Random News Observations

[FCP Bob 1,312]

An average student doesn't have 100's of death threats against them every day week, that is the difference between Obama's kids and everybody else. The comparison is stupid and counter productive for their side.

 

Mass shooting don't just happen in schools, why not more armed guards everywhere. There are some schools that it makes total sense to have a police officer in them, but not all.

 

The reason the NRA wants more armed guards is because that means more guns will be sold by the gun manufacturers who are the ones who own the NRA and control their agenda.

[iZuma 764]

there were armed guards in that school long before they enrolled so their specific presence makes no difference to the argument.

 

the current discussion is on guards in schools, not guards in dairy queens. stick to the topic.

 

the 4.2 million members and rising beg to differ. and even if that were true, it doesn't change the validity of their argument one bit.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

There is a cost benefit analysis that has to be made with every security decision in schools and outside.

 

A private school in Washington with the children of a lot of powerful people including diplomats and others who would be kidnapping targets is a place where it makes sense to have high levels of security.

 

If a local community wants to pay to have police or other school security that's their decision if they want to spend their resources on that.

 

Many high schools in Toronto have a police officer stationed in them and they have been hugely successful at increasing the feeling of safety in the schools. Not because there is somebody with a gun in the school but rather through the interaction of that officer and students.

[iZuma 764]

so you admit that schools are safer with armed officers in them. good. guess we're done.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

so you admit that schools are safer with armed officers in them. good. guess we're done.

 

yup, are you fine with paying the extra taxes to pay for the extra security ?

 

I know, how about a bullet tax to pay for it.

 

Edit: they would also be safer if there were less guns in society

[iZuma 764]

already do. all my local schools have guards in them staffed by the local police department. and yes I'm fine with it.

 

 

and yep. society would also be safer without knives cars or tall buildings. we live in reality though so our solutions have to start there.

 

 

[mrdannyg 274]

I love that all the GOP and NRA people come out after something like this and talk about how we shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions. Then they tell us that it is the fault of violent video games and we should have armed guards in every school. No, not a knee jerk reaction at all.

[GWCGWC 83]

Do you really love that or do you just like the hypocrisy?

[GWCGWC 83]

A well trained responsible individual who stores their weapons properly can be safer with a gun.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't outweigh the damage that is done by those who aren't responsible or mentally stable or through accidents and suicides and I'm not even talking about the use of guns by criminals.

 

Just recognize that your "right" has a price tag.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate guns like some people do. I used to belong to a shooting club where we shot single shot target pistols and rifles at an indoor range. The guns belonged to the club and were stored there and some of the more serious shooters had their own guns but those also were stored at the club and not at their homes.

 

It pissed me off a lot when the City of Toronto out of a knee jerk reaction to some shootings closed all the gun ranges in the city which was just stupid.

 

There is a cost to everything in life......everything. No free lunch and all that.

 

I have yet to hear any analogy that compares guns to anything else that rings true. It's just a completely unique issue.

 

I assume you were part of the shooting club because it was fun. Fun to shoot guns, compete and maybe you enjoyed the social aspect. It certainly wasn't for defense or learning gun safety. Your government put a stop to that based on what you call a knee jerk reaction and yet your position is that the U.S. should reduce the amount of guns in circulation by whatever means necessary even though you have first hand experience with how stupid that is. We have an amendment in our Bill of Rights that protects against the restriction of guns to the citizens or shits woulda been outlawed if not 100 years ago, most certainly during prohibition.

 

 

Magical hypothetical in a world where magic can happen without a bunch of qualifiers so just go with the spirit of this:

 

What would happen if tonight the Gun Fairy left one brand new Glock 17 9mm, three 15 round mags and 1k rounds of ammo in every adults bedroom closet of every single house in Ontario minus those adults or houses that reside any adult who wouldn't pass the current U.S. background check? Would there be a rash of mall shootings, school shootings, husbands shooting wives, neighbors shooting neighbors or any manor of mayhem?

 

The number of guns isn't a problem. Oddly enough and against all intuition, it's part of the solution.

[Whiskers 680]

What would happen if tonight the Gun Fairy left one brand new Glock 17 9mm, three 15 round mags and 1k rounds of ammo in every adults bedroom closet of every single house in Ontario minus those adults or houses that reside any adult who wouldn't pass the current U.S. background check? Would there be a rash of mall shootings, school shootings, husbands shooting wives, neighbors shooting neighbors or any manor of mayhem?

 

I don't know if there would be a "rash," but I'd guess there would be more shootings than if the Gun Fairy didn't do that.

[GWCGWC 83]

I don't know if there would be a "rash," but I'd guess there would be more shootings than if the Gun Fairy didn't do that.

 

Oh that's a guarantee but what kind of shootings?

 

I can't claim to know about eastern Canadian attitudes anymore than I can claim to know Albanian cultural attitudes. It's a different culture and just as diversified as the U.S. between large population groups and smaller communities but I'm guessing the burglary, rape, home invasion and all other kinds of crime rates drops considerably overnight. It would certainly come at a price that would include accidental shootings, murder by gun, suicide by gun and probably some public random shootings. What wouldn't happen is everyone goes flippin nuts and starts shooting each other willy nilly.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

There is a cost to everything in life......everything. No free lunch and all that.

 

I have yet to hear any analogy that compares guns to anything else that rings true. It's just a completely unique issue.

 

I assume you were part of the shooting club because it was fun. Fun to shoot guns, compete and maybe you enjoyed the social aspect. It certainly wasn't for defense or learning gun safety. Your government put a stop to that based on what you call a knee jerk reaction and yet your position is that the U.S. should reduce the amount of guns in circulation by whatever means necessary even though you have first hand experience with how stupid that is. We have an amendment in our Bill of Rights that protects against the restriction of guns to the citizens or shits woulda been outlawed if not 100 years ago, most certainly during prohibition.

 

 

Magical hypothetical in a world where magic can happen without a bunch of qualifiers so just go with the spirit of this:

 

What would happen if tonight the Gun Fairy left one brand new Glock 17 9mm, three 15 round mags and 1k rounds of ammo in every adults bedroom closet of every single house in Ontario minus those adults or houses that reside any adult who wouldn't pass the current U.S. background check? Would there be a rash of mall shootings, school shootings, husbands shooting wives, neighbors shooting neighbors or any manor of mayhem?

 

The number of guns isn't a problem. Oddly enough and against all intuition, it's part of the solution.

 

Guns locked up in a gun club are a very small danger unless they are stolen.

 

A gun in a home has been shown to be a danger.

 

The US is the most heavily armed country on the planet and also has far higher crime rates than other rich countries do. I can see no relationship between armed civilians and lower crime rates.

 

Crazy guy in China attacks school but because he has no access to a gun he uses a knife and people are only injured. Crazy guy in the US attacks a school but because his Mother has multiple guns purchased legally that he has access to multiple people are killed.

 

EDIT :

 

In your hypothetical example since it's Canada a handgun is a restricted weapon which means you can not store it loaded. It must be stored unloaded with a trigger lock or in a secure weapons safe also unloaded.

 

It also would be illegal to transport your weapon without a transportation permit from the Chief Weapons Officer of the Province and when you transport it would also have to be unloaded and secured with a trigger lock.

 

In Canada personal protection is not a valid reason to get a gun license approved.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Gun experts grade Obama’s proposals

[LongLiveYorke 38]

so you admit that schools are safer with armed officers in them. good. guess we're done.

 

It's not at all obvious to me that the schools are safer. It depends on who the "guards" are. But I think one could easily argue that the rate of kids getting shot when they could otherwise be constrained using non-lethal means could be comparable to the rate of preventing kids from being killed during a school shooting.

 

The important variables here are the rates of school shootings (small), the total number of schools (large), the average number of kids saved by an armed guard (questionable, but probably small), and the rate of shooting a kid who's being "aggressive but non-lethal" toward a guard, who then over-reacts (not sure, but non negligible).

 

But, to be sure, we all recognize that homes with guns are less safe than homes without the, right? I mean, that should be pretty clear by now. The increased rate of suicide alone makes up most of the difference without even counting accidental shootings of family members / neighbors.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

 

 

But, to be sure, we all recognize that homes with guns are less safe than homes without the, right? I mean, that should be pretty clear by now. The increased rate of suicide alone makes up most of the difference without even counting accidental shootings of family members / neighbors.

 

 

A Cursory Analysis of the New York State Gun Data

 

 

The data is striking: the more handguns registered to residents of a New York State county, the more likely a resident of that county is to die from gun violence. That is the result of my analysis of records that were once public, the first and possibly the only analysis you will see that attempts to assess the local cost of the prevalence of guns in New York using what was formerly publicly available information on handgun ownership.

 

CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE

[GWCGWC 83]

re Bob's link: Houses with no hairdryer make it less likely by something like.....ONE HUNDRED PERCENT that someone will electrocute themselves by dropping a hairdryer in the bathtub.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for collecting data and basing conclusions off said data. Seems pretty reasonable. Bob's said there's a cost associated to being a nation of gun owners. I agree. The cost is no where near great enough to take away the right to gun ownership. Like, it's not even close.

 

 

But, to be sure, we all recognize that homes with guns are less safe than homes without the, right? I mean, that should be pretty clear by now. The increased rate of suicide alone makes up most of the difference without even counting accidental shootings of family members / neighbors.

 

I'm not sure where Shake would come down on this but I don't agree with this statement or to be more exact, I don't agree with your assumptions on what's "more or less safe".

[GWCGWC 83]

Guns locked up in a gun club are a very small danger unless they are stolen.

 

A gun in a home has been shown to be a danger.

 

The US is the most heavily armed country on the planet and also has far higher crime rates than other rich countries do. I can see no relationship between armed civilians and lower crime rates.

 

Crazy guy in China attacks school but because he has no access to a gun he uses a knife and people are only injured. Crazy guy in the US attacks a school but because his Mother has multiple guns purchased legally that he has access to multiple people are killed.

 

EDIT :

 

In your hypothetical example since it's Canada a handgun is a restricted weapon which means you can not store it loaded. It must be stored unloaded with a trigger lock or in a secure weapons safe also unloaded.

 

It also would be illegal to transport your weapon without a transportation permit from the Chief Weapons Officer of the Province and when you transport it would also have to be unloaded and secured with a trigger lock.

 

In Canada personal protection is not a valid reason to get a gun license approved.

 

My hypothetical is stupid but surely we agree people wouldn't go crazy and start killing everyone til their 1K rounds of ammo ran out, right?

 

Your provinces gun laws wouldn't work in the U.S. for reasons you mentioned on the previous page.

 

Just curious, don't the western provinces have less strict gun control laws? Have you looked at any stats for gun violence between more and less strict gun control laws based on population centers? I haven't but it would be interesting. Canada is a totally different culture so it wouldn't directly translate to the U.S. but I'm sure there's data available.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

My hypothetical is stupid but surely we agree people wouldn't go crazy and start killing everyone til their 1K rounds of ammo ran out, right?

 

Your provinces gun laws wouldn't work in the U.S. for reasons you mentioned on the previous page.

 

Just curious, don't the western provinces have less strict gun control laws? Have you looked at any stats for gun violence between more and less strict gun control laws based on population centers? I haven't but it would be interesting. Canada is a totally different culture so it wouldn't directly translate to the U.S. but I'm sure there's data available.

 

Gun laws are Federal in Canada. Exact same laws across the whole country.

 

Most guns that are used by criminals in Canada come from the US. It's close to 70% with the rest mostly being stolen from legal gun owners.

[ShakeZuma 585]

It's not at all obvious to me that the schools are safer. It depends on who the "guards" are. But I think one could easily argue that the rate of kids getting shot when they could otherwise be constrained using non-lethal means could be comparable to the rate of preventing kids from being killed during a school shooting.

the guards used in every school I'm aware of are police officers. you don't trust them to be provide the best protection then we've got bigger problems.

 

But, to be sure, we all recognize that homes with guns are less safe than homes without the, right? I mean, that should be pretty clear by now. The increased rate of suicide alone makes up most of the difference without even counting accidental shootings of family members / neighbors.

 

nope, we surely don't all recognize that. mainly because suicides shouldn't be included in that data at all. if there is any increased chance of somebody committing suicide because they own a gun, it's extremely negligible, mainly because the main cause of suicide is, you know, being suicidal. "hmm, man I can't wait for the weekend. might go to the bar on saturday night. look for some chicks. hey, wait, what's that over there? a gun? screw the weekend I'm putting that in my mouth!" said nobody ever. if somebody wants to commit suicide there are just vast amounts of ways for them to do it. perhaps you could look to bob's gun free utopia of japan and their suicide numbers and see how they compare to our evil gun ridden society's. (this is all completely ignoring the fact that I thought we were against making federal level decisions on how people should run their lives? suicide's a personal choice no matter how ugly it is.)

 

past that, gun accident fatalities and criminals turning a gun around on an owner are so small that they're easily outweighed by defensive use. so no, I don't think homes with guns are less safe.

 

 

 

but here's the real hundred thousand dollar question though, because, to be sure, we all recognize that not a single one of the president's recommendations to congress will reduce crime in any way or would have stopped sandy hook at all, right?

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

"hmm, man I can't wait for the weekend. might go to the bar on saturday night. look for some chicks. hey, wait, what's that over there? a gun? screw the weekend I'm putting that in my mouth!" said nobody ever.

 

 

I am so tired of the "said nobody, ever" thing. Said everyone, always.

 

Substitute the word dick for gun and I'd believe you, Shakey.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Suicides are increased when there are guns in a home.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

 

 

EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.

 

JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

but here's the real hundred thousand dollar question though, because, to be sure, we all recognize that not a single one of the president's recommendations to congress will reduce crime in any way or would have stopped sandy hook at all, right?

 

I think you are way overestimating the value of a gun for defensive reasons and how often they are actually of any value in that. I know you will disagree.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Oh no, if people know he owns a gun, they'll stay away.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care how many guns you own or have on your person, if someone gets the drop on you, they are of no more use than a belt.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

[AmScray 355]

"Magazine capacity restrictions" are sort of a logical canary in the coal mine.

 

You can be absolutely certain that they make perfect sense to people who don't know much about firearms, ergo, when you hear someone proposing them, you can safely presume they're doing so from the vantage of ignorance. It's pointless to explain how trivially simple it is to reload and how that law will have no practical effect on what they're trying to effect. To people who don't understand firearms, it makes sense that if we just addressed some technical issue inherent to the firearms themselves, it would then prevent acts of misuse. The reality is, well, it's not that.

 

We're deep, deep into the land of irrational emotion here. Reason is gone. Plaintive wails are now the rule of the day.

So, in response to a man who murdered his mother to steal her legal firearms and used them to commit a heinous crime, we now will pass laws toughening background checks.

 

It is rather pathetic, how blatant and unapologetic the agenda driven types are about hitching their wagon to this tragedy. Pretty sure at no time in human history have good regulatory laws ever been crafted and passed in the wake of an emotionally charged event, but **** knows we do just that with appalling regularity.