The science of gun crimes

myp · Dec 21, 2012

Rather than respond to 15 segmented posts, I will try to respond to your general idea and I'll break down some of the details below.

The "teachers militia" that you want is not a matter of freedom. In fact, it is the opposite of freedom when you offer a "bonus" to teachers who are good shooters vs. those that aren't because in that case not taking the training or carrying a gun effectively becomes lower pay for the teacher. You use the word freedom a lot but don't seem to see how your proposals also are not about freedom. Pure freedom is impossible- it is all relative and I think the option for jurisdictions or employers to set the rules is probably the greatest level of systemic freedom you will get without sacrificing the purpose or security of the schools.

The freedom rhetoric aside, logistically it is an issue because of how many teachers there are across the country and all of the various jurisdictions that have say in what those teachers do. Literally thousands. Financially it is an issue because it would be tremendously costly to train all those teachers and put this program into practice etc.- a massive expansion of government.

Culture- you say cultures can change and you can keep trying to do that by sharing your opinions and why you think they are right, but logistically you are in a very extreme minority position in my opinion (in that I don't think you have a lot of national support for your position). That in mind, you aren't going to get the sort of incentives you want to implement such policy that might lead to culture change. You just aren't going to get it through in the first place because while policy might be able to alter culture (although that in itself is very hard to predict so I'm not sure your incentives would even cause such a change), the current culture (in DC and with constituents) is a major part of what policy gets through in the first place.

As for how many people carry concealed weapons and states moving towards more gun rights- this is really going to be split depending on what state you are in. A lot of states are moving towards more gun regulation, not increased self defense (although some are going in that direction too- point is it isn't a unilateral movement).

Nothing about self defense frightens me. I want what will maximize the utility of the population. If you are taking that approach you have to consider the net consequences and the gun accidents matter in that. Saving 20 lives a year in school shootings won't matter if you have 30 kids die from accidents instead. Made up numbers, but possible numbers and because of that you have to consider that.

And I'll just ignore YOUR political rambles (I am not making a political argument despite your claims) - I have not suggested that I want to destroy the 2nd amendment. Far from it.

tecoyah · Dec 21, 2012

May I just comment misterveritis, that you seem bent on defending rights no one has tried to remove, let alone made comments stating as much. Yet, it seems in your attempt to defend the rights no one has tried to remove you have alienated the very people you need to keep them.

I see little sense in your approach...but I may be missing something here.
http://www.politicalfray.com/member.php?u=10506

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

myp said:
Rather than respond to 15 segmented posts, I will try to respond to your general idea and I'll break down some of the details below.

The "teachers militia" that you want is not a matter of freedom. In fact, it is the opposite of freedom when you offer a "bonus" to teachers who are good shooters vs. those that aren't because in that case not taking the training or carrying a gun effectively becomes lower pay for the teacher. You use the word freedom a lot but don't seem to see how your proposals also are not about freedom. Pure freedom is impossible- it is all relative and I think the option for jurisdictions or employers to set the rules is probably the greatest level of systemic freedom you will get without sacrificing the purpose or security of the schools.

Teachers, administrators, and all other people who work at the schools already have a Second Amendment recognized right to defend themselves. So yes, eliminating the liberal gun free zone laws is a matter of freedom. Liberals have disarmed citizens and grouped them into convenient killing zones.

There are pay bonuses already based upon unique skills. No one gets lower pay if they do not take the training and carry a concealed weapon. They get higher pay if they do.

And look at you. You claim that you are for freedom but do not want to allow the people to decide at the most accountable level, the school board. So Mister or Mrs Freedom, what say you? Why are you against the freedom that you claim you are for?

I would give you a link to some articles about freedom but I really think I would be wasting my time.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

myp said:
The freedom rhetoric aside, logistically it is an issue because of how many teachers there are across the country and all of the various jurisdictions that have say in what those teachers do. Literally thousands.

You have not identified a logistics problem. Of course every teacher will get to choose whether they remain sitting ducks for the next mass murderer or take their duties seriously and choose to be trained and armed.

Financially it is an issue because it would be tremendously costly to train all those teachers and put this program into practice etc.- a massive expansion of government.

Every school board can choose what they want to do. There are plenty of places willing to provide the training. It is a local issue. Local funding or block granted funding can be provided. No growth of government is required. As far as funding the incentives that could be done by the simple expedient of small adjustments to the tax codes at the state and federal level.

If necessary we can stop giving people Obamaphones and use that money for something worthwhile.

myp · Dec 21, 2012

misterveritis said:
Teachers, administrators, and all other people who work at the schools already have a Second Amendment recognized right to defend themselves. So yes, eliminating the liberal gun free zone laws is a matter of freedom. Liberals have disarmed citizens and grouped them into convenient killing zones.

I will ignore your highly politicized rhetoric (with the liberals this and liberals that) and just say that the Bill of Rights is the rights the government grants the people, not the rights an employer grants or the rights available in other collaborations. We give up Bill of Rights rights all the time at work, etc. and the Constitution doesn't say anything against it. For example, at most workplaces you don't have complete 1st amendment rights- you cannot say whatever you want (they can fire you if you say certain things).

misterveritis said:
There are pay bonuses already based upon unique skills. No one gets lower pay if they do not take the training and carry a concealed weapon. They get higher pay if they do.

Which effectively is lower pay. Opportunity cost.

misterveritis said:
And look at you. You claim that you are for freedom but do not want to allow the people to decide at the most accountable level, the school board. So Mister or Mrs Freedom, what say you? Why are you against the freedom that you claim you are for?

You are using freedom as a highly politicized word here. What is freedom to you might not be freedom to me. Besides it is not me who is trying to shove this plan down everyone's throats

You want to do that with your bonuses, etc.- not me. In fact, I was the one who suggested the various jurisdictions should be able to implement polices THEY see fit. Also I don't know why you are assuming that I am making a libertarian argument here - I already said my goals are utilitarian (just so happens that often overlaps with libertarian).

myp · Dec 21, 2012

misterveritis said:
You have not identified a logistics problem. Of course every teach will get to choose whether they remain sitting ducks for the next mass murderer or take their duties seriously and choose to be trained and armed.

The logistical problem is in implementing this nationally across 50 states and maneuvering through thousands upon thousands of local jurisdictions, school boards, etc. and the various bureaucracies involved with that. You don't see a logistical issue there?

misterveritis said:
Every school board can choose what they want to do. There are plenty of places willing to provide the training. It is a local issue. Local funding or block granted funding can be provided. No growth of government is required. As far as funding the incentives that could be done by the simple expedient of small adjustments to the tax codes at the state and federal level.

Lol, now you are asking already cash-strapped municipalities to fund this? Makes your proposal even less likely and an even bigger financial issue than it already was. If you don't know, munis aren't swimming in cash right now and unlike the Federal government they don't have central banks.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

A Culture of Responsibility

myp said:
Culture- you say cultures can change and you can keep trying to do that by sharing your opinions and why you think they are right, but logistically you are in a very extreme minority position in my opinion (in that I don't think you have a lot of national support for your position).

Cultures do change. Once governments began paying for young women to have babies with no at-home father the rate of illegitimacy skyrocketed. So let's change those laws and we can use the "replacing the daddy with a government program" money to pay for something useful.
It matters little to me that you believe my view of freedom and liberty is a minority view. Clearly half of the nation is willing to sell their vote for an Obamaphone, some Obamabucks and other government handouts. More than half of democrats have a favorable view of the most damaging philosophy and form of government yet devised -- socialism. So of course I am facing an uphill battle. So?

That in mind, you aren't going to get the sort of incentives you want to implement such policy that might lead to culture change. You just aren't going to get it through in the first place because while policy might be able to alter culture (although that in itself is very hard to predict so I'm not sure your incentives would even cause such a change), the current culture (in DC and with constituents) is a major part of what policy gets through in the first place.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to be wrong.

None of this requires federal action necessarily. Every local government can repeal its idiotic laws. Every local government can encourage school boards to evaluate the overwhelming evidence that gun free zones are mass murder magnets. And parents can influence every school board.

We must wrest responsibility for our safety from the local, state and federal governments. We are responsible for ourselves and those we are accountable for. It is time we began acting as if we were adults.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

The Right to self defense is not a right the government can take

myp said:
As for how many people carry concealed weapons and states moving towards more gun rights- this is really going to be split depending on what state you are in. A lot of states are moving towards more gun regulation, not increased self defense (although some are going in that direction too- point is it isn't a unilateral movement).

We can agree to disagree on this. We do see the rise of the demagogues who seek to capitalize on this bloody liberal-enabled mass murder to disarm their citizens. We know a very large number of democrat voters are low information voters who think of nothing beyond pot, beer, football, and their government checks.

On the other hand roughly thirty of the fifty states have Republican governments. We prefer that the people be free. And many have already moved toward making it much easier for anyone to get a concealed carry permit.

Nothing about self defense frightens me. I want what will maximize the utility of the population. If you are taking that approach you have to consider the net consequences and the gun accidents matter in that. Saving 20 lives a year in school shootings won't matter if you have 30 kids die from accidents instead. Made up numbers, but possible numbers and because of that you have to consider that.

I leave that calculus up to each school board. The goal is to stop mass killings not accidents or individual murders. Other steps will have to be taken to reduce accidents. It is not clear to me that any measures we take can ever stop murder.

And I'll just ignore YOUR political rambles (I am not making a political argument despite your claims) - I have not suggested that I want to destroy the 2nd amendment. Far from it.

I have to laugh. Thanks for that brief moment of humor.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

Missing the point

tecoyah said:
May I just comment misterveritis, that you seem bent on defending rights no one has tried to remove, let alone made comments stating as much. Yet, it seems in your attempt to defend the rights no one has tried to remove you have alienated the very people you need to keep them.

I see little sense in your approach...but I may be missing something here.
http://www.politicalfray.com/member.php?u=10506

Yep. You have missed the point. Carry on.

myp · Dec 21, 2012

misterveritis said:
Cultures do change. Once governments began paying for young women to have babies with no at-home father the rate of illegitimacy skyrocketed. So let's change those laws and we can use the "replacing the daddy with a government program" money to pay for something useful.

Although cultures can change due to policy, your claim isn't necessarily an example of a cultural change. Also I don't know what policy you are referring to- the government doesn't pay young women to have babies with no father.
I am also not sure there are more illegitimate babies either- teenage pregnancy for one is on the down.

misterveritis said:
It matters little to me that you believe my view of freedom and liberty is a minority view. Clearly half of the nation is willing to sell their vote for an Obamaphone, some Obamabucks and other government handouts. More than half of democrats have a favorable view of the most damaging philosophy and form of government yet devised -- socialism. So of course I am facing an uphill battle. So?

No one said anything about your belief in freedom and liberty. I for one am quite libertarian (possibly moreso than you but I don't know your policy positions so who knows). What I am saying your little teacher militia proposal here is the minority view, not that your view on freedom.

misterveritis said:
That is your opinion and you are entitled to be wrong.

None of this requires federal action necessarily. Every local government can repeal its idiotic laws. Every local government can encourage school boards to evaluate the overwhelming evidence that gun free zones are mass murder magnets. And parents can influence every school board.

We must wrest responsibility for our safety from the local, state and federal governments. We are responsible for ourselves and those we are accountable for. It is time we began acting as if we were adults.

Okay we'll see how close we get to a teacher militia in real life. Time will tell. When a notable amount of the population is upset over having cops in schools (as the NRA proposed today- see my other thread for more on that), there is no way the teacher militia happens in my opinion.

myp · Dec 21, 2012

misterveritis, out of curiosity what matters more to you: sticking with your political team or logic? You seem to like stereotyping and alienating groups with words like "those liberals" and talking about how you like freedom and implying those that don't agree with you don't- which is often complete fabrication, especially in the US where I'd say the vast majority of people do believe in a government that stands by individual freedoms.

You say I am making a political argument, but I am not. I don't have a bone to pick with any group whether it be someone who identifies as a liberal, a conservative, or whatever. I am just trying to take a utilitarian perspective on this- a more scientific approach at the problem, often through the lens of economics. What is your end goal in this discussion? Is it to exchange ideas respectfully or is it to incorrectly label me as a freedom-hating liberal? If it is the latter I don't have any interest in continuing.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

The Source of our Rights is NOT government

Earlier I wrote, "Teachers, administrators, and all other people who work at the schools already have a Second Amendment recognized right to defend themselves. So yes, eliminating the liberal gun free zone laws is a matter of freedom. Liberals have disarmed citizens and grouped them into convenient killing zones."

myp said:
I will ignore your highly politicized rhetoric (with the liberals this and liberals that) and just say that the Bill of Rights is the rights the government grants the people,

This is completely wrong. Governments do NOT grant rights. Good governments recognize the rights we have as a result of our being.

...not the rights an employer grants or the rights available in other collaborations. We give up Bill of Rights rights all the time at work, etc. and the Constitution doesn't say anything against it. For example, at most workplaces you don't have complete 1st amendment rights- you cannot say whatever you want (they can fire you if you say certain things).

You are mixing a few things together. We do not lose our rights because we are employed. I do retain my First Amendment rights even while I am at work. The government cannot stop me from saying things they dislike even while I am at work.

Are you confusing workplace rules with rights not granted? I am expected to conform with my employers rules. I do not lose my rights.

myp · Dec 21, 2012

misterveritis said:
This is completely wrong. Governments do NOT grant rights. Good governments recognize the rights we have as a result of our being.

Well the concept of rights is subjective- it is arguable what is a right, so I phrased it as the government granting it. Change the word to recognize- my point stands; here it is just semantics.

misterveritis said:
You are mixing a few things together. We do not lose our rights because we are employed. I do retain my First Amendment rights even while I am at work. The government cannot stop me from saying things they dislike even while I am at work.

Are you confusing workplace rules with rights not granted? I am expected to conform with my employers rules. I do not lose my rights.

In the same way, it is a workplace rule to not bring weapons to work and that is why it is not a 2nd amendment violation

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

Freedom - who decides?

Earlier I wrote, "And look at you. You claim that you are for freedom but do not want to allow the people to decide at the most accountable level, the school board. So Mister or Mrs Freedom, what say you? Why are you against the freedom that you claim you are for?"

myp said:
You are using freedom as a highly politicized word here.

Freedom has always been a highly politicized word. You could stop politicizing it. As long as you oppose freedom and liberty I will be here to offer the better view.

What is freedom to you might not be freedom to me.

When you make and effort to impose your views of freedom and liberty on me, and it is always with the intention of restricting my liberties and freedoms then of course I will oppose you.

Besides it is not me who is trying to shove this plan down everyone's throats

Yep. There I am cramming the responsibility down everyone's throats to choose at the local level. Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

You want to do that with your bonuses, etc.- not me. In fact, I was the one who suggested the various jurisdictions should be able to implement polices THEY see fit. Also I don't know why you are assuming that I am making a libertarian argument here - I already said my goals are utilitarian (just so happens that often overlaps with libertarian).

I see. You object to offering positive incentives to assist in keeping people safe instead of the negative incentives that unravel society.

It is possible tht you do not have a good handle on what you believe or why you believe it.

myp · Dec 21, 2012

I think you've answered my question in this post: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=35000&postcount=51

Have a good day.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

Gun Free Zones and Mass Killings

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.

No. Most gun crime is one on one crime. I am specifically writing about mass killings where five or more people are murdered by one person, in one place, at one time.

I don't need to study anything. All of the mass killings in the US over the last 20 years has occurred in gun free zones. Do you see some other reason why all of the mass killings have take place where they did?

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.

Then you won't mind getting rid of the laws that create the gun free zones or encourage them. Awesome.

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

We have already discussed this. We use the current laws. I do believe we should change our laws to provide more protection to business owners that do not infringe on their employees and their customers' right to self defense.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

Earlier I wrote, "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?"

myp said:
The "teachers militia" is not going to happen.

Maybe it will. Maybe it will not. Already some states are passing laws allowing their teachers, administrators and other workers to carry concealed weapons. If that makes it a "Teachers' Militia" then we are already beginning to see it happen.
Most teachers are citizens. Citizens are already part of the militia.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

Are potential accidents a reason for the state to disarm citizens?

myp said:
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.

I don't think you understand how freedom works. You get to decide for you. I get to decide for me. If I cause an accident I am liable for it. When more people are armed then the people likely to suffer the consequences are the criminals.

The accidents are not relevant to the discussion. This discussion is about stopping mas killings.

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

myp said:
The logistical problem is in implementing this nationally across 50 states and maneuvering through thousands upon thousands of local jurisdictions, school boards, etc. and the various bureaucracies involved with that. You don't see a logistical issue there?

No. Every school board can decide how they want to address mass killings in their communities. It makes it far easier if every school board decides for itself rather than having a top down big government rule for all.

Lol, now you are asking already cash-strapped municipalities to fund this? Makes your proposal even less likely and an even bigger financial issue than it already was. If you don't know, munis aren't swimming in cash right now and unlike the Federal government they don't have central banks.

Adults have to make had decisions every day. What makes this decision special?

misterveritis · Dec 21, 2012

myp said:
misterveritis, out of curiosity what matters more to you: sticking with your political team or logic?

Do you imply that I have to choose? My positions are internally consistent and are also conservative.

You seem to like stereotyping and alienating groups with words like "those liberals"

Are you arguing that gun free zones are the darling of the right and conservatism? LOL. Let us compile a list of the names and addresses of all of those who voted in favor of gun free zones. Let us see how many are liberals versus those who are conservatives.

You already know the answer don't you? This is an idiotic liberal idea.

...and talking about how you like freedom and implying those that don't agree with you don't- which is often complete fabrication, especially in the US where I'd say the vast majority of people do believe in a government that stands by individual freedoms.

Show me in this argument thread where you have made any effort to defend liberty or freedom.

You say I am making a political argument, but I am not. I don't have a bone to pick with any group whether it be someone who identifies as a liberal, a conservative, or whatever. I am just trying to take a utilitarian perspective on this- a more scientific approach at the problem, often through the lens of economics. What is your end goal in this discussion? Is it to exchange ideas respectfully or is it to incorrectly label me as a freedom-hating liberal? If it is the latter I don't have any interest in continuing.

When you are against easily implemented, sensible steps to stop mass killings then of course you are making a political argument. All of the gun grabbers are making it.

Of course you are welcome to stop at any time.

The science of gun crimes

Similar threads