Shooting discussion devolves

[hongi]

Being prepared is better than pretending you'll never be a victim.

I'd rather be a victim rather than allow gun violence to ruin lives. The risk is something that I consciously accept and so I continue to live here.

[Darwin]

So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

Pretty sure you have the right (given by authorities, God whoever) to defend yourself. I don't see why you should have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

because the other guy might be bigger, is probably armed, is probably way more experienced at hurting people, and I don't like pushing the odds. A gun gives me the ability to fight back no matter what the skill level, chemical state, and physicality of my attacker is. No other device can do the same.

Americans, how do you think Australia manages to function without sinking into a pit of criminal violence even though the majority of us have no access to firearms?

Australia is a fairly well-mannered society with good health care, considerably less underclass (our poverty rate is appalling compared to yours), and a population density an order of magnitude less than the US (3/km^2 vs 34). As a direct result of several infamous mass shootings, Australia enacted sweeping gun bans without conducting any studies or research on the relationship between violence and private ownership of firearms. It can be well argued that Australia's current strict gun laws had no appreciable effect on violence in the country.

[Nephtys]

So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

Because your average American neighborhood is some Mad-Max wasteland where the well armed rule. Or perhaps the argument that 'if you disarm people from having guns, they'll become oppressed slaves' is actually kind of batshit insane?

because the other guy might be bigger, is probably armed, is probably way more experienced at hurting people, and I don't like pushing the odds. A gun gives me the ability to fight back no matter what the skill level, chemical state, and physicality of my attacker is. No other device can do the same.

Thank goodness you are armed with a gun, and this highly aggressive murderous assailant never got one. Praise effective gun control and regulation?

Seriously, if a person is going to commit a gun-related crime, they're going to be prepared to do it and have the element of surprise.
If you're just shopping for groceries or in a movie theater, what makes you think you're going to turn around all cowboy style, and save a crowded room full of people?

It's as likely that you, the amateur shooter who's carrying a gun 24/7, are either going to be caught flat footed in which more guns floating around does nothing, or be involved in throwing more bullets in a place where there's other bystanders in the line of fire.

---

Again, why must supporters of widespread and easy gun ownership always have to fall back on paranoid delusions that make Red Dawn look like a children's story?

[His Divine Shadow]

Wait Ando, in Australia you have to apply for each firearm you want to buy?

We have the same systems in fin/swe/nor. They are flawed systems that don't really provide any security against the dedicated nutsos (as history will show). I think the problem is you license the gun. This makes little sense to me after I have thought about the thing in depth.

I think we should license the people instead. To have a gun you should have gone through a detailed background check, you should visit a psychologist and get an all-clear (the state would have to pay for this IMO), get some interviews by the police, maybe the whole thing could take 3-6 months of a several visists to the shrink and going to safe firearms handling courses and the like. Then if you are cleared, you can now buy guns from here on. That to me is far more sensible, regulate the fucker behind the gun, not the gun.

That is also probably more easily implemented in america than any outright ban or regulations of features (which tend to be easily bypassed) would be .

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah. That's what we do here. Your license grants you permission to buy the class its issued for five years, as well as possess. So I'm in and out in fifteen minutes.

You require the safety course and there is a mandatory 28 day waiting period to issue your first license. Whether or not or system works is hard to say. We have less mass shootings but also far lower crime in general then the US. I've heard and seen people here complain about the system, apparently under the illusion that we have the 2nd Amendment in Canada.

And really I have a dozen guns, there isn't much reason save paranoia to have me cleared with every purchase. And the RCMP are allowed at any time to reassess my eligibility. Too much control turns owners against the government anyways. The lasting legacy of gun control here is that it set the government against the owners, a group that traditionally supported the government.

Mind you ours was done in a ridiculously expensive and offensive manner. Which ties into what I was saying earlier about the constant claims of us being mass murderers in waiting (we've had a total of two), gun runners and wife beaters (my wife and I both own, so I guess we take turns beating each other). Its hard to have a useful discussion when one side says your scum and the other is shouting about Nazi's.

[His Divine Shadow]

It certainly sounds better and less money-intensive than our systems. But they are the results of the same kind of shitty discussion climates as you mentioned so no big surprise.

[Aaron MkII]

A good example of owner stupidity is just above us in this thread, its also a good example of why risk assessment should be required for carry outside your home. It's one thing when you know intimately know the ground but outside of that you really should look to securing you and people with you and getting out. Rather then risk harming bystanders.

I also want to point out that even guys who's job it is to kill people often miss. If your ever given the opportunity to watch the military clear houses, take a look at how many rounds don't hit the target.

Edit: And before someone brings out the "I practice more then cops or soldiers" gem. Good for you, so do I. With paper targets, in a highly controlled enviroment, with no stress. It's not the same.

[ray245]

How does such a system better Stop all the people who are mentally instable and determined to own a gun? If gun circulation among legal gun owners is still high, the option of easily purchasing it via illegal means is still possible.

[Aaron MkII]

Look to the South of me.

I live above the worlds largest undefended and unsecured border. With the US. That's where most of our illegal guns come from. Yet our deaths per year by guns used in crime is under 200. Crime with guns in Canada is extremely limited. More people actually die of surgical complications or suicide (3000ish) then being shot in a crime.

[His Divine Shadow]

It's almost as if having universal health care, better access to mental care and welfare for the poor reduces crime... somehow??!!

[Aaron MkII]

How does such a system better Stop all the people who are mentally instable and determined to own a gun? If gun circulation among legal gun owners is still high, the option of easily purchasing it via illegal means is still possible.

But if you want more, I mentioned earlier that I'm required to provide two references to vouch for my character, undergo a background check and my spouse must be made aware of my intentions. If your not married your required to provide a list of sexual partners who may be contacted. There are also safe storage regulations designed with the intention of defusing the situation.

So the "we're arguing, I'm going to shoot you" is minimized. I have to unlock the safe, unlock the ammo safe and then load. In that period you should have woken up to what your doing.

It's almost as if having universal health care, better access to mental care and welfare for the poor reduces crime... somehow??!!.

Who knew?

I often point this out to the anti crowd here. That the rise of our standard of living just happens to coincide with the decrease in gun crime, and that the decrease had already started before the 70's gun control started.

[Meest]

The example on page 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ... w_shooting is just silly. The people that responded were police officers and a marine and they got him after he was finished and in the parking lot leaving. Just goes to show that your average citizen will not handle these situations the same. So arming the populace doesn't seem to work, still little to no examples of someone being stopped by an armed citizen. Especially what is an inside job like this one, the principal recognized him as the son of one of the teachers and let him in a locked down school. Would a single armed security guard have helped or just be a target to someone with any inside knowledge of the school? Would people accept the added costs especially for an elementary school?

The area this happened in was pretty upscale, 90k median household income and really low crime rates, but guess it's muddled that this really was an "inside" job so to speak. He got into a locked out school and got armed because of he lived with someone who works there and happens to have an .223 rifle and two handguns. Would the same thing happen if his mother wasn't armed or if she didn't work at the school. Only thing so far being mentioned for mental health is him being autistic and being on "medication" so not sure what more could be done. Sadly something stupid like hearing him mom complain about some kids might have set him off, how do you stop something like that or him missing his meds = rampage. Or does he fit the profile perfectly for people susceptible to this.

[weemadando]

I have to wonder about broader cultural factors too though. When firearms crime is rare the attention it draws onto the perpetrators is much, much higher. Someone being seen with a gun has been enough to put sections of our major cities into lockdown while the police search for them. When there's a shooting it will almost always lead the news for that day, even if the shots didn't hit anyone.

When firearms crime in endemic enough (as it is/was in some parts of the US) that it's just not "news" anymore when one person/group shoots at another, does that have an effect on the willingness of criminals to use them?

[His Divine Shadow]

I honestly dunno, it's getting more common in Sweden with gangs of criminals shooting at each other wit AKs and shit and I think the media is getting more jaded about it, but it managed to start and grow there as a phenomenon despite it being unknown to begin with, it coincides with an increasing class of people being outside of society though, poorer and living in separate areas from the rest of society. America has that in spaades.

But in cases like these I think the perpetrator is out to make a big splash in the news anyway.

[weemadando]

The example on page 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ... w_shooting is just silly. The people that responded were police officers and a marine and they got him after he was finished and in the parking lot leaving. Just goes to show that your average citizen will not handle these situations the same. So arming the populace doesn't seem to work, still little to no examples of someone being stopped by an armed citizen. Especially what is an inside job like this one, the principal recognized him as the son of one of the teachers and let him in a locked down school. Would a single armed security guard have helped or just be a target to someone with any inside knowledge of the school? Would people accept the added costs especially for an elementary school?

Also the whole "if only one of the teachers had a gun..." thing:

[weemadando]

I honestly dunno, it's getting more common in Sweden with gangs of criminals shooting at each other wit AKs and shit and I think the media is getting more jaded about it, but it managed to start and grow there as a phenomenon despite it being unknown to begin with, it coincides with an increasing class of people being outside of society though, poorer and living in separate areas from the rest of society. America has that in spaades.

But in cases like these I think the perpetrator is out to make a big splash in the news anyway.

Yup, which is why I wish the media paid more attention to this:


And spent less time grabbing interviews with traumatised primary school kids or trying to get grieving parents to talk to them.

[Aaron MkII]

Would he have been foiled by her storing them in a safe he couldn't access? I have children, children who shoot with me. I still don't leave them accessible, keys are on me at all times. Why? Aside from the law, I have a responsibility as a gun owner to the society I live in. Even if someone broke in and stole them, I have to have done all I reasonably could. And it's encouraged on the safety course to exceed legal requirements.

I have to wonder about broader cultural factors too though. When firearms crime is rare the attention it draws onto the perpetrators is much, much higher. Someone being seen with a gun has been enough to put sections of our major cities into lockdown while the police search for them. When there's a shooting it will almost always lead the news for that day, even if the shots didn't hit anyone.

When firearms crime in endemic enough (as it is/was in some parts of the US) that it's just not "news" anymore when one person/group shoots at another, does that have an effect on the willingness of criminals to use them?

Possibly. I've talked a lot about the responsibility that owners have to their society. After the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 the attitudes here changed and one of the results was a gun culture (among non morons) that embraced being pro-active. That we weren't going to wait for a killing before saying "this guy isn't right" and raising a public safety concern.

[weemadando]

Would he have been foiled by her storing them in a safe he couldn't access? I have children, children who shoot with me. I still don't leave them accessible, keys are on me at all times. Why? Aside from the law, I have a responsibility as a gun owner to the society I live in. Even if someone broke in and stole them, I have to have done all I reasonably could. And it's encouraged on the safety course to exceed legal requirements.

Yeah, I don't know the full circumstances of her ownership or the truthfulness of that quote, but if it is correct, then the fact is that her own gun was used to kill her. Which shouldn't be a surprise to people.

[Channel72]

This is a complicated fucking problem. My position is that, at the very least, I don't give a shit about the 2nd amendment. In a rational society, owning a deadly weapon shouldn't be a privilege - you should have to prove to the state that you need a firearm for some important reason.
That raises an interesting question about the definition of citizenship.

For most of history, being a free citizen meant, among other things, that you had the right to some means of self-defense. Serfs and slaves had no right to defend themselves against their betters, and were forbidden from owning weapons, for fear that they might use the weapons to commit crimes (like rebelling). But a free man was entitled to defend himself against aggression, and to own weapons suitable for doing that.

Yeah, I understand. But for most of history, (1) traveling alone was extremely dangerous and crime was much more difficult to control because the law-enforcement infrastructure was relatively limited, and (2) the weapons technology wielded by an individual wasn't capable of effortlessly dispatching multiple people from a distance.

Regardless, you still have a right to defend yourself. That's a bit different than having the right to own a firearm. This is obviously a matter of degrees. Even the most rabid gun-nuts probably wouldn't argue that individual citizens should have the right to defend themselves with RPGs or nuclear warheads.

I think that on this forum, many of us don't attach much value to the idea of having a right to self-defense. Because on this forum, we are mostly middle-class individuals who live in very safe places where violence is rare, and we're not likely to be singled out for violence because of minority status or the like.

But just because this right isn't valuable to you doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or that all citizens should be expected to not care about it.

Please. I work in Newark, New Jersey, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Gun violence is relatively common here. Sometimes I'm here late and I have to walk around at night. I've considered purchasing a gun for my own safety, but objectively speaking, I don't think easy access to guns is good for society overall, regardless of my own situation. Besides, I think a reduction in the number of guns circulating would go a long way towards reducing violent crime in Newark. (Hint: there's no drive-by "stabbings" here.)

Problem with the graph: it only tracks gun deaths. Obviously, in a place where there are zero guns, there will be zero gun deaths. That doesn't stop there from being murders committed with knives, clubs, or other tools.

What would be more interesting would be a graph of murder rates for all categories, versus gun ownership. And I'd love to see methodology showing how they're controlling for other variables.

The graph shows a correlation between the number of guns in circulation and gun-related deaths, by comparing the data from multiple nations. If you're suggesting that a reduction in the number of guns would not also see a correlated reduction in the number of murders overall (because people would start using other means), then I'd be interested in seeing that data as well. I'd guess that it would lead to an increase in the number of stabbings, but it would still reduce the number of overall murders, because it's a lot more difficult to fatally wound someone (let alone multiple people at once) without a gun.

After all, there's no shortage of ways in which people say America is fucked up. It'd have to be a great feat of statistical analysis to show that only one of those ways is the one responsible...

Nobody's saying gun availability is the sole problem facing America. In fact, it's a minor problem relatively speaking. Again, the graph I posted shows that it's even possible to have a large number of guns in circulation, and still have a relatively low rate of gun-violence. (See Germany and Scandanavia.) But whatever cultural and social differences between Germany/Scandanavia and the US there may be (most likely better social safety nets), addressing these problems requires long-term social engineering and large-scale education and entitlement reform. In other words, it's pretty difficult to make the US more like Scandanavia, so while we're working on that, in the mean-time, perhaps reducing the number of guns in circulation would be a good start towards reducing gun violence?

Er... I wanted to say, in a rational society owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

Wait, wait, hold on, what just fell out of your keyboard?
So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

Only those deemed worthy by the state, you idiot - you know, the state which is run by people you elect? And as for those who don't follow the rules - that's a law enforcement issue. I'm really tired of these silly arguments based on these John McClane fantasies about individual citizens patriotically whipping out their guns to stop a bank robbery or something. Jesus Christ.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm really tired of these silly arguments based on these John McClane fantasies about individual citizens patriotically whipping out their guns to stop a bank robbery or something. Jesus Christ.

Seriously, it is getting to the point that I think that they are just trolling. I don't care about gun control as an issue in the broadest sense, or at least I am not heavily invested in one side or the other, but the people who, in response to a tragedy like this, honestly think that allowing teachers to carry guns into the school would have stopped this just have to be some sick sick fucks. Honestly, how the fuck can you live with yourself thinking like that? It is absolutely despicable.

[Lord Zentei]

Also the whole "if only one of the teachers had a gun..." thing:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-IttmBCAAAbnGg.jpg

I'm sorry, but regardless of position, that macro looks like appeal to emotion. Obviously the fact that the teacher owned guns allowed her son to take one of them to kill people. It's still an anecdote.

Seriously, it is getting to the point that I think that they are just trolling. I don't care about gun control as an issue in the broadest sense, or at least I am not heavily invested in one side or the other, but the people who, in response to a tragedy like this, honestly think that allowing teachers to carry guns into the school would have stopped this just have to be some sick sick fucks. Honestly, how the fuck can you live with yourself thinking like that? It is absolutely despicable.

I'm not terribly invested in it either, but calling people "sick fucks" because they hold that position? Seriously.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Explain why.

Sure, but in turn I'd like you to present evidence for your earlier claims regarding the 2nd amendment, the bill of rights, and that guns are not a core US belief.

In the cases of female voting and racial equality there is two notable differences. The first - Rights were being given and not taken away. You don't seem to be taking into account the fact that Americans do not like their rights being taken away. The second - One involves people. The other others property. The history of the government strictly regulating property that the people desire greatly has shown to produce very negative results. (prohibition for example).

Also, just to be clear. I'm not talking about not making the effort to make current legislation more effective (keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill). Those systems need to be improved. The legislation is already there.

And my point is, you colossally closed minded fucking idiot, "waste of time to invest in" is the same shit idiots said when black people wanted to be free or when women wanted to vote or when England was still the mother country you ignorant fucking dick. Oh no, can't have change IMPOSSIBLE!

It is not the same. You're just grasping at straws.

And whaaa whaaa havok called me names, grow up idiot.

You poor child. This is what I'm talking about. I never complained about you insulting me. Please do. It's a tradition here. I'm saying you suck at it. You over use the words numbnuts and idiot. In this quoted section I can only conclude that you're either being dishonest or stupid. I never complained that you called me names. Your response here indicates that you either think I did (which means you are stupid) or you're pretending that I did (which means you are dishonest and well stupid too)

Just because *you're* a broken defeatist doesn't mean everyone else must be.

Oh go fuck yourself you ignoramus. You're a total god damn coward and are just pissing and moaning everyone else isn't too.

I don't see an argument here. Just a poor executed ad hominem. I'm not sure how having the position that we should focus on the things that will have much greater gain for work put in is somehow cowardice. I call it efficiency. Perhaps you could explain why it is cowardly?

Here's the challenge in the US. You'd need to effect a sweeping change in all US states to have an impact otherwise you have poor results. For example, in D.C. which had/has probably some of the strictest firearms regulations in 1975 yet in the early 1990s it was considered the murder capitol with nearly 500 homicides in one year and guess what was the weapon of choice? In 2007 portions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 were found to be unconstitutional. These portions included banning the ownership of handguns and requiring weapons to be stored in the home in a specific manner. So now SCOTUS has set a precedence.

Trying to enact sweeping regulation would be a knock down drag out fight in many states with lenient gun control. See Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 for example. The bill would require all owners of handguns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. It would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm. This bill died.

In fact it seems that a majority of federal bills which attempt to modernize firearms in the United States just die. Source

[Boeing 757]

Instead of going to the effort of arming teachers with firearms, why not just hire security guards on school zones? Guns have utterly NO right to be in classrooms in my opinion. Either hire professionals to do it or find some other way of safeguarding schools.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So you can only focus on one social change at a time because you are what... 5?

Where did you get that? I said other social issues, meaning more than one. Why do you suck at reading? Seriously? Do you have a condition that I should be made aware of so I can tailor my responses so that you are able to comprehend them?

Oh and shocking, when you say you think something is impossible to change people think you mean that.

Yes. Focus on one word and ignore the totality of a persons statement because nitpicking is the way to generate productive discussion.

Our positions aren't that different. I just disagree with you on enacting additional legislation. Why not work on improving the effectiveness of the legislation that is already in place and improve the social issues that are causing these mass shootings?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So in a rational society, only those deemed worthy (by whom?) are granted the privilege of being able to protect themselves from the worst of that same society, who likely don't follow the same rules?

Pretty sure you have the right (given by authorities, God whoever) to defend yourself. I don't see why you should have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

because the other guy might be bigger, is probably armed, is probably way more experienced at hurting people, and I don't like pushing the odds. A gun gives me the ability to fight back no matter what the skill level, chemical state, and physicality of my attacker is. No other device can do the same.

And how much firearms training have you had, cupcake? How much time have you spent at the range firing at realistic human-shaped targets to overcome your hindbrain aversion to harming other human beings? How much training do you get under stressful circumstances that seek to exercise your skills under realistic scenarios? How much training do you put into drawing, presenting, and dry-firing your weapons at home? How much time do you spend reviewing the relevant laws, and non-lethal methods of de-escalation? How much time do you spend honing your situational awareness?

Here's a hint . . . if your answer is a value less-than-or-equal to the amount of training recieved by your local law-enforcement, then congratuations, I wouldn't trust you defending yourself with a child's cap gun, let alone a gun that can actually hurt people. As far as I trust police with guns . . . let's just say that I'm glad I wasn't born a black dude or Latino. I mean, they're more trustworthy than any open-carry nut, any concealed-carry nut, and the security guards who patrol my workplace . . . but that really isn't saying much.

I'm all for guns. I own, collect, and shoot guns. But I do not believe in right to carry . . . the only time I ever carry is deep in the backwoods, where it's there as an absolute last-resort against any legitimately-dangerous wild animals that I was so stupid that I let myself blunder into them; and where it has other uses as a survival tool.

I also don't believe in using guns in "castle doctrine," or "home defense" situations. Yeah, you hear about home invasions in the news . . . but imagine what happens if both parties in a home invasion have guns? Instead of the nice masked men holding you at gunpoint while they take everything you own, you get a shootout where the nice masked men end up waxing your ass, because they enjoy a substantial advantage being the attacking party that came prepared to perpetrate violence upon you and yours.

I'm also disturbed every time I buy a gun; since all I ever have to do is fill out a NICS form (which, as the recent mass-shootings prove, is clearly an unfunny joke whose punchline is a classroom full of dead children, or a theatre full of dead people,) hand over my credit card, and can walk out with enough BLAM to fend off a small army; so long as that army doesn't have artillery support and can't call in an air-strike.

But, let's be honest . . . if you don't have the situational awareness necessary to identify potential threats to you and yours, then an attacker will surprise you; and you'll be reduced to fight-or-flight reflexes. You know what happens when you're in such a state? All your fine motor control goes right out the window. Unless you've trained enough with firearms to make their operation part of your "muscle memory" you're just as likely to freeze or fumble than you are to get the gun out and on target. And, since your fine motor control is shot, you're just as likely to spray bullets into your "backstop" as you are to hit your attacker. Worse, you could end up like the Cleveland cops who, after a high-speed chase, discharged a total of 137 rounds into two (unarmed) people.

tl;dr - The obvious answer to gun violence is to ... drumroll please ... make it harder to get guns; since it would be infeasible to train everyone to the level of proficiency where they could be trusted to use guns to defend themselves against other people. Of course, this should also be combined with a real social and mental health safety-net.

Instead of going to the effort of arming teachers with firearms, why not just hire security guards on school zones? Guns have utterly NO right to be in classrooms in my opinion. Either hire professionals to do it or find some other way of safeguarding schools.

Because security guards have even less training than peace officers or cops. A quick Google search tells me that, at best, the typical armed security guard gets less than a third of the training of a peace officer. Frequently, it's much less. I have security guards patrolling my workplace and, supposedly, controlling access to the site. But their situational awareness is so abysmally low that . . . 90% of the time, they're not even really looking at my ID. If I wanted to "go postal," they would provide no meaningful deterrent or interference in my plans.

And yes, arming teachers would be a really stupid idea; not only for all the reasons I list above, but in the fact that it'd only guarantee that they'd get shot first (which is what happens anyway, since the teacher is the only on in a classroom likely to be much of a threat to a would-be shooter.) That, and more and more of these nuts are coming in body armor.

You want to "secure" a school? Fence off the whole complex and restrict entry to a small number of checkpoints. Staff these checkpoints with well-paid, and motivated, professionals. Everyone, students, parents, and faculty, who want onto the school grounds must present identification (ideally, all students and faculty should have special ID cards that the gate guards actually look at) and be subject to random searches every day. If you're a parent, guardian, or outside landscape contractor . . . your vehicle should be searched before you're allowed through the checkpoint, and the front office be contacted to verify that you actually have business at the school.

Sound like you'd be holding classes inside a prison? Yep. Sound like it'd be really, really, fucking expensive? Yep.