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.

Christopher Titus has some funny, but also very insightful opinions about gun control in the U.S. including a brilliant plan to "arm the children" in order to prevent school shootings and child abuse (he's a comedian... it's a joke). He puts it all into perspective.

Alethea Thompson wrote: 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.

30,000 IS lower than 600,000. Both of them are a fraction (/3,000,000.) The largest fraction is the largest occurrence usually expressed as a percent (how many parts out of 100.) One cannot make 30>600. Just doesn't work that way, so you cannot twist that statistic to state whatever you want. The most you can do is the question character argument, which essentially signals you have lost when the data points are already peer reviewed. Essentially such as a argument goes like this: My proposition "Well these are the numbers as collected and peer reviewed by a panel of some of the most qualified minds in this country." Your retort "Well I have no degree, am one man, was not part of this study, conducted no study of my own with no data for other people to inspect for proper collection methods but I with all of my mighty qualifications denounce your panel of qualified minds and call their data bunk!" At that point you might as well be a fool on the street screaming about the end is nigh.

When you continued onto heart disease after posting that link I failed to find a complete argument. I found half an argument like half an equation. In this case its sitting like (y=11% of x) && blank blank blank blank blank. You seem to be missing comparable data points on the auto side, as well as the conclusive "therefore" or "=" statement. Should you say "You are more likely to die when an auto accident does occur than you are if you have suffered a heart disease episode" then the logical follow question is "well then how many people die in auto accidents and of heart failure each year?", and the answer of that undoes any smoke and mirrors you attempted to create. In essence only providing one statistic creates the logical question for the root principle (how many die) and means you haven't demonstrated anything.

added:

Thought to simplify all this in a short statement: Just because you have provided enough statement to satisfy the lazy does not mean you have provided a complete argument.

Which is my point. I twisted what you stated. (btw, you were the one that stated initially that you would have a higher chance of getting killed by vehicle than heart disease, I just took what you [accidently] said and proved it to be the bigger concern.

I didn't say it would be accurate. I made your statistics state a much different picture by giving context. People look at what someone has to say, and then never look into the work themselves to determine things for themselves. Your heart disease is not that big of a concern when you consider that heart disease on average is something you can easily prevent. You cannot prevent the drivers around you from being idiots- only yourself. So given that only 11.3% of the population is even diagnosed with heart disease, it is not something that people need to worry too terribly much about if they are taking eating habits and exercise seriously. But there is nothing they can do about the road.

Another Mass Stabbing example that shows mass killings without guns. Where there is a will, there is a way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/stabbings-reported-pennsylvania-high-school-article-1.1750425

One thing that I find interesting is that the media no longer seems to distinguish between a mass shooting and a murder in a public place or a fight between two groups where multiple people get shot. Obviously it's still gun violence and it's still bad, but if we're discussing the "current trend" of mass shootings then we need to be clear on what makes a mass shooting a mass shooting.

There was a shooting today in the parking lot of an Arizona college dorm and it's being branded as another "school shooting." If you read into it at all though you find out that there were two groups of students that got into an altercation in the parking lot of a dorm hall at 1:30 am and one of them pulled a gun. One person is dead and three are injured. This is terrible and tragic yes, but it is not the same as a "school shooting" where a person walks into a school in session with the sole purpose of killing multiple people. This was a fight that got out of hand and just happened to be on school owned property.

Kitsu Tails wrote: Another Mass Stabbing example that shows mass killings without guns. Where there is a will, there is a way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/stabbings-reported-pennsylvania-high-school-article-1.1750425

It is so sad that this is the case but people find ways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire

Alethea Thompson wrote: Which is my point. I twisted what you stated. (btw, you were the one that stated initially that you would have a higher chance of getting killed by vehicle than heart disease, I just took what you [accidently] said and proved it to be the bigger concern.

I didn't say it would be accurate. I made your statistics state a much different picture by giving context. People look at what someone has to say, and then never look into the work themselves to determine things for themselves. Your heart disease is not that big of a concern when you consider that heart disease on average is something you can easily prevent. You cannot prevent the drivers around you from being idiots- only yourself. So given that only 11.3% of the population is even diagnosed with heart disease, it is not something that people need to worry too terribly much about if they are taking eating habits and exercise seriously. But there is nothing they can do about the road.

I actually went back to review exactly what I said because I could actually have made a mistake and I could not find it. I challenged you to make statistics state something that is patently not true, that you are at higher risk of dying of heart disease than you are of a car accident in the United States. " 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.) " You simply cannot without outright making up your own statistics demonstrate that.

You stated roughly 1/10 Americans suffer from heart disease but again its an incomplete argument. Where is the flip side to that? Where is the rest of the argument? 1/10 chance of facing deaths door suddenly is pretty severe, and being a health ninja is less protection than one would think. However that is irrelevant here. You haven't actually made the claim that heart disease is less of a risk, you just stated 1/10 with no perspective, context or anything of that matter. This is not an argument, you are merely leaving things on the table waiting for someone to walk by and react emotionally to it which is not the same thing.

Of course the obvious next step in making that statistic argue what you want is to provide the counter auto statistic, which would be "x number of Americans in their lifetime will suffer a life threatening auto accident" which was not provided. Again stating the percentage of Americans who will on average fight heart disease in their lifetime is not making these statistics support your point until you have provided the compatible statistic demonstrating the same thing for another case.

In order for statistics to "say" something it must be asserting something, it must be an argument. Arguments are essentially verbal equations. In this case its x>y therefore b. Thus far you have stated blank>y therefore b. So you still have work to do.

Goken wrote: One thing that I find interesting is that the media no longer seems to distinguish between a mass shooting and a murder in a public place or a fight between two groups where multiple people get shot. Obviously it's still gun violence and it's still bad, but if we're discussing the "current trend" of mass shootings then we need to be clear on what makes a mass shooting a mass shooting.

There was a shooting today in the parking lot of an Arizona college dorm and it's being branded as another "school shooting." If you read into it at all though you find out that there were two groups of students that got into an altercation in the parking lot of a dorm hall at 1:30 am and one of them pulled a gun. One person is dead and three are injured. This is terrible and tragic yes, but it is not the same as a "school shooting" where a person walks into a school in session with the sole purpose of killing multiple people. This was a fight that got out of hand and just happened to be on school owned property.

The question about the whole thing is whether or not the media is reporting in such a manner because of an agenda or just trying to improve viewership?

None of what you see in statistics is technically not true. It is ALL true, but you can make them tell you anything.

When you say that heart disease is the number one factor in death across America, I can use statistics to prove that it's not something to be too worried about- but you should be more worried about the road- unless you are one of the 11.3% of the adult population already diagnosed with heart disease, then you might need to be more worried about dying from heart disease.

All you need are more facts and figures to accompany what you have. Also, I misread your words, I thought you said that accidents are more prevalent, I see now that you meant have me do that. And I did. Here's why your position that heart disease is a leading cause of death is misleading:

It suggests that these are the only two causes of death. Which is inaccurate. Heart disease only accounts for 19% of deaths in 2013 (2,596,993 was the number of recorded deaths in 2013). You are are at greater risk to die of literally anything than you are Heart Disease. Since only 11.3% of the adult population is diagnosed with heart disease, you are left with the conclusion that unless you are diagnosed with heart disease, you are IN FACT more likely to die from a car accident.

Statistics can be used to paint any picture your want. You wanted them to say that you're more likely to die from heart disease than a car accident. But you're truth isn't the full truth when you start looking beyond two parts of the stats. The addition of 11.3% is the only thing I needed to disprove your likelihood of dying from heart disease vs. a car accident.

In fact, I could give a really good fear-mongering case to support that you are more likely to die from cancer than anything else based on the fact that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will have cancer at some point in their life. But even these stats miss which parts of cancer are easily gotten rid of.

Klink wrote:

Goken wrote: One thing that I find interesting is that the media no longer seems to distinguish between a mass shooting and a murder in a public place or a fight between two groups where multiple people get shot. Obviously it's still gun violence and it's still bad, but if we're discussing the "current trend" of mass shootings then we need to be clear on what makes a mass shooting a mass shooting.

There was a shooting today in the parking lot of an Arizona college dorm and it's being branded as another "school shooting." If you read into it at all though you find out that there were two groups of students that got into an altercation in the parking lot of a dorm hall at 1:30 am and one of them pulled a gun. One person is dead and three are injured. This is terrible and tragic yes, but it is not the same as a "school shooting" where a person walks into a school in session with the sole purpose of killing multiple people. This was a fight that got out of hand and just happened to be on school owned property.

The question about the whole thing is whether or not the media is reporting in such a manner because of an agenda or just trying to improve viewership?

Yes.

The problem with statistics is that people look to them and think they are good. But they will believe whatever they want, because people will bend the stats to the picture they want to paint, rather than looking through the various stats themselves. When they do, they'll find a very different picture.

Do you really need to worry about dying in a car accident? Sure, if you aren't very good at driving, decide to drink and drive or are non-attentive to the drivers around you. But I think it is safe to say that when you look at the numbers of people in the US vs. the mortality rate, you don't have too much to worry about on average unless you're in a high risk job and/or do not make an honest effort take care of your body by giving it proper nutrition.