against domestic disputes and work place grievances, it does seem to reduce the body count per incident.  I'm not yet convinced, though, that more accessibility would reduce the number of incidents (and if incidents were to increase because more people are carrying, the body count probably stays about the same).

For ideologically driven events, I don't think gun-free-zone is much of a consideration.  The goal is terrorism. The target is chosen that maximizes the message.

For the random, mental health crazies that want the biggest body count, gun free zones are certainly attractive.  But they also make up the smallest portion of the shooting events. 

Keep in mind also, that this weekend's shooting in Dayton, Ohio had multiple good guys with a gun on hand.  It was reported on NPR this morning that at least six officers discharged their weapons on the subject. It is estimated that twenty four seconds occurred between the first shots and the time the shooter was killed. Nine dead and twenty seven injured. Clearly, 24 seconds isn't fast enough. Do we really expect we can improve on that?

 

And then there's the fact that the number of people killed in these events, as NeuroTypical pointed out, is a drop in the bucket. Nearly 40 people in the US are killed with handguns every day (excluding suicides). I haven't really studied the motivations behind these, however, so I can't tell you how many are ideological, domestic, or unexplained (or economic--robberies, for example). I would guess most of them are economic and domestic, and those are hard problems to solve.  And if you think a ban on handguns is the solution, I won't agree with you.  I'm a proponent of gun control measures, but, ironically, even though handguns cause more deaths than any other firearm, they are the one I'm least interested in banning.

 

The way I see it, there are two major problems that I would like to see addressed. First, we've allowed these weapons to become too efficient at killing in the recreational sphere. I'm open to gun control measures that reduce the efficiency of which some of the higher powered weapons can maim and kill. 

Second, we have a severe lack of information about shooting events, the weapons used, how they were obtained, and what motivated the shootings.  We really don't know what it is we need to target.  Some say it's mental health, some say it's domestic disputes, some say it's ideology.  All of them are right, but it's hard to know which one of those will have the biggest impact. I don't think we can solve the problem until the CDC is able to compile information and data that can be used to put together reliable and peer reviewed research into the matter. 

Shooting.png.140145d337dd2518f8478e9f43f71ee1.png

Death.png.01cdb51395997f8a987d116a8a2b6bdf.png

Injury.png.9fbb5062937d6b4219b5485eaddf873a.png

Casualty.png.7fa9e50daadb42fd1d03236ad7829183.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphs of @MarginOfError would indicate that something has changed recently.   You can almost point to the year the change was initially introduced and see how it has become more prominent.   I have suggested that marijuana be considered.  I have known a few heavy users (chainsmokers) of marijuana and in all cases it has not been mentally stabilizing - especially over time.  I have some limited experience with individuals with mental instabilities - but none with a desire to randomly kill people (including children).  Also they do not seem the have the mental capability to carefully plan and carry out a logical and effective slaughter.

Something has gone wrong and it is not access to firearms.  In my youth, almost everyone I knew had access and often used a firearm but no one went off the deep end.  Access to firearms may be a catalysts but I do not believe it is the root cause.  And whatever is the root cause - it is becoming a more prevalent part of our society.  One thing I have learned in life - is that unless you know what has gone wrong - you cannot fix it.  And it does not appear to me that, especially among politicians, that there is even a remote clue.   Again, I would point to history and the 100 years of shame in China and suggest that there is a historical precedent that a healthy drug trade is involved.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also bear in mind that some places that aren't technically gun free still have an abnormally low probability of anyone being armed. Churches often fall into that category, and the El Paso Wal-Mart shared its lot with a mall that posts signage against carry. (Not sure if they have signage against both open and concealed or not, but some very lousy photos were posted to a state group showing at least one legal-looking sign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These graphs are interesting, but today's Wall Street Journal had similar graphs with rather different data.  Their graphs showed 2018 as the worst year for mass public shootings (10), with an average of around 5 per year from 2006 to 2019, and 6 so far in 2019.  Of course, there are different ways to define "mass shootings," but the WSJ defined them as "killings that involve guns, with four or more people killed, not including the assailant."

I'd agree that most churches have few armed people, but there are exceptions.  My own church (a Texas megachurch) has armed policemen at every service, and some of the deacons carry guns under their coats.  I know, because I'm friends with some of them.  I am also an employee of this church, and during the new-employee orientation I was told that I was free to carry firearms to work but that I should inform church security so they know who's packing.  

I used to live in El Paso and would eat lunch at a restaurant across the street from that Walmart.  Not a place I would ever suspect of being a target for mass killers.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Godless said:

But I think the minimum required training for a CC license overlooks the fact that, without ruthless repetitiveness, training goes out the window once there are actual bullets flying past you. That's why police and military train people on the same scenarios until they're sick of it, then train them some more. It gets burned into your muscle memory in the hope that you're able to instinctively act on your training in a real-world scenario. 

I agree with what you're saying, but I think you might have an inflated notion of how often police train.  Colorado Springs police pride themselves at every patrol officer shooting 4 times a year.  My local small town cops pride themselves at being slightly better shots than Colorado Springs cops.    From what I hear, that's about in the top end of things, which means there's an awful lot of cops that shoot less than 4x/yr.  

But yes, everything else you're saying, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

No, marijuana has nothing to do with that.  No, heavy metal has nothing to do with it. Video games have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of some people having no respect for human life.

This comment is problematic. If you said these things aren't "the" cause...or the main cause...then there might be some legs to stand on. But "nothing" to do with it? How, exactly, did "some people" develop this lack of respect for human life? Was there, perhaps, more than one element in their lives that played into it? And is it possible that drugs and violent entertainment were, indeed, some of those factors? I think it's highly possible -- probable even -- that these sorts of thing do have "something" to do with it.

Now would a normal, healthy, otherwise stable individual go out and commit mass murder just because of video games? Not probable. But "nothing" to do with it at all?

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That simple.

Except it isn't a simple thing at all. It's an extremely, extremely complex thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Using data from Wikipedia, I've put together some mass shooting related graphs for the United States.

Important notes:

  • The list of shootings includes those captured by six different definitions of "mass shooting," but generally speaking, include events involving a firearm and three or more casualties.
  • for events that span multiple days, I've used the date that was easiest to extract through scripting.  Not the most rigorous approach, but the days are close enough that it shouldn't affect the overall impression.
  • For injuries, casualties, and deaths, I've used the lower number listed on Wikipedia.
  • Injuries, casualties, and deaths include those of the perpetrator.  

What I would like to do some day is spend more time investigating motives.  We've had three in recent memory (Christchurch, Gilroy, and El Paso) that seem to have been motivated by white supremacy. There are a couple that seem to be motivated by Islamic propaganda (San Bernardino, Pulse Night Club), some that were motivated by misogyny (Isla Vista, California and Nashville, TN). And there are a plenty of examples of domestic disputes, workplace grievances, and the unexplained motivations (likely mental health related).

The ones that concern me are the ones motivated by "otherness" for lack of a better term.  I think we need to stop thinking of shootings motivated by ideology as "mass shootings" and start calling them what they are--domestic terrorism. 

 

Looking over the list of shootings, I'm not sure that NeuroTypical's distinction of "gun-free-zone vs not-gun-free-zone" holds up very well. Although it does seem to stand better when you remove those events related to domestic disputes. In particular, the ideology driven events seem to seek out vulnerable targets. Shootings that occur in domestic disputes aren't necessarily targeting vulnerable locations, but specific people. Sometimes they coincide with vulnerable locations (I know I can find my ex-wife at church on Sunday), but the vulnerability is not the appeal of the target. 

What's more, I'm becoming less and less convinced that the "good guy with a gun" strategy is as effective as we claim in the general use.  Against domestic disputes and work place grievances, it does seem to reduce the body count per incident.  I'm not yet convinced, though, that more accessibility would reduce the number of incidents (and if incidents were to increase because more people are carrying, the body count probably stays about the same).

For ideologically driven events, I don't think gun-free-zone is much of a consideration.  The goal is terrorism. The target is chosen that maximizes the message.

For the random, mental health crazies that want the biggest body count, gun free zones are certainly attractive.  But they also make up the smallest portion of the shooting events. 

Keep in mind also, that this weekend's shooting in Dayton, Ohio had multiple good guys with a gun on hand.  It was reported on NPR this morning that at least six officers discharged their weapons on the subject. It is estimated that twenty four seconds occurred between the first shots and the time the shooter was killed. Nine dead and twenty seven injured. Clearly, 24 seconds isn't fast enough. Do we really expect we can improve on that?

 

And then there's the fact that the number of people killed in these events, as NeuroTypical pointed out, is a drop in the bucket. Nearly 40 people in the US are killed with handguns every day (excluding suicides). I haven't really studied the motivations behind these, however, so I can't tell you how many are ideological, domestic, or unexplained (or economic--robberies, for example). I would guess most of them are economic and domestic, and those are hard problems to solve.  And if you think a ban on handguns is the solution, I won't agree with you.  I'm a proponent of gun control measures, but, ironically, even though handguns cause more deaths than any other firearm, they are the one I'm least interested in banning.

 

The way I see it, there are two major problems that I would like to see addressed. First, we've allowed these weapons to become too efficient at killing in the recreational sphere. I'm open to gun control measures that reduce the efficiency of which some of the higher powered weapons can maim and kill. 

Second, we have a severe lack of information about shooting events, the weapons used, how they were obtained, and what motivated the shootings.  We really don't know what it is we need to target.  Some say it's mental health, some say it's domestic disputes, some say it's ideology.  All of them are right, but it's hard to know which one of those will have the biggest impact. I don't think we can solve the problem until the CDC is able to compile information and data that can be used to put together reliable and peer reviewed research into the matter. 

Shooting.png.140145d337dd2518f8478e9f43f71ee1.png

Death.png.01cdb51395997f8a987d116a8a2b6bdf.png

Injury.png.9fbb5062937d6b4219b5485eaddf873a.png

Casualty.png.7fa9e50daadb42fd1d03236ad7829183.png

 

Based on the charts the catalyst was clearly The Beatles.

Joking aside (probably inappropriate to joke on this matter anyhow)....I think there are a few things to consider --- things that correspond with each other --- The free love/hippy change where the extreme started to become the mainstream, the entertainment related to that, and the technology wherewith people share views and ideologies.

Consider, for example: The Hays code was went out the window in 1968.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting supposition that has been developing centers around the shifting political and economic foothold of certain classes.  I'll admit that the sources I am about to provide are cherry picked from the rabbit hole I've been down today, but I'm not trying to be unbiased--I'm attempting to inject an idea into discussion.

From New America (which claims to be centrist, is probably left of center, and therefore will be considered radically left wing by most here :Dhttps://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/ . Some highlights

  • Right extremist terrorists have typically killed more U.S. citizens than jihadist terrorist since 9/11 (excluding a period of time after the Pulse Orlando shooting)
  • Black separatists/supermacists have killed less than 10% of what white supremacists have

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/right-wing-terrorist-killings-government-focus-jihadis-islamic-radicalism.html

  • The jihadist terrorists might have had more success, but for the national intelligence arm, which has the capacity to work overseas and use lethal force. There exists less money to combat white supremacist terror, and more barriers to preventing it.
  • U.S. companies enjoy broad public support to shut down jihadist propaganda, but shutting down far right propaganda is "too political" and unpopular (consider the uproar over Facebook and Google dropping Infowars)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=SciAm_&sf217002495=1

  • Over half of firearms in the U.S. are owned by 3% of the population
  • The most likely person to own a firearm (and multiple firearms) is a white male
  • By far, the most likely person to stockpile firearms are white males
  • Religion reduces the likelihood of gun ownership, even among white males
  • Gun affinity increases among white males who have lost economic standing (lost jobs and careers) in a way that does not happen with white women and people of color

The proposal, then, is that as economic forces have pushed more jobs out of the U.S., and white men have lost the economic status and privilege that they once had, they've found themselves unable to provide for and protect those that they care about. They have increasingly turned to guns as a surrogate for provider and protector.  Essentially, the white male in the U.S. is facing an identity crisis, and isn't coping with it well (I know...broad strokes with a thick brush). 

Unfortunately, the guns being acquired in this identity crisis kill their owners and their families far more often than they kill anyone else. 

This identity crisis combined with the echo-chamber of the internet is fueling a radicalization machine that is all too capable of inspiring the lunatics to act.

The paragraph I most connected with in this rabbit hole was

Quote

What are the solutions? That and many other studies suggest that restricting the flow of guns and ammunition would certainly save lives. But no law can address the absence of meaning and purpose that many white men appear to feel, which they might be able to gain through social connection to people who never expected to have the economic security and social power that white men once enjoyed.

There is a certain honesty that rarely gets acknowledged by the left. Gun control measures will not solve the problem. 

There is a certain honesty that rarely gets acknowledged by the right. Gun control measures will save lives.

My personal thought is we need to do a little of one, and a lot of the the other. Gun control measures, carefully considered and surgically applied, will stop the bleeding. It will save lives while we work on the larger (and harder) problems that lie under the gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

We live in a culture that eschews morality.

We live in a culture that glorifies death as entertainment.

We live in a culture that glorifies the killing of babies.

We live in a culture that minimizes learning in the home, and the parental rearing of children.

We live in a culture that denounces the idea that Americans are worth fighting FOR.

We live in a culture that entrenches the "us vs. them" mentality -- even to the calling for the death of those we disagree with.

We live in a culture that tells me that they can't be men and women can't be women.

We live in a culture that is turning away from faith in God.

Is it any wonder that we find the least mentally and emotionally capable people in the country are turning to violence as an outlet to their frustrations and inability to cope with the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Source?

Quote

For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Handguns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths. - New England Journal of Medicine, https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406

Quote

The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States -- "Bureau of Justice Statistics Keyfacts at a Glance". Bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov. 2010-01-20. Retrieved 2014-01-16.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Mores said:

and the parental rearing of children.

 

Couldn't agree more my friend. I wonder how many of these shooters are products of a broken home? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
  • Right extremist terrorists have typically killed more U.S. citizens than jihadist terrorist since 9/11 (excluding a period of time after the Pulse Orlando shooting)

Only true because of the words "killed" and "since".  Keep in mind that "since" 9/11, various government agencies have kept a closer eye on such threats -- and have FOILED MANY ATTEMPTS by jihadists -- resulting in lower numbers.  You even support this in your additional statements about shutting down jihadism.

Today, they are beginning to take a look at the threat of right wing terrorists more closely.  When they institute effective measures in law enforcement, the numbers will change.  

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
  • Black separatists/supermacists have killed less than 10% of what white supremacists have

Agreed.  And the truth is that we have Democrats to thank for that.  Democrat policies have essentially sucked the motivation out of the Black community to actually do anything to change their situation.

Additionally, you mentioned that whites who lose economic status tend to end up killing themselves more than others. 

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The proposal, then, is that as economic forces have pushed more jobs out of the U.S., and white men have lost the economic status and privilege that they once had, they've found themselves unable to provide for and protect those that they care about. They have increasingly turned to guns as a surrogate for provider and protector.  Essentially, the white male in the U.S. is facing an identity crisis, and isn't coping with it well (I know...broad strokes with a thick brush). 

Unfortunately, the guns being acquired in this identity crisis kill their owners and their families far more often than they kill anyone else. 

So, the statistic above -- does that include suicides?  That is a pretty important question to get into.

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=SciAm_&sf217002495=1

  • Over half of firearms in the U.S. are owned by 3% of the population
  • The most likely person to own a firearm (and multiple firearms) is a white male
  • By far, the most likely person to stockpile firearms are white males
  • Religion reduces the likelihood of gun ownership, even among white males
  • Gun affinity increases among white males who have lost economic standing (lost jobs and careers) in a way that does not happen with white women and people of color

"White men stockpiling guns" = Characterization.  Not forensic fact.  And I question the 3% number.  I'd need some background on how that statistic was gathered and what was/was not included.

The fact is that most poorer people who own guns will only have one or two because it costs money to own one, to train with one, etc.  Blacks tend to be in the lower economic strata than whites.

To own LOTS of guns is not necessarily a sign of violent behavior.  I know plenty of people who have over 100 guns because they are 1) Rich and 2) The just "like" them.  Some are very fancy.  Some museum pieces or collectors items.  It really has nothing to do with intent of use.  In fact, there are many of them that the owners will NEVER use because they are too valuable.  It's a bit like a wealthy person with a wine collection that they will never drink.  Does that make them alcoholics?

16 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This identity crisis combined with the echo-chamber of the internet is fueling a radicalization machine that is all too capable of inspiring the lunatics to act.

The paragraph I most connected with in this rabbit hole was

There is a certain honesty that rarely gets acknowledged by the left. Gun control measures will not solve the problem. 

There is a certain honesty that rarely gets acknowledged by the right. Gun control measures will save lives.

My personal thought is we need to do a little of one, and a lot of the the other. Gun control measures, carefully considered and surgically applied, will stop the bleeding. It will save lives while we work on the larger (and harder) problems that lie under the gun violence.

I actually agree with these statements.  I do NOT believe that the right to bear arms is a 100% right for ANYTHING.  I don't believe any average person should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in his possession.

I do believe there are holes in the gun control laws on the books.  But what has any liberal proposed that does not result in effectively banning all/most guns entirely that isn't already on the books?  If anyone conservative or liberal can provide some measure that is 

1) Not on the books already.  But can in reality be enforceable.
2) Does not result in effectively banning guns.
3) Will actually result in saving lives.

Then show me that bill.  I'll get right behind it.

The problem I've found is your term "surgically applied." I don't know if a government over a free people can do such a thing.  I believe that there is a certain amount of danger that we as a free people simply have to live with.  That is an EXTREMELY unpopular and unpleasant thing to say at a time like this.  But it is true.  The only question is: where is that balance point?  The sweet spot?  And we'll be debating that forever.  But I think the debate is valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

 

Suicide numbers are hardly a useful statistic in this case. 

As for accidental deaths, most of those result from grossly improper handling, easily solved by training. Criminal homicide of a family member is also easily prevented by not marrying into (or shacking up into) the situation of sharing your home with a violent criminal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute...wait a minute....

MOE: Unfortunately, the guns being acquired in this identity crisis kill their owners and their families far more often than they kill anyone else. 

NightSG: Source?

MOE: The U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide

NightSG: Suicide numbers are hardly a useful statistic in this case?

 

Say what!? over half of all firearms deaths result from the owner turning the gun on him/herself and you're saying that isn't useful in the context of the statement that guns are killing their owners more than they are not?  The suicide number alone validate the the statement!

It would seem that some here value gun rights more than they do numerical literacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debating the secular reasons for these things seems somewhat futile to me. 

 

Speaking of the latter days, Jesus Christ said: 

Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

 

I do not believe the solution to these problems is to be found in governmental, legal management of the situation. 

 

Legally restricting the citizenry from keeping and bearing arms does nothing to aid this situation. In fact, it removes their ability to respond to the emergency. 

 

Likewise, keeping good men and women armed to be able to respond to these emergencies does not strike at the iniquitous root of the problem. 

 

As latter-day saints, we already know the solution is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The wars and battles in The Book of Mormon did not change the hearts of the Lamanites, but the spreading of the gospel did. That seems to be the solution in this case as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Say what!? over half of all firearms deaths result from the owner turning the gun on him/herself and you're saying that isn't useful in the context of the statement that guns are killing their owners more than they are not? 

Might as well include masturbation in the rape statistics, then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

Only true because of the words "killed" and "since".  Keep in mind that "since" 9/11, various government agencies have kept a closer eye on such threats -- and have FOILED MANY ATTEMPTS by jihadists -- resulting in lower numbers.  You even support this in your additional statements about shutting down jihadism.

Today, they are beginning to take a look at the threat of right wing terrorists more closely.  When they institute effective measures in law enforcement, the numbers will change.  

Agreed.  And the truth is that we have Democrats to thank for that.  Democrat policies have essentially sucked the motivation out of the Black community to actually do anything to change their situation.

Additionally, you mentioned that whites who lose economic status tend to end up killing themselves more than others. 

So, the statistic above -- does that include suicides?  That is a pretty important question to get into.

"White men stockpiling guns" = Characterization.  Not forensic fact.  And I question the 3% number.  I'd need some background on how that statistic was gathered and what was/was not included.

The fact is that most poorer people who own guns will only have one or two because it costs money to own one, to train with one, etc.  Blacks tend to be in the lower economic strata than whites.

To own LOTS of guns is not necessarily a sign of violent behavior.  I know plenty of people who have over 100 guns because they are 1) Rich and 2) The just "like" them.  Some are very fancy.  Some museum pieces or collectors items.  It really has nothing to do with intent of use.  In fact, there are many of them that the owners will NEVER use because they are too valuable.  It's a bit like a wealthy person with a wine collection that they will never drink.  Does that make them alcoholics?

I actually agree with these statements.  I do NOT believe that the right to bear arms is a 100% right for ANYTHING.  I don't believe any average person should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in his possession.

I do believe there are holes in the gun control laws on the books.  But what has any liberal proposed that does not result in effectively banning all/most guns entirely that isn't already on the books?  If anyone conservative or liberal can provide some measure that is 

1) Not on the books already.  But can in reality be enforceable.
2) Does not result in effectively banning guns.
3) Will actually result in saving lives.

Then show me that bill.  I'll get right behind it.

The problem I've found is your term "surgically applied." I don't know if a government over a free people can do such a thing.  I believe that there is a certain amount of danger that we as a free people simply have to live with.  That is an EXTREMELY unpopular and unpleasant thing to say at a time like this.  But it is true.  The only question is: where is that balance point?  The sweet spot?  And we'll be debating that forever.  But I think the debate is valuable.

I'm afraid I can't find my way back to the study for the 3% statistic. All links seem to go back to this Guardian piece. If anyone can come up with the article written by Harvard and Northeastern, it would likely be an interesting read.

The highlight, though, is that 3% of Americans own more than half of the guns, at a whopping 17 each average (probably the mean, but the median would be more informative here). But the remaining 30% of Americans who are gun owners top off between 1 and 4. I imagine that probably matches up well with your experience. Namely, that for every "super gun collector" you know, there are about ten more that are more modest owners.  

You're probably right, thought, that the 3% may not be the most interesting group to study in this idea. The other 30% are probably where more of the interesting stuff happens.

I'll also whole heartedly agree that owning a gun is not indicative of a violent personality. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Most of my interest in what I discuss is trying to broaden the discussion.  Focusing on mass shootings won't address the problem. Banning guns won't address the problem. As I said previously, I'm willing to support gun control measures that stop the bleeding. Put more accurately, I'm willing to consider measures that reduce the efficiency with which a civilian gun owner can kill others. My preferred proposals are

  • New firearms sales of firearms with barrels longer than six (or eight, or ten, you get the concept) inches must take a manual action to reload the chamber (lever action, pump, etc--effectively, semi automatics are only available in small arms)
  • Prohibit the sale to civilians of certain ammunitions that are designed to pierce armor, and perhaps other impact actions that maximize damage on impact. (this one I'd have to study more, because I know there are some valid hunting rounds, such as hollow points, that shouldn't get included on this)
  • Prohibit the sale to civilians of military grade body armor.

Again, these don't solve a lot of deaths. But the most egregious cases (Newtown, Las Vegas, Dayton) would have smaller death totals. And the focus of these kinds of restrictions ought to be and blunting the most extreme cases.

The proposals that I think may have more of an impact are things like a better system for denying gun ownership (even if temporarily) to those who exhibit violent tendencies. This one is really hard, but has the tendency to have a lot of impact.  

________________________________________________________________________

The bigger problem we have is that one side of the debate is screaming "gun are bad. Get rid of them" without any comprehension of the nuances of urban vs. rural gun ownership, and the factors that drive people to use their guns.

And on the other side you've got people screaming "but big guns are fun!" (I'll trade in that fun if it saves 10 lives per year--I've got a low bar, personally) and "but how will I lead my revolt against the government" (you won't. Even with your big guns, you won't). 

Or you've got people that scream "personal protection" and are in complete denial about how infrequently the things get used for that purpose.

I'm rambling now. I'm frustrated. Not necessarily with you, but in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Might as well include masturbation in the rape statistics, then. 

If you think you're being funny, you're not.

If you're trying to be serious, then stop saying stupid things. Instead, why don't you demonstrate how

"60% of gun-related deaths are suicides"

does not support the statement

"guns are killing their owners more than they are not"

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