So, the one in Las Vegas, they first killed two cops, then they killed someone who tried to stop them. The third victim was a concealed carry permit holder, who tried to stop them because he was armed. Their spree ended when the woman first killed her husband, than herself (the murders were a married couple).
Is "a good guy with a gun" really the best solution we can come up with? Because that seems to be of limited effectiveness. In fact, what ended this spree was the "bad guy with a gun".
For 2014, there have so far been 4,814 deaths due to gun violence, with an additional 8,513 injured.
Of the 18,000+ incidents:
646 have been home invasions
400 have been defensive
Not sure if this is an anti-gun thread, or a hooray for police thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read an article about bulletproof blankets that should be used in schools to protect against school shootings. These blankets can handle the same stuff police kevlar vests do: Nine millimeter fire and the like. However, on the pictures, the blanket is just enough to cover the user's torso. Another question that poses itself is: Do they want school shootings where the shooter is wearing a kevlar blanket?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant link
One of the most insightful comments on this shooting that I've come across (and unfortunately don't remember the source to attribute): Every single person who died in the Las Vegas shooting considered him or herself a "good guy with a gun". Including the perpetrators.
The shooter always has time to prepare. Some have already worn bulletproof vests.
Kids aren't going to wear vests all day, every day in school. Something they can grab and wrap around themselves if necessary isn't a bad idea.
Unless the shooter gets it, and isn't suicidal. But that's a calculated risk I guess, along with armed teachers.
Sure lucky the teachers could never decide to go on a killing spree.
Well, on the reverse side, no one will go on a kevlar blanket spree.
So, the one in Las Vegas, they first killed two cops, then they killed someone who tried to stop them. The third victim was a concealed carry permit holder, who tried to stop them because he was armed. Their spree ended when the woman first killed her husband, than herself (the murders were a married couple).
Is "a good guy with a gun" really the best solution we can come up with? Because that seems to be of limited effectiveness. In fact, what ended this spree was the "bad guy with a gun".
To be fair, the cops in the pizza place didn't do any better and two armed nutcases are exceptionally rare, much less one being a woman.
Unless the shooter gets it, and isn't suicidal. But that's a calculated risk I guess, along with armed teachers.The shooter always has time to prepare. Some have already worn bulletproof vests.
Kids aren't going to wear vests all day, every day in school. Something they can grab and wrap around themselves if necessary isn't a bad idea.
That calculation is never going to work out in favor of armed teachers.
Probably.
Relevant link
wow.
In before the inevitable lock. Just saying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with gun ownership in the U.S. has always been quite simple: It is easier for me to purchase a gun than to:
- Drive a car
- Rent an apartment
- Open a small business
- Do (legal) construction work on my house
- Hire a nanny
So gee, what a surprise: Complete idiots own guns.
I know two people who openly own guns.
- One is a police officer with a teenage son. He keeps all his guns in a gun safe with the exception of his service firearm, which he keeps on his person until he goes to bed, at which point it goes under his pillow with the safety on. If he has reason to remove it from his person, it immediately goes in the safe. I have no issues with my sons playing at his house, as I know all the firearms are either on his person or in his safe.
- One is a "modern-day survivalist". He's put deadbolts on all his doors, motion sensors throughout the downstairs, but keeps a rifle behind a "hidden" panel "for home defense". I didn't bother pointing out that the primary point of entry on his house is the back door, separating him from his firearms. I will never allow my sons into his house because his guns aren't properly secured.
It's all about knowing how to store the firearms when they're not in use.
And yes, I do subscribe to the entire, "A gun in the house is twenty times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" paradigm, but I have no issues with sensible people who want to own guns. My issue is how easy it is for non-sensible people to own them.
EDIT: And it's always nice to read about bystanders WITHOUT firearms stopping a shooting spree. link. Unfortunately, it's faster and fewer people get hurt if you just swarm the guy(s). But very few people are willing to risk their lives in such a way, and the first "hero" is likely to die...
A significant part of the problem with stopping gun violence within the U.S. is how many illegal weapons there are on the streets. In addition, a lot of weapons are smuggled in via shipping.
It wouldn't be bad if we could just eliminate the problem... but the U.S.'s borders are too porous for that, too large, and the only remotely practical ways we have of doing that would involve inciting wars with all of our neighbors and possibly the entire United Nations and cutting off all international trade.
So, if you don't like the gun violence rate... move. That's the only practical answer that exists for getting away from this problem. Because any other answer has either proven ineffective or involves World War 3.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We need to as a culture go back to teaching people how to handle firearms, how to store them and NOT to fear them. Short of magic removing them from the planet they will be here (see much higher gun control countries) but we can take the fear and mystery out of them. We do not ned gun control we need crazy control, stop them rom getting a gun (if you can) and they will burn and bomb to get the attention they want.
So, the one in Las Vegas, they first killed two cops, then they killed someone who tried to stop them. The third victim was a concealed carry permit holder, who tried to stop them because he was armed.
To the best of my knowledge (which could very well be incomplete), that would make him only the second armed civilian to die while trying to intervene in a mass shooting (the other being Mark Alan Wilson).
I saw an analysis a while back (which wasn't peer-reviewed, but pretty in depth in describing its methodology), which found that mass shootings ended by police intervention killed an average of 14 people, while those ended by civilian intervention killed an average of 2 or 3 people. The use of a gun by a civilian lowered it slightly, but not by much. I'll try to find the link when I get to my home computer.
We need to as a culture go back to teaching people how to handle firearms, how to store them and NOT to fear them.
In what year was this exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to as a culture go back to teaching people how to handle firearms, how to store them and NOT to fear them. Short of magic removing them from the planet they will be here (see much higher gun control countries) but we can take the fear and mystery out of them. We do not ned gun control we need crazy control, stop them rom getting a gun (if you can) and they will burn and bomb to get the attention they want.
Notice the gun violence rate in Switzerland, where every citizen is required to receive training on and maintain a firearm... (Or at least this was true back in the 1980's when I paid attention to such things...)
EDIT: But I cannot totally dismiss U.S. culture's love of the gun as the solution to all things. My father had a fantastic quote I have to excise a bit for the public boards: "If I turn on my television at any time of the day or night, I can skim through the channels and at some point I'll find a man with a gun in his hand. On the other hand, I absolutely guarantee that I will never find a man with his <manhood> in his hand. Now I ask you, which is the healthier activity, and which should we be teaching our kids about?"
Yeah. My father. Quite the crack-up. Crackpot. Whatevs.
Aaaaand here we go blaming the mentally ill for all of society's woes. Again.
|
A significant part of the problem with stopping gun violence within the U.S. is how many illegal weapons there are on the streets. In addition, a lot of weapons are smuggled in via shipping.
It wouldn't be bad if we could just eliminate the problem... but the U.S.'s borders are too porous for that, too large, and the only remotely practical ways we have of doing that would involve inciting wars with all of our neighbors and possibly the entire United Nations and cutting off all international trade.
So, if you don't like the gun violence rate... move. That's the only practical answer that exists for getting away from this problem. Because any other answer has either proven ineffective or involves World War 3.
Are not most of these mass shootings done by legally owned weapons though?
Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny part of gun violence.
Are not most of these mass shootings done by legally owned weapons though?A significant part of the problem with stopping gun violence within the U.S. is how many illegal weapons there are on the streets. In addition, a lot of weapons are smuggled in via shipping.
It wouldn't be bad if we could just eliminate the problem... but the U.S.'s borders are too porous for that, too large, and the only remotely practical ways we have of doing that would involve inciting wars with all of our neighbors and possibly the entire United Nations and cutting off all international trade.
So, if you don't like the gun violence rate... move. That's the only practical answer that exists for getting away from this problem. Because any other answer has either proven ineffective or involves World War 3.
Depends. The definition on "mass shooting" varies a lot; if you include all shootings involving groups of people being shot, the answer becomes a definite "no." The reason why is that most shootings involving groups of people being shot are performed by gang members, who usually have illegal weapons.
And even then, you're still talking about a tiny fraction of the gun violence crimes and a minority of the people who die from firearm injuries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw an analysis a while back (which wasn't peer-reviewed, but pretty in depth in describing its methodology), which found that mass shootings ended by police intervention killed an average of 14 people, while those ended by civilian intervention killed an average of 2 or 3 people. The use of a gun by a civilian lowered it slightly, but not by much. I'll try to find the link when I get to my home computer.
Beware confusing correlation with cause. It's certainly possible that a rapid intervention by a person already on location minimizes casualty counts. But it's also possible that large-scale shootings by well-armed attackers simply are only possible to be stopped by the police.
That is, when a gunman shows up in a Kevlar vest, toting automatic pistols and an AR-15, one guy with a concealed-carry Glock is out of his league.
I'm picturing a shopping mall. Guy pulls a firearm and starts shooting people. Six or eight concealed-carry people pull their firearms, come running, see people with guns, start shooting, too. Before you know it everyone in the mall is either dead or trying to shoot one another.
If only the "bad guys" all obligingly wore black hats, like in the movies.
A significant part of the problem with stopping gun violence within the U.S. is how many illegal weapons there are on the streets. In addition, a lot of weapons are smuggled in via shipping.
It wouldn't be bad if we could just eliminate the problem... but the U.S.'s borders are too porous for that, too large, and the only remotely practical ways we have of doing that would involve inciting wars with all of our neighbors and possibly the entire United Nations and cutting off all international trade.
I...wait...what?
We need to as a culture go back to teaching people how to handle firearms, how to store them and NOT to fear them. Short of magic removing them from the planet they will be here (see much higher gun control countries)
You mean the ones for which we can demonstrate a clear correlation between increased levels of firearms availability and increased levels of violent crime? Or increased levels of gun control and decreased levels of crime?
Those countries, Andrew R? Or just the ones you pick to fit your narrative?
I think it's proooooobably the latter.
stop them rom getting a gun (if you can) and they will burn and bomb to get the attention they want.
Nope. Not even close to being correct.
|
|
Are not most of these mass shootings done by legally owned weapons though?A significant part of the problem with stopping gun violence within the U.S. is how many illegal weapons there are on the streets. In addition, a lot of weapons are smuggled in via shipping.
It wouldn't be bad if we could just eliminate the problem... but the U.S.'s borders are too porous for that, too large, and the only remotely practical ways we have of doing that would involve inciting wars with all of our neighbors and possibly the entire United Nations and cutting off all international trade.
So, if you don't like the gun violence rate... move. That's the only practical answer that exists for getting away from this problem. Because any other answer has either proven ineffective or involves World War 3.
Depends. The definition on "mass shooting" varies a lot; if you include all shootings involving groups of people being shot, the answer becomes a definite "no." The reason why is that most shootings involving groups of people being shot are performed by gang members, who usually have illegal weapons.
And even then, you're still talking about a tiny fraction of the gun violence crimes and a minority of the people who die from firearm injuries.
Fair point, however, the OP's example used seems to be more in line with the murder with reckless abandon type than the gangwarfare variety. Have any ideas about how to protect public places or how we decrease the violence when it comes to legally owned weapons by users who decide to kill?
You realise that most gun smuggling across the US border is OUT of the US and into Mexico and Canada? Right?
I do realize. But I also know that the United States doesn't manufacture AK-47s. Which, for some reason, have been found on American streets as of late.
There's also the fact that the payments for illegal weapons are coming from drug money, with one of the primary entries being Mexico for drug smuggling. Unfortunately, the only way to eliminate the weapons violence is to eliminate the financial capacity for the gangs to purchase the weapons illegally, which requires cutting off the flow of drugs. And even if the sales of guns are cut off within the U.S., there's the fact the borders themselves are so porous and we would have just opened up a massive market for gun smugglers to sell to criminals within our own nation, which would mean they would be smuggling guns along with the drugs.
I...wait...what?
Read what I said above. It'll make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem (of discussing gun control) is lack if empathy. Many in America simply do not care as long as they are not personally impacted. We seem to give more weight to an individual being inconvenienced than the larger harm to society.
Society is not an issue. All suffering done is done by individuals. The problem is that there are many such individuals.
You mean the ones for which we can demonstrate a clear correlation between increased levels of firearms availability and increased levels of violent crime? Or increased levels of gun control and decreased levels of crime?
Those countries, Andrew R? Or just the ones you pick to fit your narrative?
I think it's proooooobably the latter.
Switzerland would say those links are full of crap.
Fair point, however, the OP's example used seems to be more in line with the murder with reckless abandon type than the gangwarfare variety. Have any ideas about how to protect public places or how we decrease the violence when it comes to legally owned weapons by users who decide to kill?
It requires a cultural change. For example, on the murder with reckless abandon, we know that school massacres will be pulled with bombs and with melee weapons, and that these problems have been going on for over two centuries on just schools alone. And violent assaults have been going on in this nation just as long and didn't always involve guns; remember the tale of Lizzy Bordon?
Overall, the issue isn't one that gun control can solve. And it's not just a mental health issue.
Switzerland would say those links are full of crap.
Switzerland is included in that link.
See, that's the nice thing about data, Andrew R. Your single data point (that you don't understand, but like to pretend that you do!) doesn't mean anything in the face of a global trend. We get to safely disregard your intellectually dishonest attempt to frame the entire debate around a single country's unusual military practices, because our side did its homework while you have armchair conservatism propping up your arguments.
I do realize. But I also know that the United States doesn't manufacture AK-47s. Which, for some reason, have
No, but the us DOES manufacture dozens of AK 47 ripoffs, all of which get called ak 47's in the media reports.
|
|
Switzerland would say those links are full of crap.Switzerland is included in that link.
See, that's the nice thing about data, Andrew R. Your single data point (that you don't understand, but like to pretend that you do!) doesn't mean anything in the face of a global trend. We get to safely disregard your intellectually dishonest attempt to frame the entire debate around a single country's unusual military practices, because our side did its homework while you have armchair conservatism propping up your arguments.
Well the fun thing is that is not my link. Then again look at gun violence in gun free zones in america and cities like chicago and NY compared to areas that guns are common and no big deal.
|
|
You mean the ones for which we can demonstrate a clear correlation between increased levels of firearms availability and increased levels of violent crime? Or increased levels of gun control and decreased levels of crime?
Those countries, Andrew R? Or just the ones you pick to fit your narrative?
I think it's proooooobably the latter.
Switzerland would say those links are full of crap.
Fair point, however, the OP's example used seems to be more in line with the murder with reckless abandon type than the gangwarfare variety. Have any ideas about how to protect public places or how we decrease the violence when it comes to legally owned weapons by users who decide to kill?It requires a cultural change. For example, on the murder with reckless abandon, we know that school massacres will be pulled with bombs and with melee weapons, and that these problems have been going on for over two centuries on just schools alone. And violent assaults have been going on in this nation just as long and didn't always involve guns; remember the tale of Lizzy Bordon?
Overall, the issue isn't one that gun control can solve. And it's not just a mental health issue.
But humans never have committed violence or ever will again without guns!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again look at gun violence in gun free zones in america and cities like chicago and NY compared to areas that guns are common and no big deal.
Perhaps you should consider your cause and effect are reversed. NY and chicago did not decide to try to become gun free zones at random.
Switzerland would say those links are full of crap.Switzerland is included in that link.
See, that's the nice thing about data, Andrew R. Your single data point (that you don't understand, but like to pretend that you do!) doesn't mean anything in the face of a global trend. We get to safely disregard your intellectually dishonest attempt to frame the entire debate around a single country's unusual military practices, because our side did its homework while you have armchair conservatism propping up your arguments.
I'm not Andrew R. Also, take a good, long look at my link and note what it says. Especially under the title "Lower Death Rate Than In The U.S." Trust me on that ;)
No, but the us DOES manufacture dozens of AK 47 ripoffs, all of which get called ak 47's in the media reports.
Fair enough. You have a point there.
|
|
Then again look at gun violence in gun free zones in america and cities like chicago and NY compared to areas that guns are common and no big deal.Perhaps you should consider your cause and effect are reversed. NY and chicago did not decide to try to become gun free zones at random.
and look at how well that works
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember hearing that the dad of the guy who went on a shooting spree because he couldn't get any dates said it was the fault of lax gun laws. But I also remember that his son murdered three people with a knife before setting out on his murder spree. Did the father think that the lives of those three were unimportant? Well they were all males, so it is probably their fault they couldn't stop someone with a knife I guess.