OT: Shooting in Oregon Mall

[Forty_Sixand2]

I have posted this before, but take a look at the list of countries by intentional homicide rates. Take a look at the top, and how much high it is than the rest. Also, take out a world map and put a dot in the countries with the highest rates (you can ignore countries with tiny numbers because 1 event is so impactful it can skew the results if you want to) and it literally follows the drug trade into the United States ans Europe. Throw in a few western African countries currently in the middle of civil wars (which are also harbors for South American drugs, FWIW) and it shows you something. Once again, ecological fallacy must be considered, but a rate that is 20X that of the world average is shocking and much more telling than a rate that is 2x the nation average, as indicated in he US map.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BF4L]

One tale does not trump statistics. If you own a gun, you are more likely to die or be injured by a gun. You are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault if you have a gun. I think BF4L is an exceptional gun owner from all that he says in terms of care for his weapons, knowing how to use them, lock them up, etc. Most people don't do all that stuff and the vast majority of people would probably not have handled themselves in the situation he was in properly or well. Hell, even he said his heart was racing and he was exasperated afterwards.

Thank you and Yes I was exhausted and very shaken after that event. I also agree although you do not directly state it, that education and training are so important. The current MA state gun laws are a joke. All you need to do is take a NRA basic firearms class which nobody fails and go to your local police and apply. It is then up to the Chief of Police to grant or deny. Which basically means he checks to see if you have a record, any domestic violence issues, drunk driving (why that would matter is beyond me) and have been convicted of any felonies

Education and training should be much more intensive as well as some basic rules. Own guns? Have at minimum tamper proof trigger locks. That way nobody without the key can use them. I prefer both a safe and trigger locks but I am extreme and safety is #1. My main gun safe is rated to 5k degrees and would take a very long time if it is even possible to break into. My personal defense safe has a key code and is biometric. I stick my index finger on it and it opens or enter the keycode. So bottom line is none of my weapons are just layng around the house and non of them could be used without my consent or knowledge. My wife also has access to the biometric safe for her defense. She would never open it unless she felt her life was in danger. She also has come to the range with me to learn how to handle that weapon. She does not carry a gun and I do.

Education is the key and must be improved. I have said it before in this thread that I am in favor of changes in the laws that would actually work. More education, waiting periods, etc etc. I obviously do not believe that banning guns of any type will have any effect on incidents like yesterdays. You cannot fix mentally unstable but you certainly can limit the exposure or availability of any weapon to that person. I look back and wonder why this Mom did not have trigger locks or those guns in a safe knowing she had a mentally unstable son in the house.

 

[BF4L]

At the risk of sounding condescending again, if you own a gun, you are also more likely living in a situation that would lead you to be shot. People who own guns differ from those who do not in ways outside of simple gun ownership. It is called confounding. Now, i don't know where you got the stat from, but I wonder if they controlled for that.

Now curse me out, call me an ass and speak in extremes. I can take it.

Well I disagree. I live in a nice smaller size town that has a very low criminal element. Kinda like Sandy Brooks.

You never know and that is why I prefer to be able to defend my family versus dialing 911 and waiting for someone else to come and protect me and mine.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

You are one example. I am speaking to the whole.

 

[BF4L]

You are one example. I am speaking to the whole.

And I agree. There are far too many careless gun owners. I have witnessed it and it pisses me off.

Once again education is the key

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I went and looked to see what is known about gun owners and it seems that most are actually upper middle class, white males who live in suburban or rural environments (hunters). There is more of an urban aspect to handgun owners (kind of self evident) and the researchers admit that the research is limited because they only ask about legally owned guns, and the data comes from a survey, and was not actively collected.

I stand corrected.

I wonder if you could do an active survey and get honest responses about un-registered gun ownership. We have a tough enough time getting people to tell us if they are employed or not, and whether or not they drink, even though it is all confidential.

 

[forty_three]

Something has to be done. After the Oregon slaying and today, there is no doubt in my mind. People's lives were thankfully spared at the mall earlier this week when the killer's gun jammed. If not for that, we might have seen fifty some people dead over the past three days.

People will say it is just freak incidents, but this style of going out fully outfitted with extra ammo and heavy caliber weapons seems to be a growing problem. There are also those who say this type of attack isn't anything new in our society, which is true. However, I don't think the weaponry, supply and study put into acting out these events have ever been as deadly.

They're calculated, psychopathic attacks.

When I compared it to the impossible situation that slavery was my point was exactly that something had to be done. People have to balance the effort that is worth putting into it. At some point we cross the boundary from "most accept it" to "most oppose it".

Either way, it will start a war.

My cynicism is from a direct interaction of my daily life. I find it less and less desirable to even go out in public anymore (shopping, entertainment, errands, etc) just because of the greater frequency that I will have interactions with selfish pricks.

Of course, as was mentioned before, it varies by area. Before I moved from Pittsburgh, it wasn't as bad as it is here.

I have friends that live in Jax and there are some seriously angry people there.

I certainly hope people are speaking out of emotion. There have been way too many "fuck yous" in this thread. I just skimmed the convo.

That's nothing. People are PMing mods to get my posts deleted.

Didn't we have a Boston Bruins fan from the Hoop save a woman and himself by having a gun on his person?

And we have a horse who posts that kills hookers (and can lift 100lbs over his head) and a Comedian that really likes Carly Rae Jepson.

And I have a bridge for sale in London. Slightly used.

 

[BF4L]

That's nothing. People are PMing mods to get my posts deleted.

And we have a horse who posts that kills hookers (and can lift 100lbs over his head) and a Comedian that really likes Carly Rae Jepson.

And I have a bridge for sale in London. Slightly used.

Actually that is me. I have not personally attacked anyone in this thread yet you feel the need to attack me and now basically call me a liar. You are a troll. Be gone

I believe that most of us are seeking common ground to build on. We all will not agree but good conversation from all can certainly help.

 

[abaskin18]

Actually that is me. I have not personally attacked anyone in this thread yet you feel the need to attack me and now basically call me a liar. You are a troll. Be gone

I believe that most of us are seeking common ground to build on. We all will not agree but good conversation from all can certainly help.

You really ought to be able to ban them on your own. I mean, why should you have to wait for the mods to come and protect you when you could do it yourself...?

I'll let that sink in while I move on.

Anyway, while there is a wide spectrum of opinions here and nationwide like any good debate there are really only two sides to the gun debate for me and, call me superficial or judgmental, but it answers everything else I need to know about one's position in the debate: Do you feel citizens have the right to own assault weapons under any circumstances?

 

[BF4L]

You really ought to be able to ban them on your own. I mean, why should you have to wait for the mods to come and protect you when you could do it yourself...?

I'll let that sink in while I move on.

Anyway, while their is a wide spectrum of opinions here and nationwide like any good debate there are really only two sides to the gun debate for me and, call me superficial or judgmental, but it answers everything else I need to know about one's position in the debate: Do you feel citizens have the right to own assault weapons under any circumstances?

Yes and No. If a citizen passes a safety course and a complete background check which should include any mental instability then that person should be allowed to own any type of weapon.

If you allow the goverment to ban certain things and ammend the Constitution to its current desires then the paper means nothing. If you ammend it to ban assault rifles and it goes through what is next?

If you change the 2nd to ban certain weapons why cant the goverment then ammend the 1st and say no sports forums?

A extreme example I admit but once you start down the path of making changes when are the changes enough? Who gets to say?

Slippery slope there if you ask me.

 

[dash]

Just a request to please refrain from personal attacks. I realize that this is a very heated and intense subject which triggers a wide range of emotions. Thanks.

 

[BF4L]

Just a request to please refrain from personal attacks. I realize that this is a very heated and intense subject which triggers a wide range of emotions. Thanks.

You are right Dash. I should not have posted back at him. I wont again.

 

[abaskin18]

Yes and No. If a citizen passes a safety course and a complete background check which should include any mental instability then that person should be allowed to own any type of weapon.

If you allow the goverment to ban certain things and ammend the Constitution to its current desires then the paper means nothing. If you ammend it to ban assault rifles and it goes through what is next?

If you change the 2nd to ban certain weapons why cant the goverment then ammend the 1st and say no sports forums?

A extreme example I admit but once you start down the path of making changes when are the changes enough? Who gets to say?

Slippery slope there if you ask me.

Any type of weapon? And you worry about gun restrictions being a slippery slope... Frightening.

As for the bold, actually, that is exactly why there is an amendment procedure in place and what makes that document so special.

Like I said before, you either believe there is a justification for citizens owning assault weapons or you don't and that's all I need to know about a person in this context. To me, it really does equate to being part of the solution or part of the problem.

Do you feel you should have the right to ban other posters if you feel attacked or should that be left to the mods?

 

[BF4L]

I have another thought I feel worth sharing.

Both the schools my children attend have locked doors. You cant just walk in. You have to hit a intercom and be buzzed in. Now I think back to the last time one of mine was sick and I went to get her.

I got to the front door and hit the intercom. About 2 seconds later the door buzzed and in I walked. Nothing was said to me and I am not a common visitor so they sure did not know who I was.

You should have to talk and at least have some knowledge of a kid in the school to be allowed in. The nurse should call up to the office and say Mr. So so is coming in to get his daughter/son he said he would arrive in about 15 mins..The office would then know I was coming and they could just give me a quick screening at the front door and know I was legit.

What good does locked entry doors on schools do if you just ring the bell and someone reaches over and hits the buzzer button and lets you in?

Just a thought.

 

[BF4L]

Any type of weapon? And you worry about gun restrictions being a slippery slope... Frightening.

As for the bold, actually, that is exactly why there is an amendment procedure in place and what makes that document so special.

Like I said before, you either believe there is a justification for citizens owning assault weapons or you don't and that's all I need to know about a person in this context. To me, it really does equate to being part of the solution or part of the problem.

Do you feel you should have the right to ban other posters if you feel attacked or should that be left to the mods?

Not exactly any weapon. I dont see any need to own a bazoka (sp) or a nuclear bomb but a AR15 yes a AK47 yes.

As far as posters. I refrain from discussing it from my last post. I generally enjoy and try and learn from non like minded people. I like to educate on my stance and see if there is a common ground that can be reached. I believe in progress. I believe that in each and every person there is something I can learn from.

 

[abaskin18]

Not exactly any weapon. I dont see any need to own a bazoka (sp) or a nuclear bomb but a AR15 yes a AK47 yes.

As far as posters. I refrain from discussing it from my last post. I generally enjoy and try and learn from non like minded people. I like to educate on my stance and see if there is a common ground that can be reached. I believe in progress. I believe that in each and every person there is something I can learn from.

So who should decide what types of weapons you should be able to own?

Maybe you're missing the analogy in the question I asked.

 

[elocomotive]

This blog has been going around all day now.

#8 indicates that fewer guns = fewer homicides. I do not debate that. I never have in this argument. I am saying that the literature that I cited earlier suggests that gun control laws do not decrease the amount of guns in a statistically significant way. In fact the articles specifically point that out. Gun crime did not go down significantly, because the number of guns did not go down.

#9 is interesting but once again it is very difficult to use group level data (in this case state level) to evaluate individual level risk. The south also has the highest level of poverty, for example. It is interesting. I need to pull up the article and look at it.

For the record, I also see flaws in all of the papers that I cited. They tend to look at small timeframes. I would like to see follow ups at 10, 20 years. Maybe it takes that long to see any significant drops. Violence levels as a whole are way the hell down since the 80s and 90s, so evaluating violence rates are tough, since that will overwhelm measures. There ARE ways to control for that but it is more work, and a lot of times researchers just don't have the funding or labor to do it.

One question you may ask is why are so many group level studies done if they are brought into question. Well, they are a lot easier to do and require much less funding and they ARE important. They can show overall trends, but you have to be very careful assigning causation with regards to them. In actuality, you can't technically assign causation because of issues of temporality, but you can see associations that can be used to justify further investigation. You can use these associations to go the CDC or NIH for funding to conduct longitudinal studies that better evaluate risk. I am sure that this kind of research is being done right now. The research (much like mental health research) was not a major public health focus for the longest time but it has emerged and is getting a lot more attention now, which is good.

Great points, great post. I agree with you that correlation does not necessarily equate to causality.

 

[BF4L]

So who should decide what types of weapons you should be able to own?

Maybe you're missing the analogy in the question I asked.

The Bill of Rights.

 

[abaskin18]

The Bill of Rights.

No such description for the limitations on arms exists in the Bill of Rights or any other amendment. You list arms in your last post that you believe should not be owned. Should not we, as a society, be able to determine that limitation? Or should citizens be limited to arms available at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted?

 

[abaskin18]

As for the other question, let me try to explain. The reason I asked if you feel you should have the right to ban posters if personally attacked rather than asking a mod for that protection is because the rationale is analogous to having a gun for the purpose of home protection. Mods are trusted with that power by the board. If ordinary posters, with long and consistently sane posting histories (showing them to be trained and mentally stable), had that power they could exercise it if they feel attacked. Perhaps someone who felt attacked here today on the board may have exercised that power had they possessed it.