Parkland School Shooting

[sturg33]

They are using some dark CSS magic on those charts for sure. It looks like the graph is actually plotted on the web site, not just a picture.

I thought this part was relevant to the idea that has been floating around (that I had supported) about raising the age requirement to 21 for semi auto weapons:

Banning bump stocks and raising the age of purchase for assault rifles from 18 to 21 are good ideas, and may lead to a decrease in overall gun violence, he said. But he doesn’t believe these measures will prevent school shootings. “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.

Notice we don't get much discussion from the left when data is brought up.

Need to find a video of a teenager calling for gun bans quickly

[Julio3000]

I find the tolerance for rare but potentially avoidable tragedy very odd. Likewise the idea that 12000 gun homicides a year is acceptable because violent crime is in a long-term decline.

[sturg33]

I find the tolerance for rare but potentially avoidable tragedy very odd. Likewise the idea that 12000 gun homicides a year is acceptable because violent crime is in a long-term decline.

I mean this sincerely. If that is how you feel, why aren't you more interested in heavier regulations for alcohol - considering it is such a consistent factor in crime and death?

I think the bigger danger is to take rights away from good people in an overreaction to a rare event.

[chop2chip]

It's not.

The issue is always the killer, yet the left wants to make it about the object some times

This isn’t about the “left”, speaking of distilling.

I am a right leaning, though moderate, conservative and I can draw the distinction between guns and trucks.

The hard line second amendment crowd seems like the only group that does not care to discuss gun control with any nuance.

[The Chosen One]

This isn’t about the “left”, speaking of distilling.

I am a right leaning, though moderate, conservative and I can draw the distinction between guns and trucks.

The hard line second amendment crowd seems like the only group that does not care to discuss gun control with any nuance.

There's no way that's even possible.

[Julio3000]

I mean this sincerely. If that is how you feel, why aren't you more interested in heavier regulations for alcohol - considering it is such a consistent factor in crime and death?

I think the bigger danger is to take rights away from good people in an overreaction to a rare event.

I understand that perspective and believe that it generally has merit, and I will try to explain briefly why mine differs.

For all that it's relevant to the discussion, I would favor heavier regulations for booze...particularly as concerns DUI, but that's largely the province of state governments and is a big puzzle with a lot of moving pieces.

I think the fundamental difference here is the understanding of rights. You believe that heavier-handed regulation of firearms is an infringement on individual liberty, and for that reason alone, is necessarily a detriment to society. That's the gulf that you and I are never going to bridge. I believe that there are restrictions on individual liberties that, when carefully weighed, reflect the will of the people, honor the spirit of the rule of law, and benefit the common good. The law, broadly speaking, supports your larger point of view on gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment and the recent development upholding the individual right, which I believe was wrongly decided but is nonetheless the law) but it doesn't preclude mine, which is that Congress and the states have the ability to set terms and limits of same.

I do not think that the common good is served by a less-restrictive gun ownership regime. I don't understand what the positive societal benefit of relatively free and easy acquisition and ownership of, say, semiauto rifles and hi-capacity magazines is thought to be. Your contention is that it's an abstract question of rights and freedoms. I'm left puzzling as to the real-world consequences.

You've made a valid point as to the relative rareness of crimes and deaths involving this class of weapons, and I have both conceded them and made some suggestions steering the discussion to bigger-picture issues. I've also posed some questions about the wisdom of leaving the causes and means of rare tragedies unexamined simply because they are rare.

As a simply logical proposition, how would the Republic be harmed by a ban on a certain class of firearm? I mean, nuts and bolts here, what would be the detrimental effect to society? An abridgment of individual liberty, sure. But what is the actual harm?

[sturg33]

For those saying the nobody wants to take people's guns away... this road gets very slippery

Senate Democrats said they will introduce a gun control bill that would expand background checks, ban certain weapons, and give the courts the power to temporarily take guns away from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, after President Trump offered support for these goals in a White House discussion Wednesday.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/de...rticle/2650425

[sturg33]

I understand that perspective and believe that it generally has merit, and I will try to explain briefly why mine differs.

For all that it's relevant to the discussion, I would favor heavier regulations for booze...particularly as concerns DUI, but that's largely the province of state governments and is a big puzzle with a lot of moving pieces.

Yeah but you don't actively rail against booze like you do guns, so I find this sentiment disingenuous. And I'm not sure why state governments are needed for booze regulations but not guns?

I think the fundamental difference here is the understanding of rights. You believe that heavier-handed regulation of firearms is an infringement on individual liberty, and for that reason alone, is necessarily a detriment to society. That's the gulf that you and I are never going to bridge. I believe that there are restrictions on individual liberties that, when carefully weighed, reflect the will of the people, honor the spirit of the rule of law, and benefit the common good. The law, broadly speaking, supports your larger point of view on gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment and the recent development upholding the individual right, which I believe was wrongly decided but is nonetheless the law) but it doesn't preclude mine, which is that Congress and the states have the ability to set terms and limits of same.

OK... and I think we've done quite a bit of that already. We already have background checks, permits, bans on certain weapons, etc. But it's never enough. Need to go further. This is why you get so much resistance each time we have this discussion. The left just wants to take a little more... "common sense" after all, is something we can all agree on. But I think the onus is on you to prove how that would help solve the problem you're trying to solve, and thus far, I haven't see any data that would support the position.

I do not think that the common good is served by a less-restrictive gun ownership regime. I don't understand what the positive societal benefit of relatively free and easy acquisition and ownership of, say, semiauto rifles and hi-capacity magazines is thought to be. Your contention is that it's an abstract question of rights and freedoms. I'm left puzzling as to the real-world consequences.

I think the society benefit is people can protect themselves without the need to call the police and hope they can get there in time. these guns exist, and therefore, it's reasonable to want to protect against these weapons with similarly powerful weapons. You are confident that banning these weapons will keep them out of the hands of bad guys, I'm not. It doesn't work with drugs. Why will it work with guns?

And you're free to mock me if you wish, but the day the populace is no longer armed is the day the populace is no longer free.

You've made a valid point as to the relative rareness of crimes and deaths involving this class of weapons, and I have both conceded them and made some suggestions steering the discussion to bigger-picture issues. I've also posed some questions about the wisdom of leaving the causes and means of rare tragedies unexamined simply because they are rare.

I don't think they should be unexamined. In fact, I think they should be scrutinized heavily. That's not what the "guncontrolnow" group is doing, though. They are parading around teenagers to emotionally appeal to people's senses... they are not looking at data. They are not looking at things rationally. They are blaming groups (NRA) or people (Marco Rubio) more than they are blaming the killer himself.

And then, when someone like me calls this ridiculous, I hear the "can't believe you're mocking children who just survived a shooting" speech.

If we could have a legitimate debate on this, rather than "ITS THE NRA AND REPUBLICANS!!!!!!," we could probably get really productive in terms of progress to smart solutions that appropriately measured by the likelihood of these happening. I think you and I agree on the absurdity that we've spent and done to fight against terrorism, as you're more likely to get struck by lightning then die from a terrorist attack. Why can't we think this rationally when it comes to guns?

As a simply logical proposition, how would the Republic be harmed by a ban on a certain class of firearm? I mean, nuts and bolts here, what would be the detrimental effect to society? An abridgment of individual liberty, sure. But what is the actual harm?

Honestly... if that was the red line that Dems would never ever ever ever ever do another gun grab, I'd probably say sure - go for it just so we can stop having this debate. But as I already said, it's never enough. With each shooting, there will be an emotional plea to pass more laws and regulations when we can objectively state it doesn't stop the problem. That's why I have a hard time getting behind these things. Take a look at the article I just posted? There are bills proposing gun confiscation.

Lastly - if I was sure no criminals could their hands on these guns... again - sign me up. But that's not going to happen. It will just create a new black market like we have with drugs.

I think we're better off as we are.

[Julio3000]

Yeah but you don't actively rail against booze like you do guns, so I find this sentiment disingenuous. And I'm not sure why state governments are needed for booze regulations but not guns?

It's not a question of needed vs. not needed, just that DUI regulations are pretty much solely the province of the states...I guess you could enact something that withholds federal highway money or something, but the point is it's a bit of apples and oranges, particularly because there isn't as much federal reach (i.e. an amendment to the Constitution) on those issue.

As for my interest in it...there are plenty of civil issues that I'm interested in or passionate about that I don't post about here.

OK... and I think we've done quite a bit of that already. We already have background checks, permits, bans on certain weapons, etc. But it's never enough. Need to go further. This is why you get so much resistance each time we have this discussion. The left just wants to take a little more... "common sense" after all, is something we can all agree on. But I think the onus is on you to prove how that would help solve the problem you're trying to solve, and thus far, I haven't see any data that would support the position.

There's data from countries with strict gun access measures. There's data that strongly correlates presence of guns in households with gun deaths, homicides, and DV homicides. It really depends on how expansive you're willing to be with what data you'll accept. For example, I see folks make the argument that a place with strict gun laws and a high rate of gun violence proves that the stricter laws are ineffective...but disregard the fact that surrounding communities have more lax gun laws and are used to funnel guns into the more restrictive areas. If you don't think that more uniform restrictions and extreme sanctions on illlegal possession would move the needle at all, I'm not sure what to tell you. I.E. if you make it so a person can't easily buy 5 guns in Indiana and sell them privately, with no background check, to someone in Chicago, etc.

I think the society benefit is people can protect themselves without the need to call the police and hope they can get there in time. these guns exist, and therefore, it's reasonable to want to protect against these weapons with similarly powerful weapons. You are confident that banning these weapons will keep them out of the hands of bad guys, I'm not. It doesn't work with drugs. Why will it work with guns?

If we can agree that relatively few crimes are committed with rifles, for example--and the data supports that conclusion--it would seem to fly in the face of that "arms race" argument.

You seem intent on drawing a parallel with drugs, but I'm not sure how valid that comparison is, given the realities of addiction.

And you're free to mock me if you wish, but the day the populace is no longer armed is the day the populace is no longer free.

Yeah, whatever. I think that's the weakest of the pro-gun positions.

I don't think they should be unexamined. In fact, I think they should be scrutinized heavily. That's not what the "guncontrolnow" group is doing, though. They are parading around teenagers to emotionally appeal to people's senses... they are not looking at data. They are not looking at things rationally. They are blaming groups (NRA) or people (Marco Rubio) more than they are blaming the killer himself.

And then, when someone like me calls this ridiculous, I hear the "can't believe you're mocking children who just survived a shooting" speech.

If we could have a legitimate debate on this, rather than "ITS THE NRA AND REPUBLICANS!!!!!!," we could probably get really productive in terms of progress to smart solutions that appropriately measured by the likelihood of these happening. I think you and I agree on the absurdity that we've spent and done to fight against terrorism, as you're more likely to get struck by lightning then die from a terrorist attack. Why can't we think this rationally when it comes to guns?

You seem to have a significant blind spot if you think the issue should be scrutinized heavily. You know who doesn't want that? The NRA and their favored politicians. So, yeah, by my lights they're fair game in this conversation.

Honestly... if that was the red line that Dems would never ever ever ever ever do another gun grab, I'd probably say sure - go for it just so we can stop having this debate. But as I already said, it's never enough. With each shooting, there will be an emotional plea to pass more laws and regulations when we can objectively state it doesn't stop the problem. That's why I have a hard time getting behind these things. Take a look at the article I just posted? There are bills proposing gun confiscation.

But we can't objectively state that it won't significantly impact the problem.

Lastly - if I was sure no criminals could their hands on these guns... again - sign me up. But that's not going to happen. It will just create a new black market like we have with drugs.

I think we're better off as we are.

That would seem to indicate a belief that guns ARE, in fact, a problem. You seem to be simultaneously arguing that guns aren't the problem and that guns are the problem but there's no effective legal remedy for it.

[cajunrevenge]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26...-response.html



Coward County Sheriffs ordered EMS not to go into the school. They were willing to run in unarmed when the cops werent willing to run in armed and with bullet proof vests. Their motto really is protect and serve.... protect and serve themselves.

[nsacpi]

data from the post showing gun ownership and gun deaths by state...converted to scatterplot

[goldfly]

[cajunrevenge]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203903054.html



2 cops suspended 8 days for responding to the shooting.........

[sturg33]

data from the post showing gun ownership and gun deaths by state...converted to scatterplot

Just saw this. I think it tells us something, but I don't know what. There is a not a clear positive correlation in either direction. I also need to see gun deaths moved to gun homicides so we're not counting suicides.

Lastly, I'd like to see it at a city glance. Not sure if that's available though. I'm working on some deeper research with a friend who works closely with the GOA

[sturg33]

A terrorist organization

goodness people

[cajunrevenge]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/09/disgra...-massacre/amp/



The coward of Broward County caught in a lie. I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone of such an honorable and noble profession would lie. It's unprecedented.

[nsacpi]

Just saw this. I think it tells us something, but I don't know what. There is a not a clear positive correlation in either direction. I also need to see gun deaths moved to gun homicides so we're not counting suicides.

Lastly, I'd like to see it at a city glance. Not sure if that's available though. I'm working on some deeper research with a friend who works closely with the GOA

If you click you will see an enlarged version. There is an upward sloping correlation. Of course there are outliers. Hawaii for example has lots of guns but very few homicides.

But correlation does not equal causation. I would say there are deep cultural factors that contribute both to high rates of gun ownership and high rates of homicide. So it would be more accurate to say those cultural factors "cause" the two to be correlated.

[goldfly]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26...-response.html



Coward County Sheriffs ordered EMS not to go into the school. They were willing to run in unarmed when the cops werent willing to run in armed and with bullet proof vests. Their motto really is protect and serve.... protect and serve themselves.

time and time again

real heroes are ems and firefighters

[sturg33]

[sturg33]

If you think they're not coming for more than "common sense gun laws," you're not paying attention