The science of gun crimes

misterveritis · Dec 17, 2012

myp said:
I don't think these people choose schools because they are gun-free, which is the point you seem to be alluding to. It just so happens that they are gun-free. And I am not sure having guns in schools would reduce the number of deaths including accidents over the long run, although it might be possible. And the numbers including accidents when every single person is armed? I don't even want to think about that.

I'll admit I am split on the gun issue, but I know personally, I do not feel the need to buy a gun for myself in the name of protection.

I see. So, in your opinion, it is just coincidence that out of the last dozen or so mass murders in the US all, or nearly all, have occurred in gun free zones?

If you are in the building where a monster is killing people would you prefer that people around you, perhaps more responsible people are armed and willing to defend themselves and you?

Or do you prefer your murders wholesale?

There are about 200 million guns in the US. How many accidents have you heard about?

Are you willing to simply admit that you are fine with being slaughtered as long as the government makes it very hard for citizens to defend themselves uniformly?

myp · Dec 17, 2012

misterveritis said:
I see. So, in your opinion, it is just coincidence that out of the last dozen or so mass murders in the US all, or nearly all, have occurred in gun free zones?

If you are in the building where a monster is killing people would you prefer that people around you, perhaps more responsible people are armed and willing to defend themselves and you?

Or do you prefer your murders wholesale?

There are about 200 million guns in the US. How many accidents have you heard about?

Are you willing to simply admit that you are fine with being slaughtered as long as the government makes it very hard for citizens to defend themselves uniformly?

Lanza and a lot of those murderers committed suicide. Knowing others had guns wasn't going to stop them- they wanted to die in the end. My hypothesis is that they thought targeting schools was more glamorous and can you blame them with the way the media treats them? And what about the movie theaters, temples, and other public shootings that have happened? Those weren't gun-free zones.

A better approach when it comes to schools might just be to have an officer on duty at all times in the school. Maryland does that for K-12 (or at least the county I went to school in).

As for gun accidents, there are a few hundred cases every year. Having arms in even more households (let alone schools, hospitals, etc.) would surely make it worse. Accidents are accidents, they happen. But by limiting exposure, you also limit the number of accidents.

tecoyah · Dec 18, 2012

misterveritis said:
I understand your desire to be safe. I do not understand your desire to give up your right and obligation to defend yourself.

...snip...

Perhaps you misunderstand my position, as I do not wish to give up my weapons, I simply want the military grade to be reserved for warfare.

"
Henderson, N.C. — A 14-year-old Henderson boy calmly described in a 911 call how he shot an intruder in a home invasion last week.
"I just shot the man. He came around the corner. I shot him. He broke the whole glass out (of the back door)," the teen told the 911 dispatcher.
Authorities said Anthony Henderson Jr. 19, broke into the home at 586 S. Lynnbank Road on Thursday while the teen and his 17-year-old sister were home.
The boy told the dispatcher that Henderson pointed a handgun at him, but Vance County Sheriff Peter White said deputies found no weapon on Henderson.
Henderson stumbled outside after being shot and was found dead on the lawn.
Deputies have charged Andrew Terry, 23, of 113 N. Woods Drive, with felony breaking and entering, conspiracy to commit breaking and entering and injury to real property in the case. They also are searching for two other men – Seneca Henderson, 20, of 907 S. Beckford Drive, No. 134, and Jatwaun Davis, 21, of 199 Belle Russell Road.
The boy's sister called 911 to report that someone was banging on the door trying to get in. She said she was hiding in her bedroom closet but told the dispatcher that her brother had a gun.
After the brother got on the phone, the dispatcher ordered him to put down his shotgun.
"I don't know how many it was (who broke in). Just one came around the corner. I got one more in the chamber. I'm going to shoot again," the boy said.
"Do not, while I’m on the phone, do not fire that firearm, OK?" the dispatcher said.
"What if another one comes in the house, ma'am?" he asked.

"Let me know, OK, if you see anybody. I will let you know (when a deputy gets to the house)," the dispatcher responded.
As the boy and his sister waited for deputies to arrive, he told the dispatcher that he was "perfectly fine," but his sister was "really shaken up."
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

There are valid reasons to retain our Guns.

tecoyah · Dec 18, 2012

Then...we have the Australia Example:

"
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country's new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a "genuine reason" for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. Self-defense did not count. In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upward of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since."
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html

Hard to argue with reality.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html#storylink=cpy

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

myp said:
Lanza and a lot of those murderers committed suicide. Knowing others had guns wasn't going to stop them- they wanted to die in the end. My hypothesis is that they thought targeting schools was more glamorous and can you blame them with the way the media treats them?

And what about the movie theaters, temples, and other public shootings that have happened? Those weren't gun-free zones.

Actually they were. Aurora was gun free. Other theaters were not targeted. The gun free zone was. The temple- gun free unless someone can link to show that weapons were encouraged there. I doubt it myself.
UAH was a gun free zone. Virginia Tech, gun free.

A better approach when it comes to schools might just be to have an officer on duty at all times in the school. Maryland does that for K-12 (or at least the county I went to school in).

If I am the shooter the first death will be the guy in uniform. Then I shall continue on my merry, murderous way. And you are still willfully unarmed.

As for gun accidents, there are a few hundred cases every year. Having arms in even more households (let alone schools, hospitals, etc.) would surely make it worse. Accidents are accidents, they happen. But by limiting exposure, you also limit the number of accidents.

How many accidents have occurred in public by people with concealed carry permits? That is what we are talking about. How many occur in the highways and byways of life.

I have to go to work. I posted my ideas on how to respond to this on another board.

Here is what I wrote:

So what can we do?
What should we do?

Repeal all gun free zone legislation. Nationwide. Allow each school board to determine whether or not they want to be gun free. Hold the board members personally liable for their vote.
Develop the Armored Schools Initiative. Provide block grants to states based on the number and square footage of the schools. Have the money go to the schools to armor the exteriors, internal doors...whatever is appropriate for each school.
Develop the Master Armed Teacher Initiative and competition. Provide block grants to the states to train and arm government employees beginning with teachers and administrators. Give them a month of tactical training with a variety of weapons. Let each individual choose the weapon they prefer and are best able to master. At the end of the training their "graduation" gift can be the handgun of their choice based on their demonstrated proficiency.
Have annual competitions. Begin at the county, city and state levels. Have small individual prizes for the top five competitors in each category. Maybe a sliding scale from $100 per competitor all the way up to $10,000 for the top competitor at each level of competition. At the national level the winner takes home $100K for him or herself with a million dollar prize for the school district.
Change the laws so a trained individual's use of a hand gun to protect anyone cannot be tried criminally or civilly. Have a five member panel determine if the shooting was appropriate. If appropriate the case is closed. If not then take it to trial.

Change concealed carry laws to encourage citizens to become trained and armed. Offer tax benefits to those who train and arm.

myp · Dec 18, 2012

misterveritis said:
Actually they were. Aurora was gun free. Other theaters were not targeted. The gun free zone was. The temple- gun free unless someone can link to show that weapons were encouraged there. I doubt it myself.
UAH was a gun free zone. Virginia Tech, gun free.

If you just assume everything to be gun-free, then the vast majority of public areas with people around are gun-free and by simple statistics most gun crimes will obviously happen in gun-free zones. That doesn't prove anything. Besides, in your scenario how many private businesses would be okay with allowing people to have guns in their stores? Probably not a lot.

misterveritis said:
If I am the shooter the first death will be the guy in uniform. Then I shall continue on my merry, murderous way. And you are still willfully unarmed.

Hold on. The shooter is good enough to kill a cop? What makes you think a kindergarten teacher is going to fare much better? Now I see in your plan there you want to train teachers to use firearms, but do you really think they will be trained better than cops?

misterveritis said:
How many accidents have occurred in public by people with concealed carry permits? That is what we are talking about.

Why is that what we are talking about? It doesn't matter to you how many gun accidents happen in households? Those too are injuries and deaths, after all.

Also, concerning your plan, what happens when teachers say they don't want to use a gun or learn how to use it?

tecoyah · Dec 18, 2012

Yeah...just train 'em and give them guns....what could possibly go wrong:

Pages in category "American police officers convicted of murder"

The following 13 pages are in this category, out of 13 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
B

C

D

Sidney Dorsey

E

Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa

F

Antoinette Frank

L

Stephanie Lazarus

M

Michael Harold Chapel

P

S

Gerard John Schaefer

chris7375 · Dec 18, 2012

whocky said:
Why not have some gun laws? I'm from the UK and to be honest because it is so hard to get a gun stuff like this rarely happens.

Now that been said I'm not saying it is hard to get a gun as you can though what happened today is just beyond belief. I think the laws need changing and tightening A LOT.

Not according to the UN crime statistics report. You rank higher in certain area's of crime more then the US. Though you are behind the US in gun Crimes.

Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
British Crime stats
American Crime stats
Assault victims 2.8% 1.2%
Ranked 2nd. 133% more than United States Ranked 11th.
Believe in police efficiency 72% 89%
Ranked 6th. Ranked 1st. 24% more than United Kingdom
Bribe payers index 7.2 6.2
Ranked 7th. 16% more than United States Ranked 9th.
Car thefts 348,169 1,246,096
Ranked 2nd. Ranked 1st. 3 times more than United Kingdom
Drug offences 183,419 per 100,000 people 560.1 per 100,000 people
Ranked 2nd. 326 times more than United States Ranked 4th.
Murders committed by youths 139 8,226
Ranked 29th. Ranked 3rd. 58 times more than United Kingdom
Murders with firearms 14 9,369
Ranked 29th. Ranked 1st. 668 times more than United Kingdom
Perception of safety > Walking in dark 70% 82%
Ranked 12th. Ranked 2nd. 17% more than United Kingdom
Police
Prisoners 78,753 prisoners 2,019,234 prisoners
Ranked 5th. Ranked 1st. 25 times more than United Kingdom
Rape victims 0.9% 0.4%
Ranked 6th. 125% more than United States Ranked 13th.
Software piracy rate 26% 20%
Ranked 97th. 30% more than United States Ranked 107th.
Suicide rates in ages 15-24 6.7 per 100,000 people 13.7 per 100,000 people
Ranked 15th. Ranked 7th. 104% more than United Kingdom
Suicide rates in ages 25-34 10.6 per 100,000 people 15.3 per 100,000 people
Ranked 15th. Ranked 10th. 44% more than United Kingdom
Total crimes 6,523,706 11,877,218
Ranked 2nd. Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom
Total crime victims 26.4% 21.1%
Ranked 3rd. 25% more than United States Ranked 15th.

Though the overview is not a complete overview of all crimes. I will post the site so you can look at it but the use the UN crime statistic figures.

Europe > United Kingdom > Crime

View full size
Acquitted 54,682 [1st of 30]
Assault victims 2.8% [2nd of 20]
Believe in police efficiency 72% [6th of 17]
Bribe payers index 7.2 [7th of 19]
Car thefts 348,169 [2nd of 46]
Death penalty > Abolition date 1,998 [8th of 64]
Death penalty > Last executed 1,964 [19th of 55]
Drug offences 183,419 per 100,000 people [2nd of 46]
Jails 144 [15th of 80]
Murders committed by youths 139 [29th of 73]
Murders with firearms 14 [29th of 36]
Perception of safety > Walking in dark 70% [12th of 15]
Prisoners 78,753 prisoners [5th of 168]
Rape victims 0.9% [6th of 20]
Software piracy rate 26% [97th of 107]
Suicide rates in ages 15-24 6.7 per 100,000 people [15th of 17]
Suicide rates in ages 25-34 10.6 per 100,000 people [15th of 17]
Total crime victims 26.4% [3rd of 20]
Total crimes 6,523,706 [2nd of 50]
Unpaid diplomatic parking fines 0 [138th of 143]

... View all Crime stats

Though it is the eight version I will see if I can find the tenth report. Though it gives you an idea still that Britain is not far behind the US in violent crimes.

If you view all the crimes on the website England has a higher crime rate then even the US. So saying England is safer could be debatable. In some areas maybe but other areas they lead even the United States. The lead the Us even today in total crimes committed.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

tecoyah said:
Perhaps you misunderstand my position, as I do not wish to give up my weapons, I simply want the military grade to be reserved for warfare.

What does military grade mean?

Automatic weapons require special licenses that are hard to get. No automatic weapons were used to kill those women and children.

We have the Bill of Rights for a reason. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property against all others and against our government. Arms are weapons commonly used by the infantry.

After we gut the second Amendment which one should be next?

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

tecoyah said:
Then...we have the Australia Example:

"
[/I]At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country's new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a "genuine reason" for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. Self-defense did not count. In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upward of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since."
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html

Hard to argue with reality.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html#storylink=cpy

The most important part of your story is the part I left in normal font.
So people now murder each other with other kinds of weapons.

I smell a rat.

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

myp said:
If you just assume everything to be gun-free, then the vast majority of public areas with people around are gun-free and by simple statistics most gun crimes will obviously happen in gun-free zones.

I am not assuming they were gun free zones. They were gun free zones. Of those on your list the one did did not know was the temple. Here is one quote, ""In the last 20 years, every single mass murder of five people or more has taken place in a gun free zone. Now, at some point we've got to ask is there a better way," Pratt told 9News Now.

"Almost never does a mass murder occur in our country outside of a gun free zone. Murderers seem to have it figured out. They might be evil but they're not flat stupid, so if they want to have, for whatever perverse reason, have a large body count, go to a school, or go to an Oregon mall where the guy didn't kill but two people, but that's because his gun jammed, not because he wasn't trying," he said.

And this: "What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone."

And this, "What the Newtown shooting has in common with the Aurora, Colorado James Holmes shooting is that both shootings took place in gun free zones. This is precisely what guaranteed the higher body counts of both of those tragedies.

Gun free zones are death traps

Instead of blaming guns, we should be blaming the delusional idea of "gun free zones." Gun free zones are advertised death traps."

And this, which covers the temple, which, as I had guessed, was a gun free zone, "John Lott, author of the controversial 1999 bestseller More Guns, Less Crime, said in an interview with Newsmax.com Saturday it is no coincidence that mass shootings with multiple victims occur repeatedly in designated gun-free zones such as schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters.

"The problem is, whether it is the Portland [Oregon] shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned," Lott said. "It's not just this year, it's all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect."

The effect, said Lott, is to encourage a killer to believe it will be easier to commit the mayhem he has in mind in an environment where no one will be able to shoot back.

And this, "Gun bans at public colleges and universities have been a hotly debated issue since a Virginia Tech student in 2007 killed 32 and wounded 17 people in a shooting spree that finally ended when, as happened Friday in Newtown, the gunman took his own life. That massacre, still the deadliest school shooting ever, led to arguments by gun-control opponents that the university's gun-free "safe zone" ensured that no one else on the campus would be armed and able to stop the killer."

If you plan to go to school you should consider this one, "A lawsuit filed the following year on behalf of two students and an alumnus at the University of Colorado led to a state Supreme Court decision in March of this year overturning the school's 40-year-old ban on guns."

And this, "In an opinion piece published Friday on the USA Today website, University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds argued that the climate is more than fearful, it is deadly when people are denied the means to defend themselves and others against an armed attack.

"If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself," Reynolds wrote. "And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.""

I believe that government places must allow us to defend ourselves. If a business decides to make itself a gun free zone then the murders are on the owners. They should not be able to escape personal liability.

That doesn't prove anything. Besides, in your scenario how many private businesses would be okay with allowing people to have guns in their stores? Probably not a lot.

And that is why we see mass murders at gun free malls. Business owners should be able to make such rules. They should also be personally liable for murders that take place on their premises.

Hold on. The shooter is good enough to kill a cop?

If there is a guy in uniform then armed or not I would kill him first. Easy Peasy.

What makes you think a kindergarten teacher is going to fare much better? Now I see in your plan there you want to train teachers to use firearms, but do you really think they will be trained better than cops?

Do you see the difference between having to dispatch one likely armed person versus having to deal with lots of armed people? If you suspected or knew that a majority of the teachers and administrators were armed and trained what course of action would you take?

I would look for a softer target.

And if I did not there would be people able to shoot back.

Why is that what we are talking about? It doesn't matter to you how many gun accidents happen in households? Those too are injuries and deaths, after all.

Your concern was that if we had armed people in our midst there would be more accidents. I believe that point is not provable. Nor is it relevant. We have about 35K people killed in car accidents. I just drove home from work. There were lots of cars in the general area.

Also, concerning your plan, what happens when teachers say they don't want to use a gun or learn how to use it?

That would be their individual choice. So I offer an incentive plan. If you train and you concealed-carry you get a huge tax break. For future hires make that part of the conditions for hiring. Over time the majority of people would be armed or considered likely to be armed. Our children would be safe.

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

myp said:
Lanza and a lot of those murderers committed suicide. Knowing others had guns wasn't going to stop them- they wanted to die in the end. My hypothesis is that they thought targeting schools was more glamorous and can you blame them with the way the media treats them? And what about the movie theaters, temples, and other public shootings that have happened? Those weren't gun-free zones.

It is becoming clearer to me that all of the mass killings where five or more people were murdered by one person in one place occurred in a gun free zone.

A better approach when it comes to schools might just be to have an officer on duty at all times in the school. Maryland does that for K-12 (or at least the county I went to school in).

It is an approach. I do not believe it is better. If you have one armed guy he will be the first to die. Now, if you want to make a uniformed officer a part of your solution I suppose that is okay. But it is not a useful answer.

As for gun accidents, there are a few hundred cases every year. Having arms in even more households (let alone schools, hospitals, etc.) would surely make it worse. Accidents are accidents, they happen. But by limiting exposure, you also limit the number of accidents.

We have 200 million firearms in the US. Do you believe that allowing a few hundred thousand teachers to defend themselves and their students we will significantly increase the number of guns?

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

tecoyah said:
Yeah...just train 'em and give them guns....what could possibly go wrong:

It is a reasonable argument. How many police officers are there in the nation? How many committed murder?

myp · Dec 18, 2012

misterveritis said:
I am not assuming they were gun free zones. They were gun free zones. Of those on your list the one did did not know was the temple. Here is one quote, ""In the last 20 years, every single mass murder of five people or more has taken place in a gun free zone. Now, at some point we've got to ask is there a better way," Pratt told 9News Now.

"Almost never does a mass murder occur in our country outside of a gun free zone. Murderers seem to have it figured out. They might be evil but they're not flat stupid, so if they want to have, for whatever perverse reason, have a large body count, go to a school, or go to an Oregon mall where the guy didn't kill but two people, but that's because his gun jammed, not because he wasn't trying," he said.

And this: "What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone."

And this, "What the Newtown shooting has in common with the Aurora, Colorado James Holmes shooting is that both shootings took place in gun free zones. This is precisely what guaranteed the higher body counts of both of those tragedies.

Gun free zones are death traps

Instead of blaming guns, we should be blaming the delusional idea of "gun free zones." Gun free zones are advertised death traps."

Let me put it this way: if the majority of public places are gun free zones across the country, then wouldn't you expect most of the gun crimes to happen in gun free zones? I think you need a more methodological study to prove it was the actual statement of being "gun free" that made it a target.

But you know, maybe you have a point. Even then though, I don't think your goal of arming the whole country will ever feasibly happen because for one, a lot of people don't want to be armed. So even if there are no official gun free zones, people will know some areas will be unofficially gun free. That's just how it is. I'm not sure getting rid of gun free zones changes anything.

misterveritis said:
I believe that government places must allow us to defend ourselves. If a business decides to make itself a gun free zone then the murders are on the owners. They should not be able to escape personal liability.

And if a gun accident happens on the business owners land? Who is liable then?

misterveritis said:
Do you see the difference between having to dispatch one likely armed person versus having to deal with lots of armed people? If you suspected or knew that a majority of the teachers and administrators were armed and trained what course of action would you take?

The "teachers militia" is not going to happen. Logistically it doesn't make sense, financially it would be a mess, and perhaps most importantly, culturally people just aren't going to accept it- starting with teachers. You might want to militarize the country but I feel safe in saying a large percentage of the population if not the majority does not want to do that and hence they will not do that. Good luck trying to get the sort of bill you would need for this kind of thing passed through Congress when most of the constituency (including a lot of corporate special interests that don't want guns in their workplaces) is against it.

Your position to me is way out there and I don't agree with it at all. My opinion aside, I don't think it will happen anytime soon anyway, so there are better solutions- solutions that might actually be implemented- to look at right now.

misterveritis said:
Your concern was that if we had armed people in our midst there would be more accidents. I believe that point is not provable. Nor is it relevant. We have about 35K people killed in car accidents. I just drove home from work. There were lots of cars in the general area.

It is provable. The more guns and gun-carrying, the more accidents you have. Just like the more you drive, the more likely you are to get in a car accident. It is statistics.

As for your car accident point- the benefit is much greater of using a car vs. the risk of getting in an accident. For guns, if you have 500 more gun accidents a year to save two or three massacres- well you are actually doing worse off than you were before.

And I don't understand why you keep suggesting that the accidents are not relevant. If you end goal is to save lives and make it safer for children and everyone, then of course accidents matter. To me it sounds like your goal is not safety, but instead just to push guns onto everyone. At least it seems that way if you think accidents are not relevant.

tecoyah · Dec 18, 2012

misterveritis said:
It is becoming clearer to me that all of the mass killings where five or more people were murdered by one person in one place occurred in a gun free zone.

It is an approach. I do not believe it is better. If you have one armed guy he will be the first to die. Now, if you want to make a uniformed officer a part of your solution I suppose that is okay. But it is not a useful answer.

We have 200 million firearms in the US. Do you believe that allowing a few hundred thousand teachers to defend themselves and their students we will significantly increase the number of guns?

Would it not follow, that the very fact a gun was used in whatever "Zone" make it non "Gun Free"?

In this country there are very few gun free zones unless great measures are put in place. The ability to carry a weapon concealed makes it very unlikely anyone can prevent the weapon without detecting it.

Exactly what do you refer to as a "Gun Free Zone"?

A place that prohibits firearms, or a place that prevents them...these are not the same thing.

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

myp said:
Let me put it this way: if the majority of public places are gun free zones across the country, then wouldn't you expect most of the gun crimes to happen in gun free zones? I think you need a more methodological study to prove it was the actual statement of being "gun free" that made it a target.

As I researched this all mass murders where five or more people were killed in one place by one person occurred in places where citizens were intentionally disarmed by public policy.

But you know, maybe you have a point. Even then though, I don't think your goal of arming the whole country will ever feasibly happen because for one, a lot of people don't want to be armed.

So first build up your straw man. Then show how powerful you are by knocking him over. Awesome.

Can you show me any statement I have made that says I want to arm the whole country?

We can reverse course by repealing all gun free zone laws. We can take that simple, sensible step tomorrow. We can delegate the power to decide if a sxhool will allow guns or not at the school board level. I believe we should hold people personally liable for the way they vote. If a board votes to make a school a gun free zone and a mass murder occurs I believe everyone who voted for it should be held personally liable for it.

So even if there are no official gun free zones, people will know some areas will be unofficially gun free. That's just how it is. I'm not sure getting rid of gun free zones changes anything.

This makes no sense to me. Gun free zones are gun free because of public policy. What would help you be sure? My guess is nothing as you are looking for a way to grab guns from the law abiding.

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

tecoyah said:
Would it not follow, that the very fact a gun was used in whatever "Zone" make it non "Gun Free"?

I will assume that this is a real question.
Gun free zones are created by public laws mostly for government places like schools, government buildings, the courts...
Sometimes those same laws encourage businesses to also designate themselves to be gun free.

It is gun free because the government, by policy, makes it a crime with penalties for people to carry weapons there. That is why gun free zones are so popular with mass murderers. They know that the chance of having someone there with a weapon is small.

In this country there are very few gun free zones unless great measures are put in place. The ability to carry a weapon concealed makes it very unlikely anyone can prevent the weapon without detecting it.

Gun free zones only disarm the law abiding. Let's take school as an example. If you are a teacher and you have a concealed carry permit and take your gun into a gun free school zone and you are discovered your life as a teacher is over. You will be fired and no one will ever hire you again.

Exactly what do you refer to as a "Gun Free Zone"?

It is a place designated by law or by a business owner citing a law where one is not allowed to defend oneself by carrying a firearm. They can be found wherever liberal policy makers have been found in the past. They are based on the misguided idea that crime can be reduced by posting a sign.

I would not prohibit local governments from making gun free zones. I would make the legislative body who does such an evil act to record the votes and hold every affirmative voter personally liable when the inevitable mass murder occurs.

A place that prohibits firearms, or a place that prevents them...these are not the same thing.

You will have to explain this. I cannot.

myp · Dec 18, 2012

misterveritis said:
Can you show me any statement I have made that says I want to arm the whole country?

I should have said all teachers (but by your rhetoric it sounds like you want guns everywhere). Either way, my statement stands. And especially so when you consider teachers- I know a lot of teachers personally who would never be okay with having a gun in the classroom whether or not they were trained to use it.

Your public policy proposal is scary to me (and I am sure to a lot of teachers) in that you want to tie compensation (with the bonuses or whatnot) with gun training and skill for teachers.

misterveritis said:
We can reverse course by repealing all gun free zone laws. We can take that simple, sensible step tomorrow. We can delegate the power to decide if a sxhool will allow guns or not at the school board level. I believe we should hold people personally liable for the way they vote. If a board votes to make a school a gun free zone and a mass murder occurs I believe everyone who voted for it should be held personally liable for it.

There are a few points you still didn't respond on from the last post. You might still be making those posts, I don't know, but it comes up here again- who is liable for gun accidents?

misterveritis said:
This makes no sense to me. Gun free zones are gun free because of public policy. What would help you be sure? My guess is nothing as you are looking for a way to grab guns from the law abiding.

I don't think the theater and the temple were gun free zone out of policy, were they? My greater point here is that a gun free zone out of policy or out of individual action is in effect the same thing. If all people in a certain area choose not to have guns, it becomes gun free whether or not the government said it should be that way.

I don't want to grab anything from anyone. I want to reduce the number of gun deaths. And that last sentence again compels me to think that you are making a pro-gun argument here as opposed to one based on the utility of the citizenry.

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

A Nay-sayer Emerges

myp said:
And if a gun accident happens on the business owners land? Who is liable then?

What does current law say? Who caused the accident?

The "teachers militia" is not going to happen.

Really? Why not allow teachers and administrators defend themselves?

Logistically it doesn't make sense,

What logistical problems do you see? Who will have these problems?

financially it would be a mess,

What financial problems do you see? Changing the tax code is pretty easy. Prove you have trained, have a concealed carry permit and you get a significant tax break. For the tactical training make it one of those programs that can be block granted to the states. The government wastes vast amounts of our money. This seems to be a reasonable thing to do.

and perhaps most importantly, culturally people just aren't going to accept it- starting with teachers.

Cultures change over time. Offering financial incentives changes people's behavior. This time let's change their behavior to society's benefit. We can make a willingness to be trained and to have a concealed carry permit a part of future employment. Eventually the majority of teachers and administrators would be armed. And that would mark the end of mass murders at schools.

You might want to militarize the country but I feel safe in saying a large percentage of the population if not the majority does not want to do that and hence they will not do that.

I do not think you have a clue about how many people all around you already carry concealed weapons. And there will be even more after this. Also, it does not require a majority. But it does require men and women of character and courage who are willing to be responsible for themselves. You won't even need to lift a finger.

Good luck trying to get the sort of bill you would need for this kind of thing passed through Congress when most of the constituency (including a lot of corporate special interests that don't want guns in their workplaces) is against it.

One step at a time. We have already seen significant moves at the state level toward allowing their citizens the opportunity for self defense. All of my ideas can be implemented without federal action except the block grants.

Your position to me is way out there and I don't agree with it at all. My opinion aside, I don't think it will happen anytime soon anyway, so there are better solutions- solutions that might actually be implemented- to look at right now.

Do you have any examples of anything new thinking?

misterveritis · Dec 18, 2012

myp said:
I should have said all teachers (but by your rhetoric it sounds like you want guns everywhere). Either way, my statement stands. And especially so when you consider teachers- I know a lot of teachers personally who would never be okay with having a gun in the classroom whether or not they were trained to use it.

We change the culture by changing the incentives. Do you know any of the teachers at the University of Colorado? They can now carry concealed weapons. CU is now safe from mass murders. Teachers, administrators, and students can now carry concealed weapons.

Your public policy proposal is scary to me (and I am sure to a lot of teachers) in that you want to tie compensation (with the bonuses or whatnot) with gun training and skill for teachers.

What is it about self defense that frightens you? Why shouldn't the government be held accountable? They force us into government schools, then force us to be extremely vulnerable. So the teachers and administrators should be trained, armed and compensated for concealed carry. Everyone would be safer.

There are a few points you still didn't respond on from the last post. You might still be making those posts, I don't know, but it comes up here again- who is liable for gun accidents?

The law is generally clear. Who caused the accident? That person bears responsibility. The law does need to provide more cover for a business that does NOT declare itself gun free.

I don't think the theater and the temple were gun free zone out of policy, were they?

I cannot tell about the theater. Most businesses cite a public law for their justification. The same probably applies to the Temple.

My greater point here is that a gun free zone out of policy or out of individual action is in effect the same thing. If all people in a certain area choose not to have guns, it becomes gun free whether or not the government said it should be that way.

This seems laughable on its face. If you and a few of your friends decide to travel together disarmed you are not creating a gun free zone. Or do you intend to wear matching jackets that say "Gullible and willing victim here--Gun Free!"

I don't want to grab anything from anyone. I want to reduce the number of gun deaths. And that last sentence again compels me to think that you are making a pro-gun argument here as opposed to one based on the utility of the citizenry.

So you are not willing to use these murders to advance your political view? I have come up with sensible, easy solutions that do not require the destruction of the Second Amendment. If the Second goes the rest are also in danger.

The science of gun crimes

Similar threads