Yet another mass shooting...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Seriously people.  We have roughly 1 gun in private ownership for every person in this country.  Is it that hard to grasp that the proliferation of guns in our society may just have something to do with our higher homicide rates?  Just maybe?

 

Nah, instead we somehow push it off to evil hearts and veiled references to "demographics".

 

All I know is that when I hear hoofbeats I don't assume they are caused by zebras.

 

[Tanaqui]

Okay, that's 141 pages long. I'm not going to read that whole thing. Since you have, Katy, do you mind telling me what page this reasoning was on? Within ten pages, maybe?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Tanaqui

[goldberry]

Ya know, some of the stuff that is being argued about here is already in the law.

 

For instance, semi-automatic (assault) weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are illegal to sell here in CA.

 

Even just possession of automatic firearms and short barreled shotguns and rifles is prohibited.

 

We have gun control here.  Already. 

 

Any regulation that does not apply to the entire country is close to meaningless.  There is no way that creates any meaningful change when it is so easy to work around.

[SKL]

So anyway, they had how many pipe bombs in their house?  I think maybe we need to outlaw pipes.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's right, he purposely chose areas where there would not be police or many guns so he could kill more people.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0

 

The only quote I can find specifically references cops, not guns.

 

"Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all over the state to have a spring break party on Del Playa Street. I figured this would be the perfect day to attack Isla Vista, but after watching Youtube videos of previous Deltopia parties, I saw that there were way too many cops walking around on such an event. It would be impossible to kill enough of my enemies before being dispatched by those damnable cops.â€

[Tanaqui]

There could be a quote mentioning guns, maybe. As I said, it's 141 pages. I do not have the energy for that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There could be a quote mentioning guns, maybe. As I said, it's 141 pages. I do not have the energy for that.

 

I did a search in the pdf and online and couldn't find anything else.

[Tanaqui]

I'm trying to be open-minded. Maybe somebody else will find it!

[redsquirrel]

People who are afraid of guns frequently feel safer when they are not around...  yet criminals who plan to shoot strangers frequently choose gun-free zones.  Elliot Rodgers wrote extensively about this.  The place he wanted to kill people had too many cops, so he chose other areas.

 

If you've ever lived out in the country and called the sheriff when someone was trying to break into your home and you didn't have a gun you might not feel as safe living in an area without quick police response time. Luckily in our case we had a neighbor who was armed saw what was going on and the person trying to break in ran. Shots were fired and it still took 4 hours for a deputy to show up!

 

This is an emotional issue, but emotions are frequently not logical.

 

Frequently?  The shooter at Sandy Hook picked his old elementary school and passed other schools on the way there.  I have no idea if it was a 'gun free zone'. The Charleston shooter specifically picked the church that had the most significant history in the local African American community. Again, I have no idea if it was an official  gun free zone. The Columbine shooters shot up the school they attended with intention to shoot their school mates. I don't know if that was a gun free zone, it did have armed guards though.  But those boys picked the school because they wanted to kill the specific students in that school.

 

The Aurora shooters own journals let us know that the gun free status had nothing to do with why he picked it. He picked that location, in his own words, mind you, because it was big enough to hold a lot of people and the weirdest part to me...he could find parking close by. He spent a lot of time writing about his plan, and gun laws didn't come up once. The Santa Barbara shooter went looking specifically for a place with a lot of 'sorority girls' so he could punish them for not wanting to have sex with him. Again, I have no idea if the downtown area of Santa Barbara is a 'gun free' zone. He started that one by stabbing the three men he lived with and then drove around and shot women, and a couple men.  He did plan it b/c first he uploaded a video to Youtube detailing his plans. Gun laws had nothing to do with why he picked the locations, rather it was his own sick sense of entitlement.

 

I think it is a glaring error to think that perpetrators of mass murder are rational. When these public shootings happen, those who favour protecting guns frequently deflect to the topic of mental illness, that the shooters are deranged people who needed better mental health services.  Well, which is it? Are they deranged and trapped in their own violent fantasies, or are they investigating local gun statutes to determine where to find targets.

 

"In reality, many shooters target a location based on an emotional grievance or an attachment to a particular person or place. An FBI study of 160 active shootings (defined as a shooter actively attempting to kill people in a populated area, regardless of the amount of fatalities) between 2000 and 2013 — including the high-profile mass shootings in Tucson and Aurora — shows that of the shootings that occurred in commercial or educational areas, the shooter had some relationship with the area in 63 percent of the cases."

 

Shooting deaths are about relationships. It could be the relationship between the shooter and the victim and/or the shooter and the location.  To say that it is about 'gun free zones' is to willfully ignore a lot of facts.

[Pam in CT]

re: guns don't kill people, evil people do...

Nope.  It's a good soundbite but, no.

 

Evil prevails when I carry a gun, just in case.

 

Evil prevails when I carry a gun into church.

 

Evil prevails when I say I "need" one, just in case - even though I live in a town with police response times of minutes.

 

Evil prevails when I buy into the idea that more guns is the solution.

 

Evil prevails when I, as a civilian, say guns are the answer to any problem.

 

Evil prevails when I accept that guns = patriotism.

 

Evil prevails when I say that I'd be irresponsible to not have a gun.

 

Evil prevails when I can't see the connection between current gun culture & my gun & can't recognize my contribution towards it.

 

If I were, God forbid, shot & killed, then sure - evil prevailed in that moment.  But I won't let evil prevail in my life, even if it might in my death.  Fortunately, I don't live in a place where that is at all likely, even if possible.  I'm guessing most other people posting also don't, if they're honest.

 

And if somehow there were a magic wand that could remove all evil from the world, I for one would be willing to wave it, arguments about free will, the Constitution or personal liberties be d@mned.   

 

Similarly, if there were a magic wand that could somehow remove all implements of mass destruction from all people -- the people we categorize as "bad" and everyone else too, all at one swoop or in sequence if that's somehow preferable -- guns, sure, but since we're dreaming I'll pile on pipe bombs and switchblades and IEDs and, let's go for it, nuclear bombs and chemical weapons and biological weapons etc as well -- well, I'd wave that magic wand too.  (FWIW, I actually see the two as acting in relationship with one another, but that's a bit of a sidebar.)

 

But whether we like it or curse it, this is the world we're actually in.

 

 

Since both magic wands are imaginary, and both scenarios are impossible, the work in the world we really inhabit is not to ELIMINATE evil or mass violence or the tools that enable it.  The work is to reduce it.  Evil will always exist, sure; nonetheless we don't throw up our hands and give up: we still try to bring up our kids to value kindness rather than cruelty, to define societal laws focused on protection rather than exploitation, to recognize wrongdoers promptly and contain the damage, to safeguard against people being falsely labeled "wrongdoers" in our fervor and haste.  We attempt to contain evil even the job will never be completed.

 

Weapons (of all sorts) will similarly always exist.  The work is to contain the damage they wreak, in part by doing what (imperfect) things we can to keep them out of the hands of people such as children and mentally unstable adults and known felons, to ensure that they are properly secured, to ensure that those who have them are properly trained in their use, to track vendors and the distribution chain of where their weapons end up, etc.  

 

In this thread and in the prior ones, the last time around this issue, a number of posters on both sides of gun ownership have discussed a number of concrete actions (on the part of individual owners) and policies (on the part of LEO and government at various levels) that are NOT all-or-nothing and which aim at containing different aspects of this problem.  That's the only way we'll lurch to a better place.  

 

 

 

That there is no perfect solution and that we will never finish the work doesn't mean we can't -- we don't have an obligation to -- pick up and start.

 

 

[Katy]

Okay, that's 141 pages long. I'm not going to read that whole thing. Since you have, Katy, do you mind telling me what page this reasoning was on? Within ten pages, maybe?

 

The most quoted section is on page 131.  He also mentions similar thoughts on 110, 118, and 134.

[Kristie in Florida]

I'm sorry but this seems like such a lame argument. Guns and bombs kill way more people much faster than any other method perpetrated by people. I've heard the one about Cain killing Able with a rock too. I can only say that I'd much rather be up against someone with a rock than a gun any day.

I wasn't clear and I posted without thinking it through first. I was actually thinking about bombs when I posted it. I was also thinking about violence in general.

 

It may be a lame argument, I don't know. I was sad at the situation when I posted.

[December]

So anyway, they had how many pipe bombs in their house?  I think maybe we need to outlaw pipes.

 

 

They weren't successful in getting any of their explosives to detonate though.  So if they hadn't have had access to guns, perhaps there wouldn't have been any casualties.  It doesn't appear that they wanted to die.  They disguised themselves and went home afterwards.  I think they thought maybe they could get away with it and not even be caught.  Maybe they were thinking about their baby.  I wonder if this made them take a more cautious approach to their explosives (not wanting to blow themselves up) which resulted in the explosives failing to go off.  I just think it's a mistake to say, "Oh, people will always find a way to kill if they really want to."  Yes, some people will, but even more people who might have gone on shooting sprees might decide that it's not worth it to them to attempt a knife spree or a suicide bombing.

[Tanaqui]

The most quoted section is on page 131.  He also mentions similar thoughts on 110, 118, and 134.

 

Okay, I'll check through it shortly and see what it says.

 

I think it is a glaring error to think that perpetrators of mass murder are rational. When these public shootings happen, those who favour protecting guns frequently deflect to the topic of mental illness, that the shooters are deranged people who needed better mental health services.  Well, which is it? Are they deranged and trapped in their own violent fantasies, or are they investigating local gun statutes to determine where to find targets.

 

I disagree with the premise that mass shooters are usually mentally ill... unless we're willfully redefining "mentally ill" to include "anybody who commits mass murder" in which case whatevs.

 

However, it is possible to be completely deranged and yet also be capable of careful planning. Just going to point that out.

[Tanaqui]

I just think it's a mistake to say, "Oh, people will always find a way to kill if they really want to."  Yes, some people will, but even more people who might have gone on shooting sprees might decide that it's not worth it to them to attempt a knife spree or a suicide bombing.

 

You know, we find the same thing with suicides. It's easy to say "Look, if we block off the bridge a really determined jumper will find a way", but by and large they don't. If you make it harder to get the tools to kill oneself, suicides go down until you're stuck with only the really determined ones.

[Katy]

Yes, the testimony of the Aurora shooter, who was trying to minimize his sentence, is definitely reliable. :huh:  He chose the only one of 7 theaters that ban guns.  He chose a weeknight when the crowd was sure to be thin.  He drove past several other theaters on the way there, but gun policies had nothing to do with it. 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

Yes, shooting people you know is relational.  Shooting strangers is not.  People who shoot strangers do tend towards places where they can kill as many people as possible before someone stops them.  That includes both police and armed civilians.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The most quoted section is on page 131.  He also mentions similar thoughts on 110, 118, and 134.

 

I still can't find any mention of gun free zones or picking a target where people can't carry guns.  He does frequently mention not wanting a target with cops on patrol and expresses concern about cops ending his shooting spree.

 

You have repeatedly claimed he picked a "gun free zone" yet you have not backed up that claim.

[SKL]

I really think people jump to "gun control" because they feel that is something we might have the power domestically to change.  We apparently have no idea how to stop people from deciding they want to massacre civilians.  We hear a lot of rumbling and we know stuff is going on and we don't know how to stop it other than to say "gun control!"

 

We already have gun control.  California, Chicago, Connecticut, etc., plenty of gun control.  Mass murder conspirators don't sit down and think, "well, maybe I shouldn't use guns to kill all these people because of the gun laws."

[kroe1]

According to this data, there is not much of a homicide difference between the U.S. and Europe. In addition, many European countries have the same or higher homicide rates than the U.S. because not all European countries are alike. A difference of one or two people per 100,000 population is not a big deal.

 

Now if one wants to talk why there is such a huge difference in crime between African nations or Mexico and the U.S. then we might have something worthy of analyzing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Katy]

I still can't find any mention of gun free zones or picking a target where people can't carry guns.  He does frequently mention not wanting a target with cops on patrol and expresses concern about cops ending his shooting spree.

 

You have repeatedly claimed he picked a "gun free zone" yet you have not backed up that claim.

 

Alpha Phi IS a gun free zone.

[OH_Homeschooler]

You know, we find the same thing with suicides. It's easy to say "Look, if we block off the bridge a really determined jumper will find a way", but by and large they don't. If you make it harder to get the tools to kill oneself, suicides go down until you're stuck with only the really determined ones.

 

Yep, you never know if one additional deterrent will be what it takes for someone to notice something is off and prevent someone from doing something awful. 

[mamiof5]

Please, please, please remember that when you speak of abortion in a public venue, you are being heard by women who have walked this path for many reasons. I've listened to enough women's stories to know that it is not always a matter of a mother believing "it is totally OK to kill this human life whenever you feel like it". We can only keep the number of abortions at a minimum if we have a deep understanding of the many reasons why women make this choice. Please try to choose wise and thoughtful words when you speak to those women; and know that you are speaking to them whenever you write here.

You are totally absolutely right, and I truly apologize, my intention wasn't to hurt anyone's feelings. I know everyone's circumstances are different. I was a young single mom, and this topic touches my heart directly. My baby is almost 20 years old, and I can't imagine our lives without her. My heart boils quite a bit when it comes to the evil of abortion, not against the mom facing a tough situation though! I do get sad and upset when people refer to human babies as " just tissue", like if they are just a bunch of matter. I also can't conceive the whole PP and selling of baby parts. That is when the prolife in me just boils, but never, by any means, trying to criticize someone facing the tough situation. I wish women considering it could find a viable option, in which not mom or baby get harmed. I pray for this every day.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Alpha Phi IS a gun free zone.

 

You said the shooter picked that spot as it was a gun free zone.  You then linked his manifesto.  His manifesto doesn't say anything of that sort.

Shenanigans.

[Katy]

From this National Review article:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools. I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons. “Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,†Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.â€

 

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.†There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue†laws. Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone†revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West†status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns. In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

[Tanaqui]

It's a good thing the Aurora theater banned guns. If there had been more than one shooter, more people would have died. I do not believe for one minute that more guns would have helped the situation even a little bit. Panicked people running everywhere, shooting downwards in a darkened theater full of smoke at a target wearing body armor and a helmet? People would have gotten shot, sure - but it's not plausible that any of those people would have been the shooter.

[Tanaqui]

Alpha Phi IS a gun free zone.

 

Still haven't read the linked pages, still intend to (just not looking forward to it, you understand) - do you have a citation for this statement as well?

[Katy]

It's a good thing the Aurora theater banned guns. If there had been more than one shooter, more people would have died. I do not believe for one minute that more guns would have helped the situation even a little bit. Panicked people running everywhere, shooting downwards in a darkened theater full of smoke at a target wearing body armor and a helmet? People would have gotten shot, sure - but it's not plausible that any of those people would have been the shooter.

 

I am not saying someone should have shot back.  I am saying he would not have chosen a theater where it would be possible for someone to shoot back.  If you avoid taking your family to gun free zones, you are safer even if you never own or touch a gun.

[Laura Corin]

According to this data, there is not much of a homicide difference between the U.S. and Europe. In addition, many European countries have the same or higher homicide rates than the U.S. because not all European countries are alike. A difference of one or two people per 100,000 population is not a big deal.

 

Now if one wants to talk why there is such a huge difference in crime between African nations or Mexico and the U.S. then we might have something worthy of analyzing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

I haven't gone through all the figures, but the UK is at 1, Canada is at 1.4,  Australia is at 1.1 and the US is at 3.8.  Comparing (majority) Anglo-Saxon cultures might be a good starting point.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Laura Corin

[Joker]

I am not saying someone should have shot back. I am saying he would not have chosen a theater where it would be possible for someone to shoot back. If you avoid taking your family to gun free zones, you are safer even if you never own or touch a gun.

Do you honestly believe mass shootings will end if guns are allowed everywhere? I sure as heck don't. I think we would just have more fatalities.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

From this National Review article:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools. I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons. “Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,†Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.â€

 

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.†There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue†laws. Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone†revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West†status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns. In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

 

I wonder where Lott gets the figure for the bolded considering that he and Landes do not make any such claim about the mass shootings (1977-1995) included in their paper?

 

 

[Tanaqui]

I don't think the evidence actually backs that up. The research you cited excluded a good number of shootings that didn't fit the pre-determined model. Additionally, this is all based on the premise that having a gun will stop a shooter. I have not seen any evidence to back that assertion either.

 

You want to be safe from mass shootings? Move out of the US. Or, barring that, live in a state on the bottom of this list. Interesting list, really. I wonder what the correlation is between "low homicide deaths" and "strict gun control laws".

[Katy]

Do you honestly believe mass shootings will end if guns are allowed everywhere? I sure as heck don't. I think we would just have more fatalities.

 

No, but banning them from places has backfired to the point of it being more dangerous to go places they are banned.

 

It is not safe to go to a gun free zone.

 

Is it statistically still more likely you'll die in a car crash or plane crash?  Probably.  Is it still more dangerous to work on Wall Street or at the US Capital than it is to go to an area movie theater in a place like Aurora, CO or Lafayette, LA?  Absolutely.  That still doesn't mean that if given the choice, you are safer in places where guns aren't banned in public.

 

From a statistical standpoint, don't own a gun.  It's not safe.  If you are a victim of gunfire in this country it is much more likely to be the result of suicide or accident than murder.  If it is murder, it's probably due to gang violence or domestic violence.

 

But most of us don't live in areas of high gang violence.  Most of us don't choose to stay with abusive partners. Most of us feel insulated from that and terrorized every time there is a mass shooting of strangers.  To avoid mass shootings of strangers, avoid gun-free zones.  Criminals go to target rich, low-hazard environments.  That's what gun free zones are.  That economic study by Lott might be more than 15 years old, but it still hasn't changed.

[Katy]

 Plus, he was only trying to defend those poor innocent infants from being ripped untimely from their mothers wombs' and being dismembered for their body parts, while they lie gurgling and kicking on the operating table...how can we call him a terrorist ? Isn't he more like a....martyr ?

 

Do you have a source for this?  Last I heard he was shooting out of the clinic, not in it, and no one stated it was about abortion at all.

[Stacia]

Do you have a source for this?  Last I heard he was shooting out of the clinic, not in it, and no one stated it was about abortion at all.

 

Google "Planned Parenthood Shooting". There are lots of articles that mention it being related to his views on abortion. USA Today has one of them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Reviewing the Lott and Landes paper now...not sure if I agree with their methodology of excluding certain mass shootings from inclusion in the study. 

[Katy]

Google "Planned Parenthood Shooting". There are lots of articles that mention it being related to his views on abortion. USA Today has one of them.

 

Yes, but most of them either mention a wife who hasn't seen him for 10 years or are about that Ted Cruz guy claiming he was a left wing transgendered woman.  When I looked into that it was a misquote.

[Tanaqui]

Do you have a source for this?  Last I heard he was shooting out of the clinic, not in it, and no one stated it was about abortion at all.

 

 

 

A number of people who knew Mr. Dear said he was a staunch abortion opponent. Ms. Micheau, 60, said in a brief interview Tuesday that late in her marriage to Mr. Dear, he told her that he had put glue in the locks of a Planned Parenthood location in Charleston.

 

“He was very proud of himself that he’d gone over and jammed up their locks with glue so that they couldn’t get in,†she said.

 

But another ex-wife, Pamela Ross, said that he did not obsess on the subject of abortion. After his arrest, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts†to investigators, a law enforcement official said.

 

At least one person who knew him said that he opposed abortion, he said "no more baby parts" after his arrest, and the shooting was at Planned Parenthood.

 

Honestly, I find that evidence pretty compelling.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Have you actually read the study?  They compared shall issue states vs states that do not issue.  The repeated reference of the words "gun free zone" to their study is false, as they simply never used those words.

[Katy]

Reviewing the Lott and Landes paper now...not sure if I agree with their methodology of excluding certain mass shootings from inclusion in the study. 

 

I've got to step away for a bit.  Please copy & paste anything you find relevant.

 

I've heard references to that study so frequently from those to the right of me if I'd like to know if I should change my opinion on it, and don't have time to google today.

[Tanaqui]

Reviewing the Lott and Landes paper now...not sure if I agree with their methodology of excluding certain mass shootings from inclusion in the study. 

 

Be sure to give us your synopsis when you're done. So many things to read, so little time.

[8circles]

No. I reject the premise unless you are talking about working on the hearts and minds of men to increase the value they give to the lives of others and the restraining of evil in their hearts through fear of the penalties of violating the freedom and agency of another.

 

If we want to talk much, much harsher penalties for any level of violent crime and changing the entire landscape of our culture with regard to life then we may agree. But focusing on the implement and not the impulse misses the point entirely.

 

Ugh, I typed a whole post & lost it.

 

I'm home again now & want to respond to something else in your post.  It feels like you're hinting at certain Xian principles but then you get political & I don't understand that.  Xianity is not political.

 

I'm happy to talk about harsher penalties for violent crime as long as we also talk about harsher penalties for "accidental" shootings in homes because guns weren't kept locked away, loaded guns accidentally left in public restrooms, and against gun owners who don't keep their guns safe from theft and are used for crime.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Be sure to give us your synopsis when you're done. So many things to read, so little time.

 

It is an interesting concept for a study but the time frame and the criteria they set for what qualifies as a mass shooting seems to me to create a sample that can be easily skewed.  How this study is being represented is quite misleading as well.

 

In summary, they are comparing mass shooting rates (2 more people killed) across states and comparing the rates in states with shall issue (ie more easy to get) concealed weapons laws vs those that do not.

 

Their conclusion, which is backed up by their regression analysis, is that states with shall issue laws have lower mass shooting rates than those without them.  (Note: they never use phrases like "gun free zones" as the paper is from 2000).  They do even go a step farther and compare rates after states have changed to shall issue laws. 

 

The issue I have is that in most years during that time frame the shootings that meet their definition are quite low (under 40), and the states with shall issue licenses is significantly smaller number than those without them.  They do try to control for population and other possible factors, but with a relatively short time frame and relatively few occurrences per year when distributed across all states, just a handful of shootings either way can skew the numbers greatly.

Edited December 3, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Stacia]

Yes, but most of them either mention a wife who hasn't seen him for 10 years or are about that Ted Cruz guy claiming he was a left wing transgendered woman.  When I looked into that it was a misquote.

 

NBC's report includes:

 

 

Police have not released a motive for the shooting, but Vicki Cowart, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, said that witnesses to the shooting reported that Dear "was motivated by opposition to safe and legal abortion."

 

Investigators have not confirmed the claim, but two law enforcement officials told NBC News on Saturday that upon questioning, Dear made a comment about "no more baby parts" in an apparent reference to Planned Parenthood. The officials stressed that Dear's comments were made amidst a flurry of "rantings" that also included statements about politics and President Barack Obama.

 

I know it's all hearsay at this point & facts may or may not come out by the trial (or not at all), but it's not as if Planned Parenthood hasn't been targeted before (from miscellaneous vandalism to extreme violence/shooting). This particular person may have also vandalized Planned Parenthood a long time ago. Purely my opinion, but I'm thinking him shooting at Planned Parenthood wasn't just random shooting. If so, why didn't he choose any one of the other businesses or offices in the area? From what I saw in news reports, "Planned Parenthood" was clearly displayed (large sign) on the outside of the building.

[8circles]

Because we are a society producing profoundly sick individuals while providing next to no care management for the mentally ill. Blaming guns is to ignore the root of the problem. There is no innate value to a human life any more.

 

On this bold point I would agree with you.

 

When we decide that we need guns to solve any and all problems, we have decided that human life is worth nothing.

[Murphy101]

No, you don't. You play a false middle ground position like always.

 

And I am stomping my foot. And people like me will continue to do so as there is no other way to be heard over the NRA.

 

And FTR, we are gun owners and both DH and I support much tougher gun control laws.

This makes no damn sense.

 

Are you saying I don't really hold to a middle ground position?

 

Or are you saying there is not a middle ground at all?

 

I do not own guns even though I do think gun ownership is a right.

I too am for more gun restrictions, tho I may or may not agree with all of the ones you do.

 

But hey. If you think I'm a liar or you think there is no middle ground, then there's zero point to discussing this at all.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A more recent and more comprehensive look at RTC laws:

 

http://www.utdallas.edu/senate/documents/MassPublicShootings_000.pdf

 

Note: As mentioned above, one of my objections with the Lott and Landes paper was the low probability of the shootings used in the study.  Low probability is still an issue in this work but this time is controlled for by using negative binomial regression.

 

Cliffs:

--RTC laws do not deter mass shootings

--There is no evidence RTC laws decrease the number of killed or wounded in mass shootings

--There also is no evidence that RTC laws increase mass shootings by allowing potential shooters to carry more openly

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are you saying I don't really hold to a middle ground position?

 

 

Correct.

[HRAAB]

This makes no damn sense.

 

Are you saying I don't really hold to a middle ground position?

 

Or are you saying there is not a middle ground at all?

 

I do not own guns even though I do think gun ownership is a right.

I too am for more gun restrictions, tho I may or may not agree with all of the ones you do.

 

But hey. If you think I'm a liar or you think there is no middle ground, then there's zero point to discussing this at all.

 

This is what worries me about many issues in our country today.  It's one extreme or another.  In this case no one owns guns except LEO/military or every citizen of legal age owns a gun.  If these extremes can't start working towards a middle ground, we're screwed.  It seems most people on this thread support gun ownership and most of those would support stricter gun laws.  Right there is a middle ground.  In this case, I'm firmly in the middle somewhere between the two extremes.

[Murphy101]

You know, we find the same thing with suicides. It's easy to say "Look, if we block off the bridge a really determined jumper will find a way", but by and large they don't. If you make it harder to get the tools to kill oneself, suicides go down until you're stuck with only the really determined ones.

Idk how accurate that is. Sure they might not jump the bridge and I'm happy for that. But what do they do? Take an extra high round of drugs? Step in front of moving vehicle? Suicide by cop?

 

I'd like to think they get help so they don't feel suicidal anymore.

 

But I'm cynical enough to think they simply choose slower methods of self destructing that society doesn't care as much about since it isn't as messy and obvious.

 

I don't have a problem with the bridge barriers or with some more gun restrictions.

 

But I am frustrated by the lack of root problem seeking too.

[Murphy101]

Correct.

I see. Just because you have not won me all the way to your position, doesn't mean I'm all the way on the other side either. But whatever then. *shrug*