NRA Has Themselves Another School Shooting..

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Because that’s what speakers and plenty of attendees at the ‘march for our lives’ parade stated as their end game. Add in the articles from various prominent publications.... and you wonder why paranoid conservatives think your ilk are going to order grunts to implement and enforce mandatory gun buy backs (of course you guys won’t do any dirty work yourselves... you order others to commit violence against others on your behalf)

The conservatives are right in this instance. All these new regulations will do jack to murder rates or school shootings. So when these laws fall flat.... we’ll be here once again talking about further ‘common sense’ gun laws, which will always be relative to what is already enforced. You play chess? It’s called seeing 3 moves ahead. It won’t stop at these token laws.

Yeah, nah. None of that will ever happen. Never ever ever. It's just some propoganda get get you guys all riled up. It works pretty well too.

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Yeah, nah. None of that will ever happen. Never ever ever. It's just some propoganda get get you guys all riled up. It works pretty well too.

Maybe, but the way gun control advocates advocate for Australia style gun control (which resulted in more guns in circulation than before their ban), it definitely creates that possibility.

Also, I’m hoping “it will never ever happen” is hyperbole. Voluntary gun buy backs have already been tried at the local level.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Maybe, but the way gun control advocates advocate for Australia style gun control (which resulted in more guns in circulation than before their ban), it definitely creates that possibility.

Also, I’m hoping “it will never ever happen” is hyperbole. Voluntary gun buy backs have already been tried at the local level.

We're not Austraila dude.

Rocinante wrote:Kid was not legally allowed to posses the handgun.  NRA will use this as a "criminals won't follow the law" bullshit.

Policy solution: all guns registered.  If not reported stolen and a crime committed with your gun, you are partially liable.  Gun owners must carry insurance against their gun causing harm.

Nordic wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Kid was not legally allowed to posses the handgun.  NRA will use this as a "criminals won't follow the law" bullshit.

Policy solution: all guns registered.  If not reported stolen and a crime committed with your gun, you are partially liable.  Gun owners must carry insurance against their gun causing harm.

I'm sure we are not the first to think of this, but this has been rolling around in my head as well. If your gun is used in a violent crime you will be charged with a crime. If your kids grab your AK from under the couch and kills someone, you will be charged too (x degree Murder). If it is stolen, you don't report it and it is used in a violent crime, you will be charged. If you want to have guns. Great. Lock your shit up. Don't let anyone have access to them. Or spend time in pound town.

Seems pretty simple.

xsanguine wrote:

Nordic wrote:

I'm sure we are not the first to think of this, but this has been rolling around in my head as well. If your gun is used in a violent crime you will be charged with a crime. If your kids grab your AK from under the couch and kills someone, you will be charged too (x degree Murder). If it is stolen, you don't report it and it is used in a violent crime, you will be charged. If you want to have guns. Great. Lock your shit up. Don't let anyone have access to them. Or spend time in pound town.

Seems pretty simple.

I agree with this.

I.B. Fine wrote:I'm wondering why, amidst all these wonderful ideas to further regulate guns, that would have a questionable impact on future criminal gun use, I hear little or nothing about how the EXISTING laws were overlooked/not enforced, despite multiple neon red flags concerning the kid in Florida, that, if heeded, would have totally prevented that tragedy.
Seems fixing what's already in place would be the more  immediate and productive way to start.
....and shit canning that clown of a sheriff in Broward County would seem to be a good start.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:I'm wondering why, amidst all these wonderful ideas to further regulate guns, that would have a questionable impact on future criminal gun use, I hear little or nothing about how the EXISTING laws were overlooked/not enforced, despite multiple neon red flags concerning the kid in Florida, that, if heeded, would have totally prevented that tragedy.
Seems fixing what's already in place would be the more  immediate and productive way to start.
....and shit canning that clown of a sheriff in Broward County would seem to be a good start.

Agree with this too. Look at us all getting along!

I.B. Fine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Agree with this too. Look at us all getting along!

Back off, Blue boy!

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Running excuse tally sponsored by the firearms manufacturers of America:

1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
2. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
3. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem.
4. If more kids were nice to each other, less school shootings would happen.

How many bad guys with guns are stopped by someone without a firearm?

I.B. Fine wrote:I'm wondering why, amidst all these wonderful ideas to further regulate guns, that would have a questionable impact on future criminal gun use, I hear little or nothing about how the EXISTING laws were overlooked/not enforced, despite multiple neon red flags concerning the kid in Florida, that, if heeded, would have totally prevented that tragedy.
Seems fixing what's already in place would be the more  immediate and productive way to start.
....and shit canning that clown of a sheriff in Broward County would seem to be a good start.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

How many bad guys with guns are stopped by someone without a firearm?

Every guy with a gun thinks he’s the good guy.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Because that’s what speakers and plenty of attendees at the ‘march for our lives’ parade stated as their end game. Add in the articles from various prominent publications.... and you wonder why paranoid conservatives think your ilk are going to order grunts to implement and enforce mandatory gun buy backs (of course you guys won’t do any dirty work yourselves... you order others to commit violence against others on your behalf)

The conservatives are right in this instance. All these new regulations will do jack to murder rates or school shootings. So when these laws fall flat.... we’ll be here once again talking about further ‘common sense’ gun laws, which will always be relative to what is already enforced. You play chess? It’s called seeing 3 moves ahead. It won’t stop at these token laws.

Yeah, nah. None of that will ever happen. Never ever ever. It's just some propoganda get get you guys all riled up. It works pretty well too.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Every guy with a gun thinks he’s the good guy.

How many bad guys with guns are stopped by someone without a firearm?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

How many bad guys with guns are stopped by someone without a firearm?

Honestly? If you remove police who very often prove not to be a good guy it’s probably not as large a disparity as you think.

Rocinante wrote: If you remove police who very often prove not to be a good guy it’s probably not as large a disparity as you think.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Rocinante wrote: If you remove police who very often prove not to be a good guy it’s probably not as large a disparity as you think.

I can't let that statement go unchallenged. There are millions of police interactions every year, we hear only about a very small number of those that are questionable.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

I can't let that statement go unchallenged. There are millions of police interactions every year, we hear only about a very small number of those that are questionable.

How many totally unaccountable police murders are acceptable per year for you?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

I can't let that statement go unchallenged. There are millions of police interactions every year, we hear only about a very small number of those that are questionable.

How many totally unaccountable police murders are acceptable per year for you?

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Honestly? If you remove police who very often prove not to be a good guy it’s probably not as large a disparity as you think.

You think the disparity between bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys with guns and bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys without guns isn't as large as I think?

What do you think I believe the disparity is?

I.B. Fine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
How many totally unaccountable police murders are acceptable per year for you?

Something smells fishy, like old red herring.  
That's not the issue I'm responding to, Roc said 'very often' police are the bad guy, which is not the case.
When, on the rare occasions they break the law, by all means throw the book at them. Don't try to paint me as defending criminals, with or without a badge.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
How many totally unaccountable police murders are acceptable per year for you?

Something smells fishy, like old red herring.  
That's not the issue I'm responding to, Roc said 'very often' police are the bad guy, which is not the case.
When, on the rare occasions they break the law, by all means throw the book at them. Don't try to paint me as defending criminals, with or without a badge.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

You think the disparity between bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys with guns and bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys without guns isn't as large as I think?

What do you think I believe the disparity is?

It doesn't matter, I'm sure you're way off.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

It doesn't matter, I'm sure you're way off.

I just go by the numbers, dude. What are you basing yours off of?

xsanguine wrote:If you got different numbers, share 'em yo.

xsanguine wrote:Than the numbers that show higher defensive use than criminal use.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Than the numbers that show higher defensive use than criminal use.

Sorry, I didn't see those numbers.

DWags wrote:I have a ton of friends with a shit ton of guns.  Respectful of them.  I'd say 90% of those guys think assault shit is so out of line.   But they won't get on line and bitch about it either way.  I don't know, they're just kind of quiet/cool.  One of my friends gives me shit cause I buy meat.  Thing is, those guys are so good with guns, and so safe about them, and so respectful of them.  I just find the guys who scream about the second amendment and bitch about h.s. kids and think they need to have assault weapons if they want them, well, to be kind of pussy.   I don't know, they seem like spastic pussies.  I know that's my problem not theirs.  I have to get over it.  

Whatever.  H.S. kids seem to be kicking the NRA's ass.  Good for them.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Sorry, I didn't see those numbers.

You should check them out.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

You should check them out.

You should probably link them or something I dunno

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You should probably link them or something I dunno

Why play with lying knuckle draggers?  Fuck that.  

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

You should check them out.

You should probably link them or something I dunno

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You should probably link them or something I dunno

Why would I share them with you? It's between Roc and I.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Why would I share them with you? It's between Roc and I.

Feel free to respond to his post then instead

National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine wrote:Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.