Guns in America

The fact that a school has had to resort to that kind of security is terrible, but it's about darn time one did. I'd love to live in a world where it wasn't necessary, but I do.

One thing that the article addresses is that it had to take these steps itself because nothing was being done from anywhere else. The school couldn't just sit there and wait for someone else to find a solution so it did what it felt that it had to do to protect it's students and faculty. I say bravo school.

Wishing the world was different isn't getting things done any more than hitting "Like" on Facebook posts.

Edan wrote: I find the idea of having armed personnel and bullet proof schools ludicrous. Education shouldn't need to be defended with weapons and armour, not in the 21st century, not in America. If you have to send your child to a school that could double as a prison, something has seriously gone wrong.

i second this emphatically, though i may emphasize a different set of values for why

this represents a level of armed institutional control that i am totally uncomfortable with

we dont need soldiers to enforcing traffic rules and the generation that grows up this way will get exactly that because they will allow it - expect it even

the ceilings releas tear gas!! NOOOOOOO this is not a school its a dr evil secret fortress!

i would rather teach my kid that he has to sneak his own gun into the school and be ready to use it AND GO TO PRISON FOR USING IT than teach her that it is normal to have check points and armed guards at every corner checking their papers and making sure that they and everyone else is equally harmless (aka helpless)

If you're a current or former combat veteran, police officer or something like that, your comments on this are particularly valuable. Anyone is free to comment of course.

‘It’s insane’: Combat veterans shoot down NRA ‘fantasy world’ of ‘good guys with guns’

Sephen Benson first learned during Navy SEAL training that carrying a gun would be more likely to expose him to gun violence.

That lesson directly contradicts the message promoted by the National Rifle Association and increasingly cited by gun owners as their motivation for buying a firearm, reported The Nation.

“It’s insane,” Benson said, recalling how his military training exposed the lie behind the most persistent pro-gun argument.

“We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent,’” he said. “That’s a lesson that a lot of people don’t get. More guns means more gunfights — and the idea that in a chaotic, pressurized, terrifying situation, they’re going to do the right thing is ridiculous.”

Benson and other combat veterans spoke out in hopes of confronting the “lies” peddled by the NRA and their corporate masters.

“I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” said retired Army Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera. “When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance.”

The NRA’s chief spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, infamously claimed following the Sandy Hook child massacre that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” — but Rivera and other combat vets say that’s ridiculous.

Continue reading the rest of the article at: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/its-insane-combat-veterans-shoot-down-nra-fantasy-world-of-good-guys-with-guns/

Br. John wrote: “We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent,’” he said. “That’s a lesson that a lot of people don’t get. More guns means more gunfights — and the idea that in a chaotic, pressurized, terrifying situation, they’re going to do the right thing is ridiculous.”

Firstly, I'm not a vet or a police officer. I'm just a guy that carries his gun every day and has been training in martial arts for 20 years, so take what I say for what it's worth. I agree with parts of this.

I've multiple times had conversations about open carry vs concealed carry and this is one of the reasons I prefer concealed. Even if I could open carry I probably wouldn't just because guns do draw gunfire. If I'm walking around with a big obvious gun then either regular people are going to panic, someone will shoot me because they think I'm about to shoot people, or a person who is about to shoot people will shoot me first because I have a gun.

Br. John wrote: “I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” said retired Army Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera. “When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance.”

This may be the most important thing said there. It's about training and reacting properly. Where is it coming from, where are you in relation to it, do you have good cover, do you have a clean shot, how many are there, etc. These are all things you need to think about. If you don't react properly you're going to get people killed, maybe even yourself.

People think that because I carry a gun that I'm all for everyone and their brother running around with guns. That's not the truth. Training is needed. Luckily, most people I know who have guns feel the same way.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.uclJPPXYv

I'll add http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406499493.html?from=storylhs

In typical Australian fashion there isn't anything much said about the guy who saved the old lady by shooting the croc. He was a sporting shooter who took his Glock 9mm camping with him.

Its sorta off topic but while researching the subject I found a fascinating document by the US Department of Justice:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

According to their data 57% of justified homicides (killing in self defense) in the United States were committed by black members of our society, whereas 41% were committed by whites. I found this statistic fascinating because it seems to go against public accusations of court bias, as well as cultural perceptions about statistically who in the United States is more likely to defend themselves using deadly force.

Edan wrote: I find the idea of having armed personnel and bullet proof schools ludicrous. Education shouldn't need to be defended with weapons and armour, not in the 21st century, not in America. If you have to send your child to a school that could double as a prison, something has seriously gone wrong.

In the year 1960 I could order (with a $200 dollar tax) a fully automatic cartridge belt fed machine gun and have it shipped straight to my house be it an older design or the latest state of the art firearm expressly designed for armies wishing to be on the cutting edge. Any manually charged or self loading firearm(semi automatic) was the same save for not having to pay for the $200 dollar tax. No background check, no evidence that I am of age nothing. Nada. People in 1960 were not talking about hardening schools into bunkers were they?

ALL firearms homicides (justified and unjustified, people do kill other people in self defense) represent roughly 0.028% of all the 3,000,000 annual deaths in the United States (320 million population, 8 per 1,000 death rate.) Mass shootings (which includes gang crimes that kill four or more people) represent roughly 40 people per year, or 0.0013% of all annual us deaths. If we use the information in this thread there were 142 school shootings this year counting mass shootings, gang shootings of one kid and so on. There are 98,328 schools in the United States. If each of those 144 shootings were at different schools (which is not true because of the gang problem in the United States) then roughly 0.14% of all US public schools suffered a shooting event this year. If we count the 30,861 private schools in the United States then that number drops to 0.1% of schools suffered such an event. One tenth of one hundredth, meaning its one thousandth. That is a very very very small number....

We have an estimated 320 million+ firearms in the United States. In 2013 we had 480,000 reported violent crimes. If each one of those violent crimes were committed with a firearm(which we know statistically isn't true) and each one of those crimes were committed with a separate firearm(another scenario that just isn't going to be reality) creating the worst case scenario possible for firearms that would mean in 2013 roughly 0.15% of all firearms in circulation in the United States were involved in criminal activity. By comparison there are 255 million motor vehicles in the United States, 2.3 million injury creating accidents in the United States meaning worst case scenario 9% of all motor vehicles hurt people in the United States in 2013.

Why am I spouting all these numbers? Well because the numbers are the cold hard facts about the situtation, not what we feel about the situation. Now ask yourself this. Do you want to live in an enlightened land where your leaders use logic, reason, debate, and philosophy(highly structured logic, ethics being highly structured logic that also accounts for human emotion) to decide what to do, or should we live in a land that operates on a purely emotional level turning schools into bunkers over a highly emotional issue that in terms of the facts is so minimal it could accidentally dismissed as a statistical anomaly? I much rather live in a country full of light and reason, not one run by fear and knee jerk reactions....

Citation:
Number of schools in the United States
Total US death rate
Total US population
FBI statistics, homicide by weapon type
FBI official report on "active shooter" incidents
Total firearms by country
FBI Violent crime statistics
US vehicular deaths and injuries study
Total vehicles in the United States by registration

Br.John wrote: “We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent,’” he said. “That’s a lesson that a lot of people don’t get. More guns means more gunfights — and the idea that in a chaotic, pressurized, terrifying situation, they’re going to do the right thing is ridiculous.”

The statement of "your more likely to be in a gunfight when you yourself have a gun" argument is actually a no brainer, for if you did not have a firearm and if someone else attacked you with a firearm you would not be in a gunfight but instead just be the victim fleeing attempted murder. Just as a sword fight involves two or more swordsmen, a gunfight involves two or more gunmen, that is men armed with guns of some fashion. It's like saying "If you are willing to punch someone back your more likely to be in a fistfight", which is a true statement but for practical use utterly meaningless for not swinging back does not factually mean that people will automatically not punch you....

It's unfortunate that a Navy Seal is making political statements based on very flawed logic structures as many people who simply feel about things will side with him.... Such as the assumption that private individuals in the United States train less than the police. When one carefully infers meaning from the Seal's argument one finds that he did actually state that, he stated that most people would freeze up or fire blindly, indicating a lack of faith in their training and mental state. However we know he isn't arguing that police shouldn't be armed for the same reason knowing full well most police do not freeze up or just simply discharge their weapon at everything that moves. Therefore we know that the Navy Seal is operating under the assumption that the average armed American has less experience with a firearm and less training than the police, which is not actually all that factual... People who love doing something(shooting and training) tend to do it a lot, and tend to do very well at it. Police can do as little as firing their pistol at a paper target once per year....

In all I think if the gun control side wants to make any headway they need people who can construct a better argument....

Here's the problem with the data shown in your article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/why-the-data-on-justifiable-homicide-just-wont-do-1725/

Furthermore each city has it's own "flavor" to it. Judges will judge differently based on the values of the area. Some of these organizations may not even report by race. In 2013, 14% of all reported violent and property crimes were reported by race. (reference about 12 hours of my own dredging through FBI.gov to produce the charts for my class Bridging the Thin Blue Line)

I make statistics tell me anything, especially when I get to the larger US.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Here's the problem with the data shown in your article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/why-the-data-on-justifiable-homicide-just-wont-do-1725/

Furthermore each city has it's own "flavor" to it. Judges will judge differently based on the values of the area. Some of these organizations may not even report by race. In 2013, 14% of all reported violent and property crimes were reported by race. (reference about 12 hours of my own dredging through FBI.gov to produce the charts for my class Bridging the Thin Blue Line)

I make statistics tell me anything, especially when I get to the larger US.

I assume your talking about the Department of Justice study?

Hmm, I think I'll challenge you on that final part there. Make statistics demonstrate that you are at more risk of dying of auto accidents (30,000 deaths annually in the United States) then heart disease (610,000 annually.) The answer is that without outright lying about it you cannot. Therefore the statement "I can make statistics tell me anything" evaluates to false, for a lie is not a statistic(statistics being empirical fact.)

Should there be a statistic (such as total US justified homicides, which you are correct is not reported as accurately as homicides in general) whose data methodology is in question then it is not a "fact" until its data methodology can be revised to be deemed credible. However "credible" is a variable to be determined by people examining the data:

Now Aristotle once famously said "virtue is in the mean", and this is true even with science. No physical mortal being can know all, be everywhere and physically test everything accounting for every variable every situation. So when testing physical phenomena we find the "mean" and account for as much as we can finding the correct "mean" between the extremes knowing all, and testing nothing. Statistics being tabulated and collected known facts are governed by the same rules. We cannot know all, see all, account for all however knowing nothing, accounting for nothing and seeing nothing is unacceptable. So we find the "mean", and not only that when we find the "mean" we also recognize possible errors in the construct of the statistics and account for them with a +/- value. Essentially science(statistics included) is the methodology of continually approaching "fact", which is in reality always just a little beyond our reach.

Are there things that can be improved in the reporting of the Department of Justice data? Certainly, but its as close to "fact" as we are going to get now. As such we should use those numbers instead of saying "well I'm just going to make up numbers based upon my feelings about how the US court system functions and thereby accuse the US court system of racial bias based upon nothing"

First 30000 is lower than 610000

Sure I can. In fact you just did use it to tell your story, but here's the story I would paint:

How many of those deaths were motorcyclists? How many were drunk drivers? How many pedestrians? How many were single vehicle? Multiple vehicle?

I actually have those stats (found them just for this argument):

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview

Onto Heart Disease:
611,105 is the number of people that died in 2013 of Heart Disease.
26.6 million the estimated number of adults diagnosed with Heart Disease, according to the CDC that's about 11.3% of the adult population.

So between these two, I could say that since only 11.3% of the adult population is diagnosed with Heart Disease, you have more to fear from your own ability to drive (as most vehicular accident were single vehicle) (though really there is about on par, separate only by 7%) than you do of heart disease. It's the leading cause of death, but our mortality rate isn't like it use to be. I can crunch those numbers, it's about breaking them down further, and that's how people get you.