More than 20 dead in Vegas

[ktgrok]

 

 

Recommending that the police department in the cities have a well-trained and staffed police force does absolutely nothing for the protection of the 46 million Americans who live in rural areas. Laws prohibiting us from having a gun in the home for protection would leave us as sitting ducks.  

 

 

But would you agree that a simple basic shot gun would be sufficient protection versus an AR? Or that a shotgun would be as good or better than a hand gun?

[Xahm]

Well I am NOT getting into a gun debate. I have tbought it all through for a long time and I do NOT believe in gun control. Thats all. Thats it. I'm out. I'll just cling to my guns over here.

I'm not trying to be mean or personal by quoting this, just using it as a jumping off point.

I think you do believe in gun control. Should your six year old be allowed to go to the store and buy a gun? Obviously no! But not allowing that is gun control. We all believe in some level of gun control. Where the line is, that's where reasonable people disagree. Should a violent felon be allowed to buy a gun? Should a law abiding citizen with a passion for weaponry be allowed to buy a working tank? You might say, "don't be ridiculous, that's not what I'm talking about" but that's my point. We need to figure out what it is we are talking about instead of borrowing talking points from politicians.

[Barb_]

Regarding the bolded - that only works if people only live in cities. For all of us who live in rural areas, it leaves us almost completely defenseless. I do not live in a city, so I don't have a community and I do not have a local police force to protect me. If I have an emergency and I call the police department of the nearest city, the dispatcher will inform me that they cannot help me and hang up. The county sheriff of the county I live in will respond to emergencies if I call, but since that (tiny) office services all rural areas of the entire county I live in (over 1,000 square miles in area), it is a very long response time - long enough that any crime that was being committed would be well over by the time they showed up.

 

I don't think that people who live in cities understand that people who live in rural areas do not have the same public services that people who live in cities have. Go to the website for your city and look at all the departments listed there - those are all the things that we don't have. We don't have the public works, the public safety, the city parks and rec., city libraries, etc. None of it.

 

Recommending that the police department in the cities have a well-trained and staffed police force does absolutely nothing for the protection of the 46 million Americans who live in rural areas. Laws prohibiting us from having a gun in the home for protection would leave us as sitting ducks.

 

 

I don't believe it's coincidence that the rural areas with fewer services also tend to vote small government. I do understand what you're saying and I sympathize. Small towns have fewer people and less money to work with. But they also tend to vote red in local, state and national elections which means less state money and federal money to work with.

 

ETA: sorry didn't finish my point.

 

Small towns also have benefits cities don't. People know their neighbors and keep an eye out for one another. Before drugs infiltrated crime in small towns was very low. I think the answer is to keep weapons away from addicts and vote more dollars to combat the drug problems in small towns.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Barb_

[ktgrok]

Arctic Mama would save zero children's lives by giving up her guns. She is no more responsible for the deaths in Las Vegas or anywhere else than anyone expressing the "correct" thinking on gun control in this thread.

 

No, but a law that says "you can have a gun as long as you don't shoot people with it" doesn't work well, as we've found out. So yes, to stop bad people we may need to inconvenience good people. 

 

Seems saving lives is worth that. 

[Barb_]

Your post supports the point that gun control in this country doesn't go far enough. A multi-pronged approach is the only thing that has a chance of working.

 

Let's take the cancer analogy again. You can try to reverse cancer by changing your lifestyle. That's minimally invasive and in some mild cases of slow growing cancer like maybe prostate cancer, that's all that's needed to keep it at bay. Most people, however, throw everything they've got at cancer to beat it back. You quit smoking, you submit to surgery, to chemo and/or radiation. You aren't going to make any progress against lung or breast cancer until you're willing to come at it from multiple angles.

 

There isn't one single approach that would cover all of the scenarios you mention, but all of the approaches discussed in this thread taken together have a good chance of eliminating most of them.

 

AS to gun control and stopping these specific crimes, I don;t see a connection at all. One frequent gun control measure tauted is universal gun checks so even when sold at a gun show. Well this guy who just killed people didn't buy anything at a gun show and he passed the gun checks that were in place at the gun stores he did buy his weapons. Having a hold period wouldn't have helped either because it seems that the last two guns he bought over six months before and he apparently had bought the other 28 over many years. Since the guy took his time deciding to do this killing, I don't think any ammunition restrictions would have helped either. Who knows how long he had that ammo? This particular guy also had two small planes. Even without a gun, he could have taken a small plane and loaded it with highly flammable items and then crashed it into a crowd.

 

As to the young man who shot up the school, he never bought a gun or ammo. His first crime was killing the owner of the weapons and ammo. Again, what would background checks or other such restrictions have helped? He never bought anything.

 

Other killers, while disturbed, did not have criminal records prior to their mass shootings so they would not be stopped by gun checks at gun shows (which none of these killers ever went to anyway).

 

I haven't heard of any gun control measures that would have stopped any of the mass shooter killers. It is amazing to me the disconnect of people. Uh= none of these guys bought guns at gun shows so lets get universal background checks there even though many of these guys did pass their background check.

 

The problem with trying to stop the mass killers is that until they do the killings, they are usually law-abiding people who don't attract much attention. Gun checks don't stop them. Ammo registrations wouldn't stop them. Limiting how many rounds can be used at a time won't stop them either (there are already so many large capacity round casings out there and it doesn't take much time to switch casings especially if one practices),

 

As in this last case, these cases are usually a particularly destructive form of suicide- suicide with taking lots of others with you. So yes, it is going to be males who almost always do this since male depressives tend to have anger as one of the symptoms. Females generally don't have anger as part of their depression.

 

The particular problem of why this guy was so successful was that he was rich and he was able to plan well.

[goldberry]

As I've said twice now, we've all grown up in the tender loving care of the mightiest military the modern world has ever seen.

 

We can all quite clearly articulate how the social mores of Athens and Sparta were influenced by their respective approaches to the military. We need to honestly do the same for ourselves.

 

That's an interesting observation, and a good starting point for numerous cultural positions we accept as norm.  I'll be chewing on that.

[goldberry]

The left has been "encouraging" voilence towards police offices and politicians, and they've got what they almost gleefully wanted: ambushed cops and first responders, and an ambush of politicians at a ball field. Still, the left keeps up their hate speach, and their "jokes" about how certain people and groups should be killed. Not to mention how "protests" have been basically mob violence and mahem. This all needs to stop immediately.

 

Protesting police brutality DOES NOT EQUAL encouraging violence towards police officers.  And if you think only the left has been doing those other things, you really need to do more reading.  The left weren't the ones posting pictures of politicians with targets on their faces.  Do the nutcases on the right need to stop as well?  Or do they get a pass?  Why are they not mentioned in your post?

[Liz CA]

I also think so many people remember when guns were incredibly common and mass shootings were not. All of my relatives as teens carried rifles in the window of their trucks. Teens went hunting, everyone learned gun safety and owned a gun. I think they argument is that there was a point in history where this wasn't happening on such a frequent basis. I remember Columbine rocking my world as a young person because I could never fathom anything like that. Over the past 10 years it has been out of control. I think people who support gun ownership wonder why the change when things were not this bad previously.

 

 

This is what is occupying my thoughts as well.

Certain forms of gun control may reduce the incidents and therefore be effective to a degree but this question still remains unanswered.

[8circles]

Arctic Mama would save zero children's lives by giving up her guns. She is no more responsible for the deaths in Las Vegas or anywhere else than anyone expressing the "correct" thinking on gun control in this thread.

 

I never asked her to give up her guns. That's her straw man, not mine.

[EmseB]

I never asked her to give up her guns. That's her straw man, not mine.

The post AM responded to basically implied that because she (AM) wouldn't give up her guns the price was that list of names. That was not a straw man she created, but rather responded to.

Edited October 3, 2017 by EmseB

[Clear Creek]

But would you agree that a simple basic shot gun would be sufficient protection versus an AR? Or that a shotgun would be as good or better than a hand gun?

 

Absolutely 100%. I am a veteran and I know what AR's are designed to do, and there is no good reason for a regular citizen to own one. The gun we have in our safe for home protection is a simple basic shotgun. I was only pointing out that hornblower's ideal world, with unarmed citizens and a stronger local police force, would leave people like me with no protection.

 

[8circles]

So, you refuse to save any children at all, you accept no inconvenience to yourself whatsoever, if we can't make all the bad stuff go away.

 

How generous of you.

 

ETA: The more I think about this, the more this sounds like purposeful manipulation. "I'm keeping my guns until you do what *I* want." What exactly is the motivation, then? Certainly not saving lives - more like control. Pseudo-religious control. This really is tragic.

 

I'm still so disgusted. I'm sure the families of those children murdered at Sandy Hook, the families of the 100 children who have been killed by guns just this year so far - I'm sure they understand that their children were just the price of the rest of gunowners' freedom. Not *my* freedom, because this level of gun ownership doesn't make me more free, but less so.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is what is occupying my thoughts as well.

Certain forms of gun control may reduce the incidents and therefore be effective to a degree but this question still remains unanswered.

 

1.) Mass shootings still occurred but were rarer.

 

2.) One possible reason is that while hunting rifles were very prevalent, high capacity semiautomatic rifles were not.

[MercyA]

But why? Why would members of one country be significantly more aggressive/violent than others? Does it have to do with culture? Society? Education? Religion? 

 

As at least one PP has pointed out, we glorify violence and war in this country. Killing innocent human beings is not only given a pass but tacitly praised when our military is the one doing it. 

 

Add the legalized and normalized killing of 900,000+ of our youngest and most vulnerable every year and it is clear that this country is absolutely steeped in blood. 

 

Admittedly, I don't have a firm position on gun control and am listening to this discussion with interest.

Edited October 3, 2017 by MercyA

[creekland]

Regarding the bolded - that only works if people only live in cities. For all of us who live in rural areas, it leaves us almost completely defenseless. I do not live in a city, so I don't have a community and I do not have a local police force to protect me. If I have an emergency and I call the police department of the nearest city, the dispatcher will inform me that they cannot help me and hang up. The county sheriff of the county I live in will respond to emergencies if I call, but since that (tiny) office services all rural areas of the entire county I live in (over 1,000 square miles in area), it is a very long response time - long enough that any crime that was being committed would be well over by the time they showed up.

 

I don't think that people who live in cities understand that people who live in rural areas do not have the same public services that people who live in cities have. Go to the website for your city and look at all the departments listed there - those are all the things that we don't have. We don't have the public works, the public safety, the city parks and rec., city libraries, etc. None of it.

 

Recommending that the police department in the cities have a well-trained and staffed police force does absolutely nothing for the protection of the 46 million Americans who live in rural areas. Laws prohibiting us from having a gun in the home for protection would leave us as sitting ducks.  

 

I live in a rural area without our own police force too.  It can take a long time for "help" to arrive here if the state police don't happen to be in the area (and they rarely are).

 

However, I feel quite sufficiently protected by the rifle and shotgun we have for hunting and dispatching unwanted or wounded critters.  They can do far more than a handgun can do and at a much safer distance.

 

Absolutely 100%. I am a veteran and I know what AR's are designed to do, and there is no good reason for a regular citizen to own one. The gun we have in our safe for home protection is a simple basic shotgun. I was only pointing out that hornblower's ideal world, with unarmed citizens and a stronger local police force, would leave people like me with no protection.

 

I think you read her post incorrectly.  She allowed for keeping such weapons in the part you quoted... knowing they are the type that can be needed at times.  Handguns and assault rifles are not.

 

It's pretty common in my area for rural folks to have shotguns and/or rifles.  It's also common (though not universal) to scoff at handguns as "protection."  Those who think of handguns as protection tend to be those who worry about getting attacked when they are out somewhere (a mugging or whatever).  Those are the cases IRL where the stats show having a gun seems to have no impact upon the outcome.  If anything, the person having it for protection is more likely IRL to get hurt by it than hurting their assailant.  We humans tend to think we're awesome and can do Hollywood type maneuvers at a moment's notice, but real life seems to show otherwise. Looking at the stats makes that thought a Mythbuster moment TBH.  For every one that is successful four have a "bad to the holder" outcome.  Those aren't great odds.  There's a reason the PSA tells people that if they're in a holdup 'tis best for your health and well being to just hand over your wallet or phone and not to try to be the hero.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by creekland

[Guest]

No, but a law that says "you can have a gun as long as you don't shoot people with it" doesn't work well, as we've found out. So yes, to stop bad people we may need to inconvenience good people.

 

Seems saving lives is worth that.

It works remarkably well if we look at it like that. So many people have SO MANY guns and so few of them are murderers.

[ktgrok]

It works remarkably well if we look at it like that. So many people have SO MANY guns and so few of them are murderers.

 

You think the number of gun deaths is acceptable and things are working well????

[Guest]

You think the number of gun deaths is acceptable and things are working well????

What an inflammatory choice of words lol.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As at least one PP has pointed out, we glorify violence and war in this country. Killing innocent human beings is not only given a pass but tacitly praised when our military is the one doing it. 

 

Add the legalized and normalized killing of 900,000+ of our youngest and most vulnerable every year and it is clear that this country is absolutely steeped in blood. 

 

Admittedly, I don't have a firm position on gun control and am listening to this discussion with interest.

 

Yet other nations with legal abortion don't have the same murder rate we do.  Somehow I don't think that is a factor.

[8circles]

It works remarkably well if we look at it like that. So many people have SO MANY guns and so few of them are murderers.

 

You cannot address the culture of violence in our country without guns being a significant part of it. You seem to think the guns have nothing to do with it. The number of guns & amount of gun violence we have is a symptom of our culture of violence, but guns & our gun culture are also a cause. You cannot address one without the other.

[Clear Creek]

 

 

 

I think you read her post incorrectly. She allowed for keeping such weapons in the part you quoted... knowing they are the type that can be needed at times. Handguns and assault rifles are not.

 

 

My mistake, it appeared to me that she was allowing guns in the home for protection against animals or for hunting, but as far as for protecting yourself from crime she wanted stronger police and not armed citizens. I did not understand that to mean she was ok with people keeping a gun in their home for self-defense. That option is a necessity where I live; in fact, the county sheriff likes to check with newcomers and let them know that they recommend having a shotgun or deer rifle in the home (locked up in a gun safe and not accessible by children, of course - they even provide free trigger locks) since they are not able to protect us from criminals, just clean up the mess when it is over (their exact words).

[Guest]

You cannot address the culture of violence in our country without guns being a significant part of it. You seem to think the guns have nothing to do with it. The number of guns & amount of gun violence we have is a symptom of our culture of violence, but guns & our gun culture are also a cause. You cannot address one without the other.

Oh, guns are a part of it. Not the causal part, though. Part of the solution for sure.

 

Like homeschooling doesn't *cause* people to lock their kids in the basement for three years or keep their girls from learning arithmetic... But figuring out some sane way of handling people who absolutely abuse the freedom to homeschool as a cover for such activities will have to be part of the solution to that problem.

[8circles]

Oh, guns are a part of it. Not the causal part, though. Part of the solution for sure.

 

Like homeschooling doesn't *cause* people to lock their kids in the basement for three years or keep their girls from learning arithmetic... But figuring out some sane way of handling people who absolutely abuse the freedom to homeschool as a cover for such activities will have to be part of the solution to that problem.

 

I absolutely disagree.

 

There is nothing inherent in homeschooling that causes people to lock their children in the basement.

 

A degree of violence is inherent in guns. It just is. That doesn't mean everyone who has a gun is violent. The act of using a gun for it's intended purpose - be that shooting a person in defense, or at a target for sport - is violent. It contributes to the culture of violence. 

[Guest]

I absolutely disagree.

 

There is nothing inherent in homeschooling that causes people to lock their children in the basement.

 

A degree of violence is inherent in guns. It just is. That doesn't mean everyone who has a gun is violent. The act of using a gun for it's intended purpose - be that shooting a person in defense, or at a target for sport - is violent. It contributes to the culture of violence.

Mmk

[8circles]

Mmk

 

I thought we were having a good discussion but if you respond like this it makes it hard to continue. 

 

Did I say something so ridiculous that you just don't know how to respond?

[Guest]

I thought we were having a good discussion but if you respond like this it makes it hard to continue.

 

Did I say something so ridiculous that you just don't know how to respond?

Well I figured you just wanted to put it out there that you disagreed with me and that's just fine so I said mmk.

[8circles]

Well I figured you just wanted to put it out there that you disagreed with me and that's just fine so I said mmk.

 

I disagreed and explained why. That's a discussion not a "just putting it out there". 

[Laura Corin]

It might be interesting to consider acid and knife violence in the UK. As far as I know, it's often gang related, so comparable to some violence in the US. But the outcome is much less death and injury. Because acid and knives require proximity and focus on one or two people.

[ktgrok]

What an inflammatory choice of words lol.

You said things were working well.

[ktgrok]

My mistake, it appeared to me that she was allowing guns in the home for protection against animals or for hunting, but as far as for protecting yourself from crime she wanted stronger police and not armed citizens. I did not understand that to mean she was ok with people keeping a gun in their home for self-defense. That option is a necessity where I live; in fact, the county sheriff likes to check with newcomers and let them know that they recommend having a shotgun or deer rifle in the home (locked up in a gun safe and not accessible by children, of course - they even provide free trigger locks) since they are not able to protect us from criminals, just clean up the mess when it is over (their exact words).

 

I did mean it makes sense to have a rifle or shotgun for home protection...trying to say that if home protection is the argument, we can still do away with AR15s and hand guns, as a shot gun is a better choice anyway. 

[Guest]

Back! And I think Jonathan will qualify for services without much of an issue. Yay!

 

I agree with this and that’s why I bristle at a lot of these discussions, especially when the alternative is conglomerating power with the police or government (which makes me feel a lot less safe, especially when it is used against citizens). I have no problem with banning large capacity magazines or automatic weapons - those aren’t needed. I’m not even opposed to registration if guns, provided there were iron clad protections against illegal search and seizure based on that registry. It’s not some reform I am opposed to, but this idea that we must answer for the actions of criminals and mad men as though the majority of guns and their owners have culpability for this. Especially when no laws have been broken.

 

It’s enormously frustrating and there are premises here that are off. Why should we limit our ability to protect ourselves while the military and militarized police have more and more fire power? Keeping that balance as equal as possible seems safest for the entire society. But if there is disarming from the top, except for use in warfare situations or only in response to criminal force, I think we could discuss reductions in the number of guns. Honestly though, it isn’t my guns in the safe that are the issue and taking them doesn’t stop criminal gun crime. It just doesn’t.

It is not possible to arm citizens to a level that they could defend themselves from the military. And, if that was a concern of mine, I would move.

[Clear Creek]

I did mean it makes sense to have a rifle or shotgun for home protection...trying to say that if home protection is the argument, we can still do away with AR15s and hand guns, as a shot gun is a better choice anyway.

It was clear to me that that is what you meant, it just wasn't clear to me that that was what hornblower meant at all. I read it to mean something else entirely. Obviously I need more coffee, lol.

[Guest]

You said things were working well.

I said if you compare how many people have guns to how many people use them for murder, it's close to none comparitively.

[Corraleno]

It is not possible to arm citizens to a level that they could defend themselves from the military. And, if that was a concern of mine, I would move.

 

And yet this is the real motivation behind the insistence that people have the right to arm themselves to the teeth with military style weapons and huge stockpiles of ammo. Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that they have the right to defend themselves, not just against burglars and bears, but against "tyrannical government." The US Government.

 

So the gun lobby and the NRA bribe the government (Congress) to ensure that folks can own enough arms to overthrow that same government if enough gun owners believe it has become too "tyrannical." You'd think the irony of that would be apparent, but it seems that politicians are more concerned with funding their reelection campaigns than making sure we have a government worth protecting.

 

 

Why should we limit our ability to protect ourselves while the military and militarized police have more and more fire power? Keeping that balance as equal as possible seems safest for the entire society.

You think the quantity and quality of weapons in the hands of private citizens should be "as equal as possible" to the quantity and quality of weapons in the hands of the military and police? 

 

I guess the loss of 30,000 American lives to gun deaths every year is just the price we have to pay to ensure we have enough weapons and ammo in case the patriots among us decide to start a civil war or stage an armed revolution against the government. Yeah, that makes me feel much safer.  :banghead:

 

 

SaveSave

[Guest]

And yet this is the real motivation behind the insistence that people have the right to arm themselves to the teeth with military style weapons and huge stockpiles of ammo. Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that they have the right to defend themselves, not just against burglars and bears, but against "tyrannical government." The US Government.

 

So the gun lobby and the NRA bribe the government (Congress) to ensure that folks can own enough arms to overthrow that same government if enough gun owners believe it has become too "tyrannical." You'd think the irony of that would be apparent, but it seems that politicians are more concerned with funding their reelection campaigns than making sure we have a government worth protecting.

 

 

 

You think the quantity and quality of weapons in the hands of private citizens should be "as equal as possible" to the quantity and quality of weapons in the hands of the military and police?

 

I guess the loss of 30,000 American lives to gun deaths every year is just the price we have to pay to ensure we have enough weapons and ammo in case the patriots among us decide to start a civil war or stage an armed revolution against the government. Yeah, that makes me feel much safer. :banghead:

 

 

 

Save

 

Save

Can't snip this sorry.

 

The nra lobbies etc use constitutional precedent as the EXCUSE to keep $$$$ flowing to weapons manufacturers. They work for them, not gun owners.

 

This is not a disagreement with what you've said, I am just taking the opportunity to point out something I get the feeling not many pro-gun (so to speak) people realize. That the nra like all political bodies only capitalize on the sentiments of average citizens to keep money flowing where they want it to flow. They couldn't care less about those actual "average gun owning citizens."

Edited October 3, 2017 by OKBud

[Ausmumof3]

Treading lightly here... (I am from here and had a recurring nightmare about being there all night long. I wasn't and no one close to me was either that I know of at this point. I'm still struggling emotionally)

 

Can we talk about what effects violent movies and games might be having on the change in behaviors? Yes access to guns is making these crimes easier to commit but what is changing people so that they want to do this? Could it be that we glorify violence? That we sit around and practice shooting people up and call it a *game*? I know boys play cops and robbers (or more like some version of Star Wars at my house) and run around and pretend. I just don't believe that is on the same level as the graphic violent media that we have accepted.

 

It's ok if you think I'm way off base. I'm really not looking for an argument. I don't have the emotional energy for it. But I am curious if others think this is or isn't contributing to these scenarios and what can be done about that.

The book Mind Change quotes some interesting studies about this though it's a while since I read it so I've forgotten what. One study showed that people who'd been playing the computerised version were slower/less likely to respond to a real life situation.

[ktgrok]

Back! And I think Jonathan will qualify for services without much of an issue. Yay!

 

I agree with this and that’s why I bristle at a lot of these discussions, especially when the alternative is conglomerating power with the police or government (which makes me feel a lot less safe, especially when it is used against citizens). I have no problem with banning large capacity magazines or automatic weapons - those aren’t needed. I’m not even opposed to registration if guns, provided there were iron clad protections against illegal search and seizure based on that registry. It’s not some reform I am opposed to, but this idea that we must answer for the actions of criminals and mad men as though the majority of guns and their owners have culpability for this. Especially when no laws have been broken.

 

 

 

Reading this, I really think there is some issue going on with the online form of communication. The things you are saying you are okay with are the ones most people want to work on right now. The other stuff that i was talking about, like militias, is pie in the sky stuff that would just be my "if I ran the world" scenario. But yeah, banning large capacity magazines, regulating guns more closely, requiring more training....my super liberal friends would be VERY happy to pass some laws about that. VERY. 

 

But it always ends up in a "they want to take all my guns" vs "they want to trade bodies for bullets" or something and so the actual good, concrete, logical stuff makes no headway. 

[ktgrok]

I said if you compare how many people have guns to how many people use them for murder, it's close to none comparitively.

And yet, still way too many, right? I mean, we are talking 49 people killed in my town last year, in a matter of what, an hour or so? And now another 59? Plus ALL the gang related, and domestic violence related, and then the suicides and the accidents...it's a LOT of dead people. A lot. Many of them children. So to say what we are doing is working well...I don't see that. It's not working well at all. 

[Sandwalker]

Possible. There is also a very strong anti-government movement in the part of Nevada where he lived. Finding out he was connected to something like that would not shock me.

Why wouldn't that shock you?

[Corraleno]

Words of wisdom from the illustrious Senator from ND, John Thune:

"You know it's an open society and when somebody does what he wants to do, it's going to be hard to prevent anything. But I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions to protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, to try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small."

 

Got it? There's simply nothing we can do to prevent or reduce gun violence, so the onus is really on the victims to make sure their "duck & cover" reflexes are up to scratch.

 

 

[creekland]

My mistake, it appeared to me that she was allowing guns in the home for protection against animals or for hunting, but as far as for protecting yourself from crime she wanted stronger police and not armed citizens. I did not understand that to mean she was ok with people keeping a gun in their home for self-defense. That option is a necessity where I live; in fact, the county sheriff likes to check with newcomers and let them know that they recommend having a shotgun or deer rifle in the home (locked up in a gun safe and not accessible by children, of course - they even provide free trigger locks) since they are not able to protect us from criminals, just clean up the mess when it is over (their exact words).

 

You must live in a pretty dangerous area.  In our rural area it's pretty much expected that folks have a weapon, but no one has ever felt the need to mention needing them against criminals.  I was told by our state police to shoot roaming dogs that were killing our neighbor's chickens.  It's expected that folks will shoot injured or possible rabid animals.  It's never once come up that any of us would need to deal with criminals.  In my whole 50 years no one in my family has had to aim a weapon at a person (aside from those in combat I suppose).  I prefer living here where that just isn't much of a concern!

 

I said if you compare how many people have guns to how many people use them for murder, it's close to none comparitively.

 

Just think of how much closer to none we could get if we could eliminate even half the unnecessary weapons out there!

 

And yet, still way too many, right? I mean, we are talking 49 people killed in my town last year, in a matter of what, an hour or so? And now another 59? Plus ALL the gang related, and domestic violence related, and then the suicides and the accidents...it's a LOT of dead people. A lot. Many of them children. So to say what we are doing is working well...I don't see that. It's not working well at all. 

 

The CDC says 33,594 folks died by guns in 2014 (last year they had stats for on the CDC site). That's 10.5 out of every 100,000 people.  One has to wonder if we'd consider commercial airplanes "safe" if that many died in crashes within the US each year - or any particular food product/restaurant, etc - or any toy sold.

 

But somehow with guns (and cars) it's an "ok" number.  Cars are necessary to get from one spot to another, though folks could lessen crashes if they quit using phones and other technology while driving - one in four crashes is attributed to technology use now according to a report on NBC.  Guns have limited use for protection - esp in rural areas - but nowhere near the necessity of cars.  Stricter gun control could lessen those deaths considerably as proven by other countries that have done so - even rural countries like Canada where guns can be needed in places (roughly 5 gun related deaths per 100,000 people).

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

[creekland]

Got it? There's simply nothing we can do to prevent or reduce gun violence, so the onus is really on the victims to make sure their "duck & cover" reflexes are up to scratch.

 

In reality with our gov't getting handouts from the NRA, this is probably true.  The school where I work regularly has "armed intruder" drills now.  We try to teach the students what to do and had sessions on it as teachers.

 

For hubby and I... we're likely to move somewhere safer.  ;)  We just need a couple more years to get our finances in order.  From our travels we've found we prefer a much more relaxed atmosphere where folks tend to care about each other more than the "everyone out for themselves" and "work to death" attitude found overall in the states.  We get the relaxed atmosphere here in our rural area, but it sure has an "everyone out for themselves" undertone as I've seen more recently.  We aren't isolationists.  We love pretty much everyone on the planet (except terrorists).

[creekland]

Since I had some time (kids are holding the baby while I eat), data:

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

 

The correlations are interesting. And I’d say it’s still maybe marginally less biased than Vox :lol:

 

You do realize how skewed that graph is, right?  The death rate goes up by one person per line.  The number of guns goes up by 1/10th of a gun per person per line...  What happens to the graph when it's on the same scale?  The number of guns per person line flattens out, but that wouldn't be showy.

 

Did you look at graphs from my last link?  Here's one:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

 

 

And another - same linked source:

 

 

There are far more interesting comparisons on that site - and yes - all violent crime has been decreasing (also on the site).  That's a good thing.  I don't think it's at all due to more guns.  I like to think it's due to more education and empathy training.

[Sandwalker]

How sad that I can't find anyone anywhere talking about anything besides guns. An evil man killed and wounded so many people, and again, all we can do is politicize it. Using tragedy and the blood of innocents to get laws passed is disgusting.

[Barb_]

How sad that I can't find anyone anywhere talking about anything besides guns. An evil man killed and wounded so many people, and again, all we can do is politicize it. Using tragedy and the blood of innocents to get laws passed is disgusting.

What?

[Sandwalker]

How many is the correct number? How do you enforce it on the law abiders AND the criminals? A reduction in one group doesn't really follow a reduction in the other at this point in our history. Pre-internet and with a less massive goods transit network it would have worked, but there are simply too many conexes going in and out of too many ports to really effect that at this point, from my understanding. And that wouldn't stop someone intent on circumventing legal channels from obtaining a firearm, and those are the murderers.

Plus with 3D printers, it will soon be a piece of cake to fabricate your own weapon.

[Paige]

Since I had some time (kids are holding the baby while I eat), data:

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

 

The correlations are interesting. And I’d say it’s still maybe marginally less biased than Vox :lol:

 

Actually, Vox has the exact same data in one of their charts, only it isn't zoomed in quite as much on the time frame with the sharp decline in homicides. I admit Vox has a liberal slant, but it doesn't mean the data in their articles is not accurate. 

 

All violent crime has been going down in the US for quite some time (until very recently), so the fact that gun related crime is down is not surprising. The chart does not show causality, however. Other data clearly shows more guns =more gun violence on a global scale. We should celebrate that our cities have been doing better at reducing crime rates over the last 40 years, but not kid ourselves that it is because more guns have been deterring criminals. We should also be very concerned, IMO, about the recent upswing in crime rates over the past 1-3 years- what has changed and how can we reverse it?

[EmseB]

That first graph from Mother Jones shows per capita deaths on the vertical and percentage of households on the horizontal. It seems like it would be more accurate to do both sets of data as per capita to get any kind of meaningful data set.

 

The second graph seems to have "interesting" data sets as well.

 

I think we've shown here you can find two sets of data to show as an upward trend on a graph.

[EmseB]

Actually, Vox has the exact same data in one of their charts, only it isn't zoomed in quite as much on the time frame with the sharp decline in homicides. I admit Vox has a liberal slant, but it doesn't mean the data in their articles is not accurate.

 

All violent crime has been going down in the US for quite some time (until very recently), so the fact that gun related crime is down is not surprising. The chart does not show causality, however. Other data clearly shows more guns =more gun violence on a global scale. We should celebrate that our cities have been doing better at reducing crime rates over the last 40 years, but not kid ourselves that it is because more guns have been deterring criminals. We should also be very concerned, IMO, about the recent upswing in crime rates over the past 1-3 years- what has changed and how can we reverse it?

What I'm getting here is that you want to use the data which supports your conclusions to indicate causation. But the data that would not conform to your ideas, we should "not kid ourselves" about it proving anything.

 

I think that's known as cherry-picking.

[hornblower]

How sad that I can't find anyone anywhere talking about anything besides guns. An evil man killed and wounded so many people, and again, all we can do is politicize it. Using tragedy and the blood of innocents to get laws passed is disgusting.

a) There's an entire board here talking about tons of things. It's not like it's in every thread on every forum. 

 

b) 

Did you feel the same way after a spate of hijackings led to universal airport screening? 

 

Did you feel the same way after 9/11? No laws, no actions based on the blood of innocents? 

 

Do you think legislators were wrong to take action after Tylenol poisoning or was it right to implement rules regarding tamperproof packaging? 

 

Less than 3 dozen babies died in dropside cribs in a decade but it led to the ban on the manufacture and sale of this unsafe design.  Was that wrong too?