another day, another shooting

[pmv]

I'm getting sick of the amount of disguised lobbying that goes on under the guise of 'education and research', by bodies funded by the same few rich guys.

 

[woolfe9998]

Most might not be, but the Paris shootings used guns supplied by ISIS from outside France, I think from the Balkans, so it's questionable whether you can use those sort of events when discussing domestic gun-control. I guess it's a grey area, because ordinary criminal gangs can also smuggle guns in.

That was a point of controversy discussed in the WaPo article I linked, that Lankford's data did not include the terrorist attack in Mumbai. Pretty sure those weapons came in from Pakistan, so you'd have a valid point there.

I think even agreeing on a method and set of definitions is tough. It's hard to really know. Which is why we're better off looking at total gun murders, not "mass shootings." If gun control is the issue, I see no reason a mass shooting with 4 victims matters more than 4 separate shootings each with a single victim.

 

[pmv]

That linked article is dishonest. It quotes Obama saying "at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries." Which makes him sound like an idiot, but the article leaves out his next sentence "It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. " That tells you what you need to know about the article.

Here's is a direct comparison between Lott's and Lankford's disparate claims regarding the frequency of mass shootings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-lead-world-mass-shootings

Bottom line is that it entirely depends on definitions. Lott's numbers include terrorist attacks, which are far more frequent in certain other countries than in the US.

I don't know if that WaPo article clarifies much. Much of it seems to be arguing over the Phillipines and Russia, and I don't see those two countries as being places one would want to be competing with on murder and law-enforcement anyway (the Phillippines has state sanctioned death-squads, after all). I'm confused why Lott pays so much attention to countries that no-one would want to emulate anyway ('great news, we're doing better than Syria!')

Norway is solely due to Brevik (one guy does not make a trend), and really the only significant question in that argument is about France and Belgium, which seems to come down to how you treat terror attacks, and also neglects France's own weak gun control.

And yes, an emphasis on 'mass shootings' is probably a red-herring.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know if that WaPo article clarifies much. Much of it seems to be arguing over the Phillipines and Russia, and I don't see those two countries as being places one would want to be competing with on murder and law-enforcement anyway (the Phillippines has state sanctioned death-squads, after all). I'm confused why Lott pays so much attention to countries that no-one would want to emulate anyway ('great news, we're doing better than Syria!')

Norway is solely due to Brevik (one guy does not make a trend), and really the only significant question in that argument is about France and Belgium, which seems to come down to how you treat terror attacks, and also neglects France's own weak gun control.

And yes, an emphasis on 'mass shootings' is probably a red-herring.

Exactly. That is why you get strange results like Norway being the worst country in Europe for "mass shootings" because of a single incident with an unusually high death toll. There are definitional problems, but also statistical problems due to relatively low numbers. If most countries had 100+ per year, then a single incident wouldn't change the aggregate numbers by much.

TBH, gun control advocates have taken advantage of the spike in mass shootings in the US lately, due to their high media visibility. But it doesn't make much sense. A more rational case is made on total gun murders.

 

[Paladin3]

I don't think 'security guard' means 'licensed by the state' or that 'volunteer security team member engaged in guarding' is meaningfully different from 'security guard'.

And in any case, whether they are paid (or even licensed) or just volunteers, is irrelevant to the point - that it's not a sign of things going well in a society if churches need such armed protectors on duty.

Of course a church or individual needing armed security is a bad sign for society. Was that fact ever in debate???

I'll bet you money than nobody in the West Freeway Church of Christ is happy they needed armed guards to protect their flock, but are glad they had them when the need came.

 

[TheVrolok]

I have a vague feeling this Lott guy is a propagandist I've come across before.

I suspect FEE is _yet another_ one of those lobby groups for the rich, dressed up as educational charities. Who funds them? Any Koch money involved, by any chance? [Just googled it, and, yup, of course it is! What a surprise!]

Yep, you nailed it. As soon as I saw "John Lott" I gave up. Problem is, these folks don't look deeply enough to realize propaganda - it's the heart of the problem.

 

[purbeast0]

And now we have Trump saying more guns is the solution.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212008798849814528

 

[Paladin3]

And now we have Trump saying more guns is the solution.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212008798849814528

Until you can rid the country of firearms, or otherwise disarm those intent on murder, shooting back to stop the threat ASAP is your best option.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Has it been pointed out in this thread that this 'security guard' was a professional firearms instructor? We're not talking about Al and Spare Tire in the high school hallway here.

 

[TheVrolok]

Has it been pointed out in this thread that this 'security guard' was a professional firearms instructor? We're not talking about Al and Spare Tire in the high school hallway here.

Exactly. All we need to do is give everyone a gun at age 18 with required training and bam, no more gun violence, ever.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yes. But that means you have to bring up cities like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, etc., and the moment you do (as I have done in the past on here), you get flamed for your concern trolling and faux concern.

But if we really want to tap into and reduce the number of gun deaths, we have to deal with mental health issues. Why? Because the CDC statistics I've seen on gun deaths attribute ~66% of them are due to suicide.

Mass shootings are certainly alarming, but there are many other things that have a far greater chance of ending a life.

Exactly. That is why you get strange results like Norway being the worst country in Europe for "mass shootings" because of a single incident with an unusually high death toll. There are definitional problems, but also statistical problems due to relatively low numbers. If most countries had 100+ per year, then a single incident wouldn't change the aggregate numbers by much.

TBH, gun control advocates have taken advantage of the spike in mass shootings in the US lately, due to their high media visibility. But it doesn't make much sense. A more rational case is made on total gun murders.

 

[pmv]

Yes. But that means you have to bring up cities like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, etc., and the moment you do (as I have done in the past on here), you get flamed for your concern trolling and faux concern.

But if we really want to tap into and reduce the number of gun deaths, we have to deal with mental health issues. Why? Because the CDC statistics I've seen on gun deaths attribute ~66% of them are due to suicide.

Mass shootings are certainly alarming, but there are many other things that have a far greater chance of ending a life.

I am just skeptical that you are going to do much about that with policies on 'mental health issues'. Everywhere it's been done, it has turned out that the single most effective thing you can do to reduce suicide rates is to make it harder to access the methods of doing it.

Suicide is very often an impulsive thing. Widespread easy availability of guns increases suicide rates.

And mental health issues are also concequences of much larger issues, like unemployment, drugs, homophobia, child abuse, etc (it actually feels in poor taste to add an 'etc' to such a list).

 

[TheVrolok]

I am just skeptical that you are going to do much about that with policies on 'mental health issues'. Everywhere it's been done, it has turned out that the single most effective thing you can do to reduce suicide rates is to make it harder to access the methods of doing it.

Suicide is very often an impulsive thing. Widespread easy availability of guns increases suicide rates.

And mental health issues are also concequences of much larger issues, like unemployment, drugs, homophobia, child abuse, etc (it actually feels in poor taste to add an 'etc' to such a list).

"Address mental health" is such a red herring.

We are already addressing mental health (albeit likely not ideally), and we can do this while we also address access to firearms.

Those who think there is a "solution" to mental health issues simply don't appreciate the significant complexity (as you've alluded) of the issue or are intellectually dishonest. Apparently restricting gun rights is way too complicated, but "addressing mental health" is just an obvious thing we haven't considered.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Trust me, I fully appreciate the complexity. I've seen first hand how tragic this issue can be. There's no easy answer as to how to identify people with mental health issues and keep them from getting access to guns and still respect their rights or people's second amendment rights.

Suicide is tragic. My younger daughter was near suicidal when she was in school. Hell, there were times when I felt like ending it when I was in school. I recognize the problem and have played Captain Obvious stating that something needs to be done, but I won't, like certain people on this forum, act like I've got the professional qualifications to propose viable solutions. So, if you have a viable solution, let's hear it.

"Address mental health" is such a red herring.

We are already addressing mental health (albeit likely not ideally), and we can do this while we also address access to firearms.

Those who think there is a "solution" to mental health issues simply don't appreciate the significant complexity (as you've alluded) of the issue or are intellectually dishonest. Apparently restricting gun rights is way too complicated, but "addressing mental health" is just an obvious thing we haven't considered.

 

[TheVrolok]

Trust me, I fully appreciate the complexity. I've seen first hand how tragic this issue can be. There's no easy answer as to how to identify people with mental health issues and keep them from getting access to guns and still respect their rights or people's second amendment rights.

Suicide is tragic. My younger daughter was near suicidal when she was in school. Hell, there were times when I felt like ending it when I was in school. I recognize the problem and have played Captain Obvious stating that something needs to be done, but I won't, like certain people on this forum, act like I've got the professional qualifications to propose viable solutions. So, if you have a viable solution, let's hear it.

Wait. You went from saying, "We need to address mental health!" to "I have no idea how to address mental health!"

Ok then.

 

[Paladin3]

"Address mental health" is such a red herring.

We are already addressing mental health (albeit likely not ideally), and we can do this while we also address access to firearms.

Those who think there is a "solution" to mental health issues simply don't appreciate the significant complexity (as you've alluded) of the issue or are intellectually dishonest. Apparently restricting gun rights is way too complicated, but "addressing mental health" is just an obvious thing we haven't considered.

"Solving" a complex issue such as mental health issues is next to impossible. Saying something when you know someone in crisis who owns or has access to guns is what we need to do a better job of.

There is no single answer to ending gun violence, which is equally as complex as ending mental health issues. But we can do a better job on so many fronts to chip away at the problem.

It's easy to say "ban guns" but how are we going to implement that lofty plan in a country steeped in gun culture? And any partial restrictions have to do more than simply disarm the lawful. The gun owners of America will never accept any new gun control they see as only disarming them and not the criminal/sick/evil individuals who are the actual problem.

 

[TheVrolok]

It's easy to say "ban guns" but how are we going to implement that lofty plan in a country steeped in gun culture? And any partial restrictions have to do more than simply disarm the lawful. The gun owners of America will never accept any new gun control they see as only disarming them and not the criminal/sick/evil individuals who are the actual problem.

Who said "ban guns?" You're already starting with the straw. I am a gun owner, I would gladly accept a significant amount of gun control. I didn't realize you personally speak for all gun owners in the country.

Your "arguments" have been covered ad nauseam.

 

[FerrelGeek]

It is something that we need to try to get a handle on. I'm just being honest and admitting that I don't know the best way to go about doing it. I'm being honest, not like some of the arrogant know-it-alls on this forum. Sure, I might have some suggestions, but I'm not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, so I'm not gonna pretend that I'm any kind of authority. Enlighten me as to what's so wrong about being open and honest.

Now, I can speak with some credibility to firearms as I own a couple, have taken safety classes, and shoot when I can to stay competent. I also have several friends that would qualify as experts in the field. The shoot competitively, load their own rounds, are knowledgeable about proper personal defense and train others.

Wait. You went from saying, "We need to address mental health!" to "I have no idea how to address mental health!"

Ok then.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yep

"Solving" a complex issue such as mental health issues is next to impossible. Saying something when you know someone in crisis who owns or has access to guns is what we need to do a better job of.

There is no single answer to ending gun violence, which is equally as complex as ending mental health issues. But we can do a better job on so many fronts to chip away at the problem.

It's easy to say "ban guns" but how are we going to implement that lofty plan in a country steeped in gun culture? And any partial restrictions have to do more than simply disarm the lawful. The gun owners of America will never accept any new gun control they see as only disarming them and not the criminal/sick/evil individuals who are the actual problem.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Because, whether you choose to believe it or not, banning guns is the wet dream of many on the left. Let's talk about putting 'reasonable restrictions' on abortion and watch the left's collective heads explode.

Who said "ban guns?" You're already starting with the straw. I am a gun owner, I would gladly accept a significant amount of gun control. I didn't realize you personally speak for all gun owners in the country.

Your "arguments" have been covered ad nauseam.

 

[Paladin3]

Has it been pointed out in this thread that this 'security guard' was a professional firearms instructor? We're not talking about Al and Spare Tire in the high school hallway here.

Exactly. All we need to do is give everyone a gun at age 18 with required training and bam, no more gun violence, ever.

Why do you guys have to take it to such ridiculous extremes to make your point? No rational person wants to arm every idiot.

It was awesome that Jack Wilson, who killed the shooter at the West Freeway Church of Christ, was a former reserve deputy for the Hood County Sheriff's Office. He saved many lives with his quick action. That doesn't mean he is a superman or that shooting back and hitting a man sized target at close range is all that hard.

The homeless shooter, who had a criminal record that included aggravated assault, killed two people in a few seconds. If he can do it then a person who understands gun safety, the law and has practiced shooting, and who is mentally and morally dedicated to step up and defend the lives of others, can do it too.

Anyone in that church when the shooting started would have prayed for someone to shoot back and end the threat. That doesn't mean anyone rational endorses arming every idiot.

 

[Paladin3]

Who said "ban guns?" You're already starting with the straw. I am a gun owner, I would gladly accept a significant amount of gun control. I didn't realize you personally speak for all gun owners in the country.

Your "arguments" have been covered ad nauseam.

Lots of people, including politicians, have been saying "ban guns" and those folks look at any new gun control as one step closer to a complete civilian ban. Just like lots of pro-gun folks think the 2A and it's "shall not be infringed" means the government has no right to prohibit ANY firearm, period.

But neither of those arguments are realistic. Guns in America are here to stay. A significant portion of the American voters don't want more gun control so the votes aren't there to repeal the 2A. And then you would run into the problem of how do you actually take those guns away from law abiding citizens, let alone from the criminals who will just steal, import or make them. Trying to limit American's access to guns is a genie that is already out of the bottle.

So, I'm trying to deal in the real world. In the real world America where nutjobs do shit like shoot up churches, we need armed security to defend the innocent. And it doesn't take law enforcement levels of training to point a gun at an active shooter and kill them.

 

[TheVrolok]

Because, whether you choose to believe it or not, banning guns is the wet dream of many on the left. Let's talk about putting 'reasonable restrictions' on abortion and watch the left's collective heads explode.

It isn't. And comparing guns to abortion is silly.

 

[TheVrolok]

And it doesn't take law enforcement levels of training to point a gun at an active shooter and kill them.

Thank Goodness, as law enforcement officers are notoriously inaccurate (hit rates are largely worse than a coin flip in the limited data we have) - so somewhat of an ironic point to make.

As for the remainder of your "points," been covered ad nauseum.

 

[TheVrolok]

Why do you guys have to take it to such ridiculous extremes to make your point? No rational person wants to arm every idiot.

It's a tongue in cheek quip about conscription.