The Great Gun Control Debate

[Furniture]

If I was a law enforcement officer about to enter a school with an active shooter, I would prefer the teachers and staff to be unarmed.

You cannot predict what average, poorly trained people will do with firearms in panic situations.

More guns for average people = less trust and more unpredictability

That goes for society as a whole too.

At the same time we can't predict what a poorly trained driver will do at times, and poorly trained or distracted drivers kill far more people than firearms. Should we ban motor vehicles to protect lives? Or are deaths that occur in rare but large numbers more important than the many that die daily because of bad driving? Maybe distracted driving should be a criminal offence, drunk driving is and in BC last year distracted drivers killed more people...

Arming teachers isn't about making mini SWAT teams at every school, it's about deterrence. If a wackjob can't be sure he'll be the badest M  F in the place he often times won't go there. Look back at mass shootings, they exceptionally rarely happen at places where deadly force is expected to be encountered in the opening minutes. They usually happen in places where firearms aren't permitted and police are minutes away. Vegas, Dallas(though he was hunting police and is a totally different ball of wax) Ft Hood, and the cartoon expo in Texas being the odd exceptions before someone has a eureka moment and posts them...

 

[angus555]

At the same time we can't predict what a poorly trained driver will do at times, and poorly trained or distracted drivers kill far more people than firearms. Should we ban motor vehicles to protect lives? Or are deaths that occur in rare but large numbers more important than the many that die daily because of bad driving? Maybe distracted driving should be a criminal offence, drunk driving is and in BC last year distracted drivers killed more people...

There is a big difference between cars and firearms from a utilitarian perspective. Cars in the hands of regular citizens offer utility and contribute immensely to the greater good of society.
Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.

I would grant that firearms are useful for hunters, but hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.

 

[FJAG]

So rather than refute the statement simply posting the sponsor is enough? I suppose that makes the Radio Chatter Global Warming thread obsolete... everything in it is published by one side or the other.

Sheriff's deputies hid, the FBI didn't investigate, the Sheriff's department didn't follow up... but somehow it's the AR-15's, and every law abiding gun owners fault that a known wackjob had several minutes of free time to kill after he was known to be shooting kids?

I get that the American right can be wack jobs, but can we step back and look at the fact that LE didn't intervene at several key points up to and including the shooting? They have a responsibility in this that is being pushed aside to go after guns. People are scared of guns, I get it... but how much is based on a real probability of getting shot, and how much is based on the Hollywood version of guns. I bet if Hollywood showed a more realistic view of stabbing far more people would be scared of their own kitchen drawers. 

If the picture had merely shown the three LE members with blood on their hands I wouldn't have an issue with it.

It was the pointing at the "Law Abiding Gun Owner" that caused me to look at the source of the cartoon. To the best of my knowledge neither the FBI nor the Sheriff, and clearly not the deputy who hasn't spoken on this, have done this type of finger pointing.

The finger pointing has come from the children who were downrange of an idiot with an AR 15. But here we have the NRA and its supporters taking on the mantle of the victim. That's why I find this cartoon and its sponsors hypocritical.

[cheers]

 

[Furniture]

There is a big difference between cars and firearms from a utilitarian perspective. Cars in the hands of regular citizens offer utility and contribute immensely to the greater good of society.
Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.

I would grant that firearms are useful for hunters, but hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.

Need is a dangerous game to play, most people don't need the type of vehicle they drive and many don't need one at all.

In a free society do we determine what people can have by need?

I'll reiterate that more people are killed by bad or negligent driving than by firearms in Canada for sure. Maybe we should limit people to cars that do 100km/h(an argument could be made for even lower speeds, since speed kills), and seat no more than 4. That way we can control the numbers of people killed in a bad crash... Maybe you should only be allowed own a car if you live more than 1 hours walk from work. If we did that we could save the environment and lives!  That's a solid platform for anyone that really cares about life as much as they pretend when it comes to restricting gun ownership.  We are scared of guns because they provide a moderately trained individual the ability to kill over distance, and most people don't deal with them daily. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and safe, why should they be restricted so that people can have a false sense of security?

We all use an implement more often times deadly, and responsible for more deaths than anything but the mosquito every day in our kitchens. We don't see a demand for a national knife registry, or knife control.

Gun control isn't about saving lives nearly as much as it is about behaviour control. People are scared by people that like guns and want to see gun ownership curtailed. If it was about lives, junk food, alcohol, tobacco, knives, and distracted driving would be the concerns.

 

[Furniture]

Fair enough, I suppose as a member of a group targeted for events happening in a foreign country as well as at home I tend to get a bit defensive.

I imagine the FBI and sheriff are trying to lie low and avoid any mention at this time... They have many questions to answer.

The problem the NRA and all gun orgs suffer is they are under threat from many sources both open and in the background so they need to try to control the message as much as they can. They lack the support of Hollywood and the media so they don't get free advertising for their opinions and ideas. When your opinion is unpopular sometimes you need to engage the pamphleteers to get it out there... A few hundred years ago that was freedom of the press...

That said don't get me wrong, I know America needs to have an adult discussion about firearms.

 

[angus555]

Gun control isn't about saving lives nearly as much as it is about behaviour control. People are scared by people that like guns and want to see gun ownership curtailed.

Owning a gun for the purpose of self-defense is also about behavior control. If I feel threatened by someone with or without a gun, I can use my own gun to affect their behavior, ultimately through lethal force.

Ideally, gun control is about preempting that situation in the first place. And of course it should only apply to regular citizens.

It's crazy that gun control is so nonexistent in the U.S that some teachers are allowed to carry firearms, but not peanut butter.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It was the pointing at the "Law Abiding Gun Owner" that caused me to look at the source of the cartoon. To the best of my knowledge neither the FBI nor the Sheriff, and clearly not the deputy who hasn't spoken on this, have done this type of finger pointing.

Ahh, you're right. I mostly concede  ;D

The FBI isn't insinuating it's the NRA. 

deputies don't seem to be blaming anyone, I don't think they really know whats going on. It sounded like the Sheriff was pretty quick to put the spotlight on the deputies (though I'm reading there's emails from the Sheriff to the deputies ironically telling them to vigorously to support him).

The Sheriff however was quick to go on national TV and tore into the NRA and Dana Loesch about their supposed culpability in the parkland shooting while knowing his own deputy stood outside armed and waiting. I think it's safe to say he's blaming the NRA. 
[ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sheriff-slams-nra-spokesperson-calls-gun-control-article-1.3834919 ]

NRA members are getting blamed through association with the NRA. 

 

[my72jeep]

That said don't get me wrong, I know America needs to have an adult discussion about firearms.

I know I'll take flack for this but, bear with me. There will be no honest firearms discussion in the US. The two sides are made up of children with typical child issues 1. The bullies (anti gun types) they in there mind don't think any of us should have guns and will do any thing in there power to take our lunch money er I mean guns. And 2. The mine mine mine you can't have it kids(gun owners) you know the types they would rush out at recess to grab the coolest toys then sit on them so no one else could play with them. No amount of reason ever changed the minds of these kids. It usually took a good school yard brawl to shift any one and at that it lasted a day max.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How many left-wing speakers in the US need a rifle companies worth of police officers to protect them while they speak?

Shapiro To Students: 100 Police Officers Are Outside So I Can Say Conservative Things
"There are a hundred police officers that were necessary to protect you guys and to protect me so that I can say conservative things."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27633/shapiro-students-100-police-officers-are-outside-james-barrett

Not surprised why so many in the US don't relish the idea of giving up firearms.

 

[mariomike]

How many left-wing speakers in the US need a rifle companies worth of police officers to protect them while they speak?

The cost of free speech is not cheap.
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&q=the+price+of+free+speech&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5iv_d3MnZAhUKyYMKHW9XAtkQ1QIIYSgA&biw=1280&bih=603

 

[Loachman]

If I was a law enforcement officer about to enter a school with an active shooter, I would prefer the teachers and staff to be unarmed.

And therefore more dead kids and grieving families?

Usually, it's all over by the time that police enter, and it could all be over a lot more quickly if some teachers are armed and in the right place.

See the links that I posted yesterday evening. Many law enforcement agencies are so much in favour of this that they are providing training to any teacher who wants it, and there are plenty of those. Training usually deals with how to safely hand over to police once they are actually on scene.

You cannot predict what average, poorly trained people will do with firearms in panic situations.

Who says that they are poorly trained? Many police and military personnel have little interest in firearms and shooting, and will only do the absolute minimum required to qualify (if they cannot find an excuse to avoid doing so completely). Private citizens who carry, openly or concealed, have much more interest in their firearms and many train to levels well above average police personnel.

Courses have been available for at least a couple of decades, and are required in many states prior to granting permits. This is not new, and not complicated.

And, as we have recently, and sadly, seen, we cannot predict what supposedly trained sheriff's deputies will do, either.

After that line of defence crumbles, there is nobody else left but teachers and support staff.

A perfect reaction is not expected, nor required. Even an imperfect one can save at least a few students.

And that is infinitely preferable to nothing.

More guns for average people = less trust and more unpredictability

Facts do not bear that statement out. The US homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last three or so decades even as firearms sales have shot up, and more people - especially women - are getting into sport shooting and self-defence.

I am well aware that, wherever I am in the US, a healthy number of people are carrying concealed firearms, and I am anything but alarmed. I am also very aware of the areas in which people are unlikely to be carrying. As I have no interest in going into those places anyway, avoidance is easy.

Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.

To many, they are essential defensive tools. There are some very violent neighbourhoods in the US, and some very violent people who wander much safer neighbourhoods looking for easy targets. Many criminal attacks have been stopped by armed ordinary citizens, usually without a single shot fired. Nobody should be denied the means to protect themselves.

hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.

Nobody needs anything beyond basic oxygen, water, food, shelter, warmth, and some means of preventing greedy people from trying to take that away from them.

Yes, a lot of people would go insane without wifi. I know. That's sad.

And those "kinds of firearms" would simply be replace by others if they magically disappeared.

Ideally, gun control is about preempting that situation in the first place.

In reality, it does not, cannot, and never has.

And of course it should only apply to regular citizens.

Rather than criminals? Really? Why?

With what else do you not trust your fellow "regular" citizens?

Whom do you trust?

It's crazy that gun control is so nonexistent in the U.S

There are over 20,000 federal, state, and county/municipal firearms laws on the books in the US. Is that not enough? Would one more help? Five? A hundred? What?

Laws merely define what constitutes a crime and lay out the punishment. They do not actually prevent anything from happening.

some teachers are allowed to carry firearms, but not peanut butter.

I'm not aware of a single case of a teacher shooting a student who was not posing a real and immediate  danger. I am also unaware of anybody dying from an anaphylactic reaction to a firearm. I am, however, aware of several students succumbing to exposure to peanut products.

Perhaps we can discuss gun politics in our 157-page "The Great Gun Control Debate".
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/28692.3900.html

It's not quite that easy to separate, as there is a lot of crossover, and not worthwhile to try.

Hopefully, the intent of arming a percentage of teachers isn't about sending them out on seek and destroy missions in the hallways. I hope it would be about bunkering down in the classroom, and protecting the kids inside it. I would think a shooter would think twice if he was uncertain about the reception on the other side of that door. This is not to say I necessarily agree with the idea, but I can see some merit to it.

Nobody would send them out. That would be their decision, based upon their assessment of the situation and best possible means of influencing it, being the only person capable of doing so.

The intent is to give them, and their students, a last-ditch fighting chance of survival.

Professional soldiers aren't even safe with the weapons we train them to use full time.

Arm millions of teachers? The deaths and injuries from accidental classroom discharges (ACDs) etc would dwarf school shooting victims within a year.

Yet there have been some armed teachers in some classrooms for a few years already, and millions of ordinary citizens carrying firearms either concealed or openly for decades, without an epidemic of NDs.

None of the wild predictions of "blood in the streets" as successive states have approved either open or concealed carry, or both, have come to pass.

Ordinary citizens with concealed carry permits have lower arrest and conviction rates than police. On a per capita basis, they kill more criminals and fewer innocent people annually than police do.

Many of them are far better trained than police, are more readily able to identify a threat as they are closer, and have more of an incentive to get it right as they will be dealt with more harshly than any policeman would be for the same error. The biggest fear that concealed-carry permit holders have, secondary to shooting an innocent person, is losing their permit. Very few permits are revoked, and most revocations are for non-firearms violations.

What differentiates the perceived abilities or inabilities of police and private citizens? The uniform? The badge? The pay?

 

[daftandbarmy]

And therefore more dead kids and grieving families?

Meanwhile, in America, the kids strike back....

American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year

On Wednesday two 3-year-old boys were shot by another toddler who found and inadvertently fired a gun at the home of their babysitter in Dearborn, Mich., according to the Detroit Free Press. The boys, one of whom was shot in the face and the other in the shoulder, are in stable condition at a hospital.

The Dearborn boys are at least the 42nd and 43rd people to get shot by a child under the age of 4 this year, according to a database of accidental child-involved shootings maintained by Everytown, a gun violence prevention group. On average, someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week, similar to previous years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.f72ac82e7d89

 

[Loachman]

The Dearborn boys are at least the 42nd and 43rd people to get shot by a child under the age of 4 this year, according to a database of accidental child-involved shootings maintained by Everytown, a gun violence prevention group. On average, someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week, similar to previous years.

This is really getting off of the active shooter topic, but...

Everytown For Gun Safety is a virulent anti-gun Michael Bloomberg organization with remarkably little influence despite the money that he dumps into it.

There is always lots of spin, and no context.

In this case, it's a little over 52 people shot out of over 300,000,000 annually - sad, but statistically insignificant. Compare it to the deaths  - and not all of these people die from their wounds - from other accidental causes with much higher death rates; accidental firearms deaths pale in comparison to deaths from falls, drownings, motor vehicles, poisoning, and several other causes.

For some of the missing context - and bear in mind that there are approximately 30,000 firearms-related deaths in the US annually, of which approximately two-thirds are suicides and some of the others are police and defensive shootings - there's https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Medical Errors Are No. 3 Cause Of U.S Deaths, Researchers Say
   
May 3, 2016·6:31 PM ET 

Marshall Allen
Olga Pierce

"A study by researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine says medical errors should rank as the third leading cause of death in the United States - and highlights how shortcomings in tracking vital statistics may hinder research and keep the problem out of the public eye.

"Based on an analysis of prior research, the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors."

Yet some people trust doctors, nurses, and pharmacists more than armed teachers or private citizens in general?

 

[Loachman]

Or maybe more dead kids/police because of random teachers panic shooting in a crowded school.

Are teachers more prone to panic than other people? Again, these teachers will be trained and certified in accordance with the laws, regulations, standards, and policies of their jurisdictions - just as local law-enforcement people are.

Most of them will regularly run through scenarios in their minds and conduct mental rehearsal. They have much more of a stake in this than police have. It's their turf, their students' lives, and their own lives.

Badges and uniforms confer no special powers on people.

Police wound and kill innocent bystanders as well.

I see a problem with this. Police and military should be more proficient than private citizens with firearms because that is their job.

Yet they frequently are not.

The scariest times that I have had on ranges were courtesy of small-town Canadian police, albeit many years ago. Drunk in uniform at a party with weapons drawn once or twice as well.

As I said, many simply have no interest in firearms and lack sufficient capability.

If we have a country full of private citizens waiting to go to war with each other, that's a sign of a serious problem with social cohesion and trust

Oh, please - get real. There is a HUGE difference between preparing for effective personal self-defence and war.

People take first-aid courses as well. Are they preparing to conduct brain surgery?

More people with firearms exacerbates the "need" to have more firearms for self-defense.

Criminals already have them, and always will. Murderous nutbars don't seem to have much difficulty either. Normal people prepare to look after themselves, rather than passively waiting for government help that may never come in time. They have first aid kits, fire extinguishers, emergency food and water in their homes, and whatever other personal protective equipment that they feel that they need.

Can't teachers just focus on being teachers?

Somewhat of a challenge when some asshole is shooting up one's school, nein?

And how does carrying a concealed firearm take focus from teaching?

Hint: It doesn't.

It's funny to see the argument that gun control is rooted in lack of trust for people. Owning a gun for personal self-defense is the epitome of lack of trust in others.

I have plenty of trust for people in general, but choose the ones with whom I relate. Trusting everybody, especially those displaying abnormal characteristics, however, is just plain stupid. I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level. I was also keeping a close eye on a wooden cane owned by the sweet little old lady in front and slightly to the right of me, just in case. Fortunately, he put it away within about fifteen minutes and eventually shuffled out.

The vast majority of people are decent and harmless. There is, unfortunately, as small number of aberrant ones that can quickly become serious threats.

 

[ModlrMike]

I find it amusing that those who would shut down the speech of others, get all wound up when they have to pay the price for their own speech. As if they were protected from consequence. Not being prevented from speaking is the real definition of free speech. Not being held to account for what you say is a pipe dream.

 

[angus555]

Oh, please - get real. There is a HUGE difference between preparing for effective personal self-defence and war.

People take first-aid courses as well. Are they preparing to conduct brain surgery?

I'm using the words "go to war with each other" as a figure of speech, of course.

I know you're passionate about this and we probably won't ever agree, and it's also not directly on topic, so this will be my last reply.

I have plenty of trust for people in general, but choose the ones with whom I relate. Trusting everybody, especially those displaying abnormal characteristics, however, is just plain stupid. I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level. I was also keeping a close eye on a wooden cane owned by the sweet little old lady in front and slightly to the right of me, just in case. Fortunately, he put it away within about fifteen minutes and eventually shuffled out.

I think it's a good story, and if I may use it to illustrate a few things, you might start to see my point.

In that situation of the homeless guy with a knife and the potentially murderous old lady, wouldn't you feel more comfortable in that church if you had a concealed gun? I'm pretty sure you would want one. But don't you think it's kind of absurd to need self-defense weapons in a church? I'm not religious at all, but I know that a church is a place where people should be able to feel comfortable and trust each other.

To me, the need for interpersonal trust within a congregation should also be extrapolated beyond a church to the general population of a country. It's clear that high-trust societies, especially those with effective gun control, have less of a problem with crime. Although, I think lack of trust is both the cause and a symptom of crime.

Also, would you rather the crazy homeless person in the church to be playing with a paring knife, or a handgun that he got in the back alley last night? Fortunately here in Canada, it's harder, although not impossible for that homeless person to get a handgun in that manner.

Not saying that there are bad people that shouldn't be stopped by quick and easy lethal force.
I'm saying that should be the concern of the state. To protect citizens and keep the guns or any weapons out of "idle hands" as much as possible. It would certainly help prevent the occasional church gunfight.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse

CNN reporters hit gun range, it couldn’t have gone worse - 28 Feb 18 (video at link)

During a segment Monday on Anderson Cooper 360, the network sent CNN’s Gary Tuchman with retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling to the gun range to shoot an AR-15. It went about as bad as one might expect.

 

[George Wallace]

That was embarrassing to watch.

 

[mariomike]

https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse

"When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"

Never heard of mediaequalizer.com, so I checked it out,

QUOTE

Media Equalizer is a news and opinion blog with a strong right wing bias in reporting. All articles favor the right and discredit the left. Like most sources that lack credibility, Media Equalizer does not have an About Page, nor any information about ownership or the authors. There is moderate use of loaded emotional language in articles and sourcing is typically to other right biased sources such as Fox News, who has a poor track record with fact checkers. Overall, we rate Media Equalizer Right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting based on poor sourcing."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

END QUOTE

 

[Jarnhamar]

First 4 seconds of the video. 10 year old girl seem to handle recoil better than the two grown men in the CNN clip.

Of course she wasn't going full semi-auto lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJ2rtOpJc4




And for entertainment, this gem.
What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

-It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon.
-But mostly, I was just terrified.
-the explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD