What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?

[Flying Crane]

Published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

A report from the CDC on Gun Violence
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


Neither say what the gun grabbing people wish they did and they are worth reading.

However, at the end of the day this is very simple. Violent crime is down, while gun ownership is up. Causation is impossible without correlation. Since the trends are in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is an inverse one. Therefore, statistically, the only potential for a cause and effect relationship between guns and violent crime would be that guns cause less of it, not more. Anyone with the most basic statistical understanding can determine this for themselves, study or otherwise.

Um, no, there is not an automatic correlation there.

This discussion is going in the direction of the Political, and I believe that is no longer allowed here so I'm not going to continue with it.

You all are welcome to your opinions on it, as are we all

 

[Charlemagne]

Um, no, there is not an automatic correlation there.

Didn't say there was.

I said that when you have trend lines going in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is negative, which is true. If significant correlations could be established, then any prediction equation that could be developed through regression analysis would be a negative one. Therefore, if there is any sort of cause and effect relationship, it is also a negative one, which is also true.

 

[jks9199]

“‘The Good Guy With a Gun’ Myth is BS” called into question.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It's always something, isn't it? In this case, I was responding to an assumption with a fact to the contrary. This cop exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club to shoot more people. I total, I think 11 cops fired shots at the pulse nightclub over like three hours.

My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe.

I would respectfully disagree:

Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA

 

[Kong Soo Do]

And the first guy who pulls his gun to return fire, in the confusion, is mistaken as a collaborator by the next guy with a gun, who pulls his weapon and fires at the first, misses and hits someone else, and then another guy pulls his gun to fire back at the second guy, etc. and it gets worse.

And where do you find that happening? Certainly it is a consideration, but considering the alternative it isn't a big consideration. As I mentioned, there 'could' be injuries due to friendly fire. There 'could' be mistaken identity. But there WAS 100 people shot without any means to protect themselves. You may want to read the studies in the links I provided as well as JKS.

 

[Flying Crane]

Didn't say there was.

I said that when you have trend lines going in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is negative, which is true. If significant correlations could be established, then any prediction equation that could be developed through regression analysis would be a negative one. Therefore, if there is any sort of cause and effect relationship, it is also a negative one, which is also true.

Gotcha. I misread

 

[Flying Crane]

And where do you find that happening? Certainly it is a consideration, but considering the alternative it isn't a big consideration. As I mentioned, there 'could' be injuries due to friendly fire. There 'could' be mistaken identity. But there WAS 100 people shot without any means to protect themselves. You may want to read the studies in the links I provided as well as JKS.

It didn't play out like that because the rest of the population in the night club either was not armed, or chose to not pull their weapons and exchange fire. If more people had engaged, it is highly likely that it would have been worse.

This is not difficult to grasp.

It's a bad situation, without good options. And no, adding more guns to that situation would not have been a good option.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It didn't play out like that because the rest of the population in the night club either was not armed, or chose to not pull their weapons and exchange fire.

I have seen no reports that anyone was armed other than the off duty officer working as security at the door. Since it was a Gun Free Zone it is likely that no private citizen was armed, and certainly no one used a firearm against the attacker. They had to rely upon the response of the police. That netted 100 people being shot with a 50% fatality rate.

If more people had engaged, it is highly likely that it would have been worse.

Highly likely? Based upon what are you basing these conclusions? The actual studies indicate that six times more people are shot in an active shooter situation if the police are the ones to respond and stop the shooter than if an armed citizen stops the attacker. The armed citizen is there, in attendance and on the scene when the active shooter engages. Armed citizens stop three times as many violent felons annually than police.

Doesn't mean that an armed citizen will be able to stop a particular attack, but it's a definite that an unarmed citizen won't be able to stop an attack (unless they are able to get close enough to an active shooter to disable him/her with an improvised weapon, and I'm not real excited about those odds).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It's a bad situation, without good options. And no, adding more guns to that situation would not have been a good option.

Yes, it was a bad situation. But I disagree, respectfully that adding armed citizens to the equation would not have provided additional options that very well may have improved the situation. Studies bear that out.

And this also opens the question of the Gun Free Zone. With very few exceptions, active shootings happen in Gun Free Zones. The reason is obvious, law abiding citizens obey the sign, terrorists and criminals don't. And we know that this individual scoped out this location and knew it was a Gun Free Zone (as did other active shooters). That's why it was chosen. Had this NOT have been a posted GFZ the terrorist 'may' not have chosen the venue. Crime has consistently gone down where citizens are armed and has consistently gone up where citizens rights are infringed.

 

[Charlemagne]

Gotcha. I misread

It happens. No worries.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, it was a bad situation. But I disagree, respectfully that adding armed citizens to the equation would not have provided additional options that very well may have improved the situation. Studies bear that out.

And this also opens the question of the Gun Free Zone. With very few exceptions, active shootings happen in Gun Free Zones. The reason is obvious, law abiding citizens obey the sign, terrorists and criminals don't. And we know that this individual scoped out this location and knew it was a Gun Free Zone (as did other active shooters). That's why it was chosen. Had this NOT have been a posted GFZ the terrorist 'may' not have chosen the venue. Crime has consistently gone down where citizens are armed and has consistently gone up where citizens rights are infringed.

I'm ok with disagreement

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'm ok with disagreement

Cool

Please understand where I'm coming from on this issue. I'm a military veteran. I'm an active Deputy (24 years). Sherrif's Offices are the ONLY Constitutional L.E. agencies (all others are created by statute). This means that the S.O. should be first and foremost defending the Constitution and people's rights. Not everyone is that way, but I swore and oath to uphold and defend the COTUS and I take that seriously.

Americans have 2A rights. It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm. I respect the choice either way. But personal protection is exactly that...personal. It isn't to be outsourced. These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed. As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims. The results were horrific. A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic. But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.

 

[JowGaWolf]

your last statement is very untrue

How is it very untrue"?

 

[sgraves]

How is it very untrue"?

a person can get shot any where not just in those neighborhoods ,its happening more and more every day.feeling safe and secure anywhere nowadays is impossible a person should always be ready no matter where they are

 

[JowGaWolf]

a person can get shot any where not just in those neighborhoods ,its happening more and more every day.feeling safe and secure anywhere nowadays is impossible a person should always be ready no matter where they are

Getting shot and being worried about getting shot are 2 different things. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[sgraves]

Getting shot and being worried about getting shot are 2 different things. One has nothing to do with the other.

yes it does,but this isn't a discussion for the post so ill leave it alone .

 

[Flying Crane]

Cool

Please understand where I'm coming from on this issue. I'm a military veteran. I'm an active Deputy (24 years). Sherrif's Offices are the ONLY Constitutional L.E. agencies (all others are created by statute). This means that the S.O. should be first and foremost defending the Constitution and people's rights. Not everyone is that way, but I swore and oath to uphold and defend the COTUS and I take that seriously.

Americans have 2A rights. It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm. I respect the choice either way. But personal protection is exactly that...personal. It isn't to be outsourced. These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed. As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims. The results were horrific. A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic. But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.

I can respect your position on it. Like I say, it's a bad situation with zero good options. And it could go either way. That hero citizen (or five) could take down the bad guy and end it, or he could make it ten times worse or more. There are too many variables to say with certainty, especially in a scenario like this one or the Aurora theater, and personally I believe that in this kind of scenario it is far more likely to go badly. There may be other scenarios where a hero citizen has a better chance at it, but I do not believe this scenario is that case.

But yeah in principle I can recognize the possibility.

However, I can't help but believe that the automatic solution, every time there is another mass shooting, regardless of the details, is to throw more guns into the equation in the hands of unknown citizens, is unrealistic in the extreme, even reckless and foolish. More guns is not automatically the answer.

 

[Steve]

I would respectfully disagree:

Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA

Disagree with what? I stated a fact.

 

[pgsmith]

Americans have 2A rights. It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm. I respect the choice either way. But personal protection is exactly that...personal. It isn't to be outsourced. These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed. As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims. The results were horrific. A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic. But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.

While I tend to agree with your feelings here, I've also seen way too many drunk idiots in bars here in Texas that I would definitely NOT want to see them carrying. Until and unless a very stout penalty for carrying while drinking can be devised, I think it's a much safer bet all around to bar concealed weapons from bars.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think it could be very interesting to run an experiment on this, if safety and ethical issues could be worked out while maintaining enough uncertainty and surprise to get genuine reactions from the participants.

Basically set up a night club experience with 200 people, complete with bar and dance floor, dimly lit with flashing disco lights and loud, pulsating music, even a fog machine. Maybe even real alcohol, keep things going for a while first until people relax and forget a bit. Give low-capacity paintball pistols to 5 people, all unknown to each other. Tell them to enjoy the club, but if they see someone with a paintball gun, they are to try and take that person out, and if they think they can get the shot, feel free to take it, their mission is to prevent others from bein shot.

Then, have the "perpetrator" come in with a high-capacity rapid-fire paintball gun, who opens fire on the crowd. The crowd is instructed that if hit by a paintball, to drop down on one knee to designate wounded or dead. See how the five deal with the situation. And, to simulate nerves and stress, maybe misalign their gun sites just a bit so they are not as accurate.

Then, have additional people enter as "police" who are looking for an active shooter, and open fire on anyone they see with a paintball gun, b cause they don't know who the perp is.

All people with paintball guns have a different color paint. When it's all over, see who was shot, and by whom.

The five who are issued guns do not necessarily have any experience with them, beyond basic, because in areas where concealed carry is allowed, it could be anybody, not necessarily someone with lots of training and high level skills.

That would be a very interesting experiment.