The Right Way to Keep Bare Gubs

[wombatman]

And while we're on the topic of "good guys with guns", let's remember that when the police roll up, they have to decide which of the people with guns are the ones that should be able to have them. If they choose rashly or incorrectly, this happens:

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/12/officer...t-robbins-bar/

The idea that we need more guns around is laughable on its face and fails when put up against any reasonable data set.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by wombatman

And while we're on the topic of "good guys with guns", let's remember that when the police roll up, they have to decide which of the people with guns are the ones that should be able to have them. If they choose rashly or incorrectly, this happens:

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/12/officer...t-robbins-bar/

The idea that we need more guns around is laughable on its face and fails when put up against any reasonable data set.

Waah! What happened to "An armed society is a polite society.?" Contrary to the NRA's claims, it seems that an armed society is hazardous to one's health. Stories like these lead to the conclusion that an armed society has a large Batsh!t contingent, who have the means to act out their Batsh!tiness in Technicolor®.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I don't know who quotes that as a statistic.

It's commonly used by American gun control advocates to inflate the numbers as a way of alarming people, by conflating suicide, justifiable homicide, accident, and even organized crime. Such advocates have even dishonestly included the elder Tsarnaev brother in a list of "gun violence victims" being read off at an event, despite the fact the autopsy revealed what killed him was his younger brother running him over with a stolen SUV while fleeing their gun and IED battle with police, after killing 4 and maiming numerous others with pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, and subsequent criminal activity including killing an officer and hijacking a car.

If I had a choice between eliminating all firearms death, all death by motor vehicle, or 10% of heart disease or 10% of cancer, I'd probably take the biggest number of lives saved. 10% of heart disease, 63526. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html
Firearms does not make the top ten list of causes overall. It would be more productive for people to give more attention to safe driving and healthy lifestyle, than worrying about firearms.

Some of the statistics that are rarely discussed are appalling. American parents murder their own young children by the hundreds annually (more than the total of Americans of all ages not in military combat killed by rifles of any kind), more often than not it's the mother that does it, and it's mostly boys that are killed.

I also don't count all people who suicide by gun as "bad guys with guns."

Nor do I. Nor do I think the number among that over 20,000 who had considered misuse against others is zero. Probably low, but not zero, when someone gets to that dark a state of mind.

More pertinent IMO is that (Holmes) attacked a theater which disregarded fire exits being propped open. Theaters used to have the ushers monitor them during movies (and many today have alarms on these doors) in order to prevent ticket holders from letting their friends in for free. Holmes actually left the theater by a fire exit to "gear up," and prevented the door from closing by itself. If someone had simply shut that door before he tried to re-enter, the attack wouldn't have happened at all. I also wonder whether the body count would have been much higher if other people with guns started firing in the darkened theater. The potential for "friendly fire" casualties in a dark, crowded room shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

Like I said, not a guarantee of no harm. A last resort when those bent on evil bring theirs. You are correct that even the cops are not perfect. But America is full enough of lawyers to give any reasonable person motivation to act judiciously. Typical numbers for mass murder attempts in self defense available areas are not dozens, it's 2 or 3 dead per incident. First shot or two, there's denial, then focus, then people quickly figure out someone's shooting multiple people, see who, then act. Whoever fires is responsible for the result of each round, both civilly and criminally. There was a concealed carrier at the Gabby Gifford incident, who held his fire because of concern of hitting the wrong person.

Re the Las Vegas concert:

The attacker didn't enter the venue. He blazed away at an automatic-weapons rate of fire, from a 32^nd floor window. For anyone in the venue to hit the attacker -- especially with a pistol -- would have been a phenomenal shot.

They are not common, but there are people that can and have made such a shot at more than twice the distance, with a handgun. Return fire might also have given the murderer pause, or incentive to end earlier. Opposition is usually when they turn a weapon on themselves. You've also excluded the possibility that off-duty cops there with their friends would take enough exception to being shot at, to close the distance and help hotel security deal with the situation before the LVPD muster and roll in from a distance. At even a normal rate of fire, minutes, even seconds delay mean more death. A more typical self defense situation is a matter of seconds. I think it's absolutely shameful, criminally so, that the concert organizers created such a high density of defenseless very exposed people beneath multiple high rises and did not have appropriate security in place for a population of over 20,000, larger than a lot of municipalities which would have more than a dozen officers well equipped. It's very strange that it took over 80 minutes from first shots fired to forced entry into the hotel room.

Yes, "de-institutionalization" has not been a roaring success. I'm not sure how much of a factor it is in mass shootings, but it certainly is a factor in the problem of deranged people committing crimes (including shootings); and the nuisances, health risks, and criminal behavior of homeless people, of whom, I have read, about a third are suffering from chronic mental problems. One result has been, an awful lot of mentally ill people wind up in jails and prisons, which are generally not suited to treating them.

Prison can be a very unhealthy place for anyone. Even a normally furnished room can be a pretty unhealthy place for a person in a strong schizophrenic episode; usual treatment is a pretty bare room, restraints for the patient's safety as needed, and drugs and frequent checks (15-minute charting, for example). I learned about some of this by being a guardian for someone so afflicted.
In the case of Jared Loughner (attacker of Gabby Gifford et al), his father tried to stop him, and tried to get the authorities involved. He may have been part of getting "red flag" laws passed in several states. Most mentally ill are pretty harmless, more at risk themselves than a threat to others.

A recurring theme in the above has to do with "economic efficiency" (cutting corners to save money). In the state where I live, statutes capped civil damages for a quick death at $500,000. They've literally put a price on life. Slow and painful costs more.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Re the Las Vegas concert:They are not common, but there are people that can and have made such a shot at more than twice the distance, with a handgun. Return fire might also have given the murderer pause, or incentive to end earlier.

Are you seriously advocating that civilians with pistols should have been taking potshots at an OCCUPIED HOTEL from 30+ stories below and hundreds of feet away?

Do you not see how patently ludicrous that sounds?

I also note that you have nothing to say about the 100 round drums and bump stocks the guy used that facilitated both a high rate and high volume of bullets. As for why it took so long for the police to breach the room, maybe read up here: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/us/la...nse/index.html

That's in addition to the fact that he was shooting out a window from 32 stories up. How readily do you think that was pinpointed?

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

So the problem boils down to the belief of the "guns for protection" nonsense.

If it were nonsense, John Lott's county by county study of the entire US (well, parish by parish in Louisiana) showing more guns, less crime, correlating with date of concealed carry enactment specific to the various jurisdictions, would have been refuted, but those who tried to refute it failed badly.
Bellesiles, on the other hand, who made claims in "research" that were beneficial to gun control proponents, also claimed to have accessed records destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake before he was borne, was discredited, lost tenure, lost his job, his published "research" was retracted, since it was demonstrably falsified, etc.
If guns had more contribution to criminality than defense or deterrence, the slope in the attachment would be upward to the right. But it is not. Data from ~2010. Far upper left: DC, basically illegal to own a functional firearm. Far right: Wyoming. It's complicated; density and demographics and other factors are probably in the mix along with ownership rate. Wisconsin and Illinois are adjacent, both have large urban areas and other similarities but different firearms control approaches, and the gun murder rate is more than double in more restrictive Illinois.
People used to "know" the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth or various other mistaken theories. What's viewed as truth vs nonsense is often flat wrong.

[kriesel]

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mu...fter-gun-bans/

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by wombatman

Are you seriously advocating that civilians with pistols should have been taking potshots at an OCCUPIED HOTEL from 30+ stories below and hundreds of feet away?

Do you not see how patently ludicrous that sounds?

I also note that you have nothing to say about the 100 round drums and bump stocks the guy used that facilitated both a high rate and high volume of bullets. As for why it took so long for the police to breach the room, maybe read up here: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/us/la...nse/index.html

That's in addition to the fact that he was shooting out a window from 32 stories up. How readily do you think that was pinpointed?

I'd expect to be able to pinpoint the location of the shooter rather quickly by the broken windows, constant gunshots and frequent muzzle flash visible at 10pm. There are few people that could reliably make that shot, but there are people that can hit a vitals-sized area at up to _1000 yards_ with a handgun. They know who they are. The rest should know they are not. (The actual aim point is well above the 32nd floor.) And you too are misquoting me and ignoring the possibility of the _qualified off duty police in the crowd_ responding immediately, if only they had not been disarmed too as a condition of entry to the event, some of whom were eventually wounded and at least one killed. Rapid response is essential in a mass shooter event. Off duty cop friends who had already worked together went to a concert together. They would not have had to drive 9 miles, they were already there! The old playbook of stage and surround and wait for SWAT has long since been thrown out most places in favor of early entry to save lives overall. Assuming the LVPD drove at 90mph, that 9 miles is six minutes more for the mass shooter to spew bullets on the crowd. (Actually longer delay, because first they would have to be notified. The cops on scene already saw for themselves, no phone time required.) And as you refer to, the shooter had planned and brought gear that allowed him to fire at a high rate for a long time. That makes earlier response more vital.
Timeline: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/us/la...uit/index.html

[S485122]

Originally Posted by kriesel

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mu...fter-gun-bans/

Beautyfull usage of statistics !
One could draw other conclusions from the graphs presented about England and Wales : increasing the police service strength increases the incidence of firearm homicide.

Of course the organisation presenting those statistics is completely neutral. The "world-recognized expert on guns and crime", John Lott, owner of the site, has an interesting article in the English language Wikipedia, but not in any other.

Jacob

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kriesel

I think it's absolutely shameful, criminally so, that the concert organizers created such a high density of defenseless very exposed people beneath multiple high rises and did not have appropriate security in place for a population of over 20,000, larger than a lot of municipalities which would have more than a dozen officers well equipped. It's very strange that it took over 80 minutes from first shots fired to forced entry into the hotel room.

Who are you to be dictating what would have been "appropriate" security, after the fact of an attack that was unprecedented, and could not reasonably have been anticipated? "Criminally shameful?" That doesn't even make sense.

I can only imagine the response if you took your notions of "appropriate" security to the organizers of events in open-air venues "beneath multiple high rises." If they're in a good mood, they might ask, "And who's gonna pay for this -- you?"

You might also try going to the people who actually attend such events, and tell them they're idiots for putting themselves in such terrible danger. But only if you are very fleet of foot...

Your basic premise here seems to be, one should expect an armed attacker bent on killing as many people as possible, at any and every large gathering of people. In other words, you think such attacks should be considered "normal." If that's the case, I guess in your mind, the terrorists have won.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by kriesel

If it were nonsense, John Lott's county by county study of the entire US (well, parish by parish in Louisiana) showing more guns, less crime, correlating with date of concealed carry enactment specific to the various jurisdictions, would have been refuted, but those who tried to refute it failed badly.
Bellesiles, on the other hand, who made claims in "research" that were beneficial to gun control proponents, also claimed to have accessed records destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake before he was borne, was discredited, lost tenure, lost his job, his published "research" was retracted, since it was demonstrably falsified, etc.
If guns had more contribution to criminality than defense or deterrence, the slope in the attachment would be upward to the right. But it is not. Data from ~2010. Far upper left: DC, basically illegal to own a functional firearm. Far right: Wyoming. It's complicated; density and demographics and other factors are probably in the mix along with ownership rate. Wisconsin and Illinois are adjacent, both have large urban areas and other similarities but different firearms control approaches, and the gun murder rate is more than double in more restrictive Illinois.
People used to "know" the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth or various other mistaken theories. What's viewed as truth vs nonsense is often flat wrong.

Take out the one aberrant data point and you could draw a straight line through that dataset, indicating that gun murder rate is not tied to gun ownership at all. As for Illinois, do you even bother to consider that people can purchase guns in neighboring states where gun laws are less restrictive and, say, bring them into the state (which is legal)? Of course not. Same for all your John Lott "data". This defense is laughable.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Waah! What happened to "An armed society is a polite society.?" Contrary to the NRA's claims, it seems that an armed society is hazardous to one's health. Stories like these lead to the conclusion that an armed society has a large Batsh!t contingent, who have the means to act out their Batsh!tiness in Technicolor®.

The "armed society" quotation comes from Robert Heinlein's book, Beyond This Horizon. Here's a more extended quotation:

Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gunfighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things to kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It’s a good thing.

One thing not mentioned in the quotation is, that in the society depicted in the book, there were unarmed citizens, proclaimed by their wearing of the "brassards-of-peace." These might be the old or infirm, who wouldn't stand a chance in a gunfight. Or, they might be pacifists. In any case, they were second-class citizens, bound by rules of conduct demanding obsequiousness toward armed citizens.

Now of course we all know that, having the right to keep and bear arms has made us US-ers renowned the world over for our politeness. Especially Il Duce.