Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#302 Dec 20 2012 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
If its about saving lives, we would do better to outlaw ladders, stairs, kitchens & baths........electrical power, automobiles etc ad nauseum.

Automobiles are far, far more regulated than guns are.

And ladders, stairs, and house construction have to meet a number of safety standards and codes (and so do guns, but it still knocks a hole in your bizarre logic).
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#303 Dec 20 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
I suppose the "we didn't do anything to them that they weren't doing to others" answer to the savage and heinous crimes committed against Native Americans would make you feel a little better about yourself. If you are about four and a half years old, that is...

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 12:42pm by Belkira
#304 Dec 20 2012 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,551 posts
I would just like to point out that "Native Americans" were more than one people, more than one nation.

And that some of those nations were wiped out, so it was "genocide" on that group of people.

To lump them all in to one category may help you feel better, and allow you to say that "It wasn't genocide" but it isn't the case.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#305 Dec 20 2012 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,182 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
In the meantime I'm going to put on my swim trunks and do a cannonball of the fiscal cliff. There's water at the bottom right?
Just an inch, but that's enough right?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#306 Dec 20 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I would just like to point out that "Native Americans" were more than one people, more than one nation.

And that some of those nations were wiped out, so it was "genocide" on that group of people.

To lump them all in to one category may help you feel better, and allow you to say that "It wasn't genocide" but it isn't the case.


I'm pretty sure that distinction was not made back then re: American policy. I could be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#307 Dec 20 2012 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
I don't understand how anyone could argue that having more guns is the way to prevent people being killed by guns. It contradicts ALL the real evidence - that evidence shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among developed countries and the highest amounts of gun-related homicide. It's bizarre that anyone could actually argue that lack of guns is what is killing people in America. I mean, crikes, when a country like Japan can have as few as -2- gun related homicides in a year?!?





Edited, Dec 20th 2012 12:14pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#308 Dec 20 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Despite all their insistence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings, you know what one factor is consistent in nearly all (actually, "all" I think) cases where an armed civilian (other than the shooter) is present? They don't become mass shootings

So, it's your theory that no one has ever been killed in a shooting involving 2 or more victims when that person has had a firearm? I just want to be clear on what it'll take seven seconds of research to refute.


I believe that the Mother Jones study used 4 fatalities in the shooting (aside from the shooter) as their criteria for "mass shooting". It's their statistics Smash. They're the ones pointing out that in the set of mass shootings they studied, none of them were prevented by an armed civilian. Of course, that's like saying that none of the people who died in car crashes were saved by airbags, so therefor airbags don't prevent people from dying in car crashes.

Surely you can see the flaw in their logic. It's a huge gaping one. Their study excluded all cases which didn't become mass shootings. So of course, none of the cases they studied were prevented. It's axiomatic.

Quote:
Can you concisely state what you "assume" is true for us? Nothing overly complex, but what sort of number you accept as a "mass" shooting. If the victims have to die or just get shot, that sort of thing. Also what you mean by civilian. If someone was, oh I don't know, shot in Pakistan while armed working for DoD as a civilian...does that count? Are armed security guards civilians?


You're free to look up the Mother Jones study methodology for yourself Smash.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#309gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 2:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Replace "gun related homicide" with "homicide". A person is just as dead if killed with a knife or baseball bat. When you place an arbitrary (and circular) requirement that we track "gun crimes" and "gun homicides" instead of just "crime" and "homicide", you show that your goal is to reduce the number of guns, not the number of crimes. Shouldn't we care more about the crime?
#310 Dec 20 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm imaging an immigration argument where the usual suspects making the "We can't get rid of every gun and they'll just use swords and crossbow bombs" argument say "We can't deport every illegal immigrant so let's just give up." and "Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."


Because they're completely different things? Every single illegal immigrant is a violation of our laws. Not every gun is. To compare the two, you'd have to compare attempts to find and deport illegal immigrants with attempts to find and confiscate illegally owned firearms. No one on the pro-gun side has any problems with police tracking down illegal uses of firearms (well, very very very few). Opposition to confiscating firearms used to commit criminal acts is at best a fringe on the pro-gun side. Meanwhile, opposition to deporting illegal immigrants is pretty mainstream.


So not a great comparison.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#311 Dec 20 2012 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
I'm pretty sure that distinction was not made back then re: American policy. I could be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence.

It was likely made more than than it is today. The US government had various treaties with different tribes, alliances with some, states of war with others, etc. It very much treated them as individual entities. There was, of course, blanket policies put in place (more so as the number of tribes dwindled) but the distinction between tribes was very much made.

I'm not going to look up a bunch of stuff for ya on this (sorry) but you might want to independently read up on it. It's a fascinating and not often discussed* part of our nation's history.


* "Discussed" as in looking into its breadth and complexity. As opposed to "Trail of Tears, reservations, maybe Little Bighorn, now moving on..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#312 Dec 20 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because they're completely different things?

The faulty logic? Nope. Exactly the same.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Dec 20 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
I don't understand how anyone could argue that having more guns is the way to prevent people being killed by guns. It contradicts ALL the real evidence - that evidence shows that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among developed countries and the highest amounts of gun-related homicide. It's bizarre that anyone could actually argue that lack of guns is what is killing people in America. I mean, crikes, when a country like Japan can have as few as -2- gun related homicides in a year?!?


Replace "gun related homicide" with "homicide". A person is just as dead if killed with a knife or baseball bat. When you place an arbitrary (and circular) requirement that we track "gun crimes" and "gun homicides" instead of just "crime" and "homicide", you show that your goal is to reduce the number of guns, not the number of crimes. Shouldn't we care more about the crime?


Because it's a lot easier to lose your temper and kill someone with a gun, then with a knife for a bat, you ignorant twat. Guns are designed to do massive harm to the target, You don't have to hit someone right in the heart or brain to kill them. With a knife, it's a lot harder. If you lose your temper and stab someone once, you'd have to hit something really vital to kill them. With a bat... WTF carries a bat around with them?

But you go ahead and live in your personal little fantasy world where we all carry guns and are "safe".
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#314 Dec 20 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
gbaji wrote:

Replace "gun related homicide" with "homicide"


Japan: 0.5 homicides per 100,000 people.
United States: 5.9 homicides per 100,000 people.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

Technogeek wrote:

Because it's a lot easier to lose your temper and kill someone with a gun, then with a knife for a bat, you ignorant twat. Guns are designed to do massive harm to the target, You don't have to hit someone right in the heart or brain to kill them.


Never mind that you'd also have a really hard time perpetuating a mass murder with a knife or a bat.



Edited, Dec 20th 2012 2:22pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#315gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 4:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I live in the real world where individuals having the ability to legally own and possess guns does make us all safer. I know that it's hard to shake the assumptions you've been taught probably all your life about this, but you really are safer if your neighbor or the random guy walking on the street next to you is allowed to legally carry a firearm. The reason for this is that the criminals are going to carry firearms with them to commit their crimes whether it's legal to carry them or not. The law abiding folks wont if it's not. Thus, by opposing legal carry capability, you only ensure that anyone around you with a gun is a criminal.
#316 Dec 20 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
WTF carries a bat around with them?


Boricuas (Puerto Ricans) and Cubans. Never know when we will throw down and play some baseball.
#317 Dec 20 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Replace "gun related homicide" with "homicide"


Japan: 0.5 homicides per 100,000 people.
United States: 5.9 homicides per 100,000 people.


It's currently 4.2/100k in the US, but you're also comparing two different countries with different cultures and base levels of crime and extraneous factors which would likely exist regardless of gun laws.

Compare what happens within a country when it enacts a strong gun control measure, and you'll get a better idea of the ineffectiveness of such laws. The Brady Bill here in the US had absolutely no statistically relevant effect on crime at all, much less gun related crime. In Australia, after their infamous forced buy back program, most crime rates have increased relatively speaking, especially crimes committed against the most vulnerable (sexual assaults on women, and robberies against the elderly).

These are more significant because the question isn't "What if the US magically changed into Japan?", but "what if the US adopted <some gun control measure>?". The social and geographical realities of the US don't change if we pass such laws. So we should ask just what those laws will change. And the answer tends to be that things will either get worse or stay about the same by enacting stronger gun control laws.


Quote:
Never mind that you'd also have a really hard time perpetuating a mass murder with a knife or a bat.


Irrelevant to the point I was making, but since mass murder has been committed with a knife, the point is doubly moot. You know what makes it even harder to commit mass murder? If there's someone with a firearm in the area around to try to stop you. Think about it. If you were planning on killing a bunch of people and you want to be able to kill as many people as possible, which of these would you prefer:

1. You are armed with an assortment of legal firearms of your choice (shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles), and no one within a quarter mile has any sort of firearm.

2. You are armed with an assortment of bladed or blunt weapons of your choice, and no one within a quarter mile has any sort of firearm.

3. You are armed with an assortment of legal firearms of your choice (shotguns, handguns, and semi-automatic rifles), but there are 2 random people in the crowd who are armed with concealed handguns.

4. You are armed with an assortment of bladed or blunt weapons of your choice, but there are 2 random people in the crowd who are armed with concealed handguns.


It might just kinda be in that order, wouldn't it? You'd prefer to use firearms in locations where no one else has them. Then you'd prefer to use any other weapon as long as you knew no one else had a firearm. The last place you'd want to go, regardless of what weapons you had available was somewhere where someone else might be armed. The problem with our current laws, is that we actually create the ideal choice for mass murderers and we put our kids in them every time we send them to school.

Insane, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#318 Dec 20 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
gbaji wrote:
you really are safer if your neighbor or the random guy walking on the street next to you is allowed to legally carry a firearm.


If that's the case, why are there so many fewer homicides in Japan than there are in the US? If more people with more guns equals more safety, than why does a country with some of the world's strictest gun control laws also have the second lowest murder rate in the world?

If your supposition, namely that criminals with guns would just run around killing people randomly if they didn't fear all the non-criminals with guns, was correct, then Japan should have a higher homicide rate than the US, surely.

gbaji wrote:
you're also comparing two different countries with different cultures and base levels of crime and extraneous factors which would likely exist regardless of gun laws.


Really? That's quite a statement to make without any supporting evidence. America's murder rate is many times higher than that of most developed countries. It also has many more people who own guns than in most developed countries. It's quite a stretch to say that the guns, therefore, are making people safer.

If "criminals" as you say - want to go to someplace where no one has a gun to perpetuate mass murder - then why aren't countries with gun control laws plagued with these sorts of events? What you are claiming makes no sense whatsoever.

Saying "oh well, the culture is different in Japan, people don't just want to kill each other randomly there like they do in America" is a really weird statement. It also doesn't really support your viewpoint. If people in America are more prone to killing sprees than people in Japan, it makes sense to give fewer people in America guns rather than more people.

Also, I'd like to point out that most career criminals (the kind that would be likely to have guns regardless of gun laws in most countries) actually don't generally go killing random people for no reason. It's not generally gang members and the mafia that go into schools and kill little children or into movie theaters and mow down random people. Sure, sometimes innocents do get caught in the middle when it comes to career criminals shooting at each other - but in terms of the situations we're talking about - mass murders - they aren't usually involved. It's generally the "normal*" people that you say all should be armed to protect us from the "criminals."


*"normal" as in people who have no prior history of involvement with serious crime.


Edited, Dec 20th 2012 3:34pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#319 Dec 20 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
you really are safer if your neighbor or the random guy walking on the street next to you is allowed to legally carry a firearm.


If that's the case, why are there so many fewer homicides in Japan than there are in the US?


They are too busy tentacle raping school girls. (And they don't kill them, because they become **** slaves after that)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#320 Dec 20 2012 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You know what makes it even harder to commit mass murder? If there's someone with a firearm in the area around to try to stop you.

Unless you shoot 'em.
Quote:
If you were planning on killing a bunch of people and you want to be able to kill as many people as possible, which of these would you prefer:

Why stop there? I'd want to be in an AH-6 helicopter, mowing down hundreds of babies with my miniguns.

This is why everyone should carry RPGs with them. Did you know there's RPGs all over Afghanistan and that the rate of helicopter mounted minigun baby slaughters is practically nil? The statistics here don't lie.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#321 Dec 20 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Olorinus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
you really are safer if your neighbor or the random guy walking on the street next to you is allowed to legally carry a firearm.


If that's the case, why are there so many fewer homicides in Japan than there are in the US?


Culture? Geography? You do realize that Japan is a set of islands, right? It's a lot easier to control who comes into their country. You could just as easily ask why the homicide rate is twice as high in Luxemburg as in the United Kingdom, or why Belgium has twice the homicide rate as Denmark. There are far far more factors involved than just what sorts of gun control laws are in place. There are countries with very lax gun control laws and very low homicide rates, and countries with very tight gun control laws and very high homicide rates.


To suggest that more restrictive gun control means lower crime is completely fallacious.

Quote:
If more people with more guns equals more safety, than why does a country with some of the world's strictest gun control laws also have the second lowest murder rate in the world?


You're being selective in your bias and only looking for correlations which support your position and not those which don't, I could just as easily ask you why a nation with far more strict gun control laws than the US also happens to have the worlds highest murder rate in the world (that's Honduras btw). Or why Greenland, which has gun control laws just as strict as the UK or Japan has a homicide rate nearly 5 times as high as the US?

We can sit here and pull out single cases, or we can conclude that gun control laws don't really have much at all to do with total crime statistics.

Quote:
If your supposition, namely that criminals with guns would just run around killing people randomly if they didn't fear all the non-criminals with guns, was correct, then Japan should have a higher homicide rate than the US, surely.


No, it wouldn't. Because the crime differences between different nations has to do with a whole **** of a lot of other factors and not much at all with what their respective gun control laws are. As I said earlier, this tells us nothing about what changing those laws will do within a single country. That's the question we're asking here. And when we look at the specific conditions in the US, it seems more likely that crime will either stay the same or increase if we pass tighter gun control laws than the other way around. Each nation is going to be different. You can't assume that the effect of a legal change will be the same everywhere.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#322 Dec 20 2012 at 5:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You know what makes it even harder to commit mass murder? If there's someone with a firearm in the area around to try to stop you.

Unless you shoot 'em.


You have to shoot them first though. Which is demonstrably harder to do when they are armed than when they are not armed. Is this really even a point of contention? Of course a mass shooter is going to be less likely to kill as many people if there's someone else there with a firearm trying to stop them than if there isn't. The only possible argument one could use is that there's some other inherent danger to having other armed people walking about. I think that's worth the benefits, but people are free to disagree. But to insist that their presence would not have an impact on mass shootings is just indefensible.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#323 Dec 20 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You know what makes it even harder to commit mass murder? If there's someone with a firearm in the area around to try to stop you.

Unless you shoot 'em.


You have to shoot them first though. Which is demonstrably harder to do when they are armed than when they are not armed. Is this really even a point of contention? Of course a mass shooter is going to be less likely to kill as many people if there's someone else there with a firearm trying to stop them than if there isn't. The only possible argument one could use is that there's some other inherent danger to having other armed people walking about. I think that's worth the benefits, but people are free to disagree. But to insist that their presence would not have an impact on mass shootings is just indefensible.


The killer has the advantage. The element of surprise. Unless you aren't a serious killer and announce beforehand that you are going to kill everyone and then fire 60 rounds randomly, not hitting anymore, before running downstairs and shooting yourself.

So how many bullets is a killer going to get off with their legally obtained semi automatic assault rifle with huge clip of bullets before the lucky citizen who happens to be carrying and not be shot gets a shot off the take out the criminal?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#324gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 6:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. Which is precisely why simply tightening up background checks, waiting periods, etc doesn't do anything to prevent the sorts of mass shootings we're talking about. It is effective at stopping criminals from getting guns illegally (sorta), so they're not bad ideas in general. The problem is that they do nothing to prevent the seemingly normal guy who decides to kill a bunch of people. And guess what? Limiting the types of weapons which can be purchased doesn't do anything either. It just changes the choice of weapons they're going to use. It's not like someone who's gone to that place in their mind and has decided to do such a thing will just go "Oh geez. I can't buy that AR-15 with the 30 round mag, folding stock, and cool looking flash suppressor. I guess I'll give up my plan to kill a bunch of random school kids!". No, they'll just decide to go with the Winchester hunting rifle with the 8 round mag instead and just bring more magazines. Same deal with their handgun choices and shotgun choices.
#325 Dec 20 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But to insist that their presence would not have an impact on mass shootings is just indefensible.

Not at all. As shown, it's had no effect on events the FBI considers to be "mass shootings". You can play the hypothetical game all night long where every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it (and were often wounded or killed in the process).

Can you explain why armed civilians failed in every one of these events? Surely they should have popped off the guy with a well-executed headshot or something at least some of the time, right? Does killing four people first give you magical invulnerability to bullets?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#326 Dec 20 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the US and what would work best for us.

What would work best for us would be to be more like other countries where people aren't shooting up a theater, mall or school every three months.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#327gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 6:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's a question of how many people he's going to actually hit and/or kill in that time. It's not just about fire rate. If it was, then every single person in that theater in Colorado would be dead, and we should be looking at a couple hundred dead kids in NewTown. You are making an absolutely false assumption that the shooter is actually a good shot, actually shoots efficiently rather than wildly, his guns don't jam, he doesn't take time to do other crazy things, yell at the sky, whatever, doesn't spend any time changing position, etc.
#328 Dec 20 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it


Only law enforment/military if armed would shoot the person. Your averge citizen that likes to shoot at targets at a range/club would not. Those that intend to kill others wouldn't be stopped by your average citizen that carries a gun. Like in the quote, they fail and also get injured themselves.

#329 Dec 20 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You are making an absolutely false assumption that the shooter is actually a good shot, actually shoots efficiently rather than wildly

When you're killing people in a crowd, you don't have to be.

When you're trying to kill one specific person without killing anyone else in the crowd, you're at a tremendous disadvantage.
Quote:
then return just in time to prevent the killer from taking his 4th or 5th victim.

You mean 3rd or 4th. Because once you kill your fourth, you gain the magical bullet immunity that prevents any civilian from taking you down and statistics about you no longer count.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 6:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#330 Dec 20 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But to insist that their presence would not have an impact on mass shootings is just indefensible.

Not at all. As shown, it's had no effect on events the FBI considers to be "mass shootings".


In how many of those mass shootings was there an armed civilian (not the shooter) present?

This is a completely BS claim Joph. I've already explained twice why.

Quote:
You can play the hypothetical game all night long where every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it (and were often wounded or killed in the process).


Sure. Because you're only looking at cases where the number of fatalities reached a number required to be considered a "mass shooting". So by definition, any of those in which an armed civilian attempted to intervene that person failed to prevent it from being a mass shooting. But that's selection bias. It tells us nothing about whether armed civilian intervention can or does prevent mass shootings. It only says that in those cases, it didn't.


It's exactly like concluding that airbags don't prevent people from dying in car accidents because in every case where someone died in a car accident and their airbag deployed, it failed to save their life. We could insist that anyone claiming that people in accidents where their airbags deployed were saved by them are just hypothesizing that those people would have died without the airbag being there. See! We can't know for sure, so let's just pretend that none of them would have, so the airbag didn't matter.

We could. But we'd all say that person was dumb as a brick.

Quote:
Can you explain why armed civilians failed in every one of these events?


Because you're only counting the events where they failed? Can you explain why in every game that the Patriots lost this year, they failed to win? Clearly, we should just assume that the Patriots are incapable of winning a football game, right? They should just stop even bothering to try and should forfeit every game instead.

You're really trying to use this kind of logic?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#331 Dec 20 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You can play the hypothetical game all night long where every guy wit a gun stopped would have really killed a million-thousand others but the fact remains that even in actual mass shooting events where a person with a firearm attempted to intervene in those events, they failed to stop it (and were often wounded or killed in the process).


Sure. Because you're only looking at cases where the number of fatalities reached a number required to be considered a "mass shooting". So by definition, any of those in which an armed civilian attempted to intervene that person failed to prevent it from being a mass shooting. But that's selection bias. It tells us nothing about whether armed civilian intervention can or does prevent mass shootings. It only says that in those cases, it didn't.


It's not that the civilian failed to stop it from _becoming_ a mass shooting. It's that the armed civilian failed to stop the event once it had become a mass shooting from progressing any further and themselves was shot and/or killed in the process of trying to stop it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#332 Dec 20 2012 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Can you explain why armed civilians failed in every one of these events?
Because you're only counting the events where they failed?

Why can't I look at any events where a civilian stopped a shooting after the 4th victim? Can you show me the event where this occurred?

Is this the magic "4th victim" bullet immunity I've heard so much about?
Quote:
You're really trying to use this kind of logic?

The logic where I point to a fact and you run around trying to come up with a thousand hypothetical situations you like more or conjecture as to why you're totally right?

Yes, it's exactly that kind of logic.


Edited, Dec 20th 2012 6:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#333 Dec 20 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,087 posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery" rel="external nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery among Native Americans in the United States
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#334 Dec 20 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
#335 Dec 20 2012 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not even sure how you **** up a link that bad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#336 Dec 20 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
The quote shows it was a set of double brackets around a link. And that's all.

So it's likely some screwy formatting thing with the and then around the link.

Edit:
It appears that the double brackets is automatically a "create zam wiki link" thing.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 7:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#337 Dec 20 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
Can you explain why in every game that the Patriots lost this year, they failed to win?


NFC West is good this year, Baltimore at home, NFC West is good this year, NFC West is good this year.

Sums it up nicely. Smiley: cool

gbaji wrote:
Clearly, we should just assume that the Patriots are incapable of winning a football game, right? They should just stop even bothering to try and should forfeit every game instead.


Fine by me. Smiley: grin

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#338 Dec 20 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
TirithRR wrote:
It's not that the civilian failed to stop it from _becoming_ a mass shooting. It's that the armed civilian failed to stop the event once it had become a mass shooting from progressing any further and themselves was shot and/or killed in the process of trying to stop it.


First off, that's not true at all. In most shootings where it's already become a mass shooting and civilians intervene, few if any additional people are killed (other than the shooter) after the civilian intervention occurs. To be fair, in most of these cases, the shooter is out of ammo, or attempting to escape, when the civilians intervene. But to say that they fail to prevent further deaths is quite incorrect. Here's an interesting study on exactly what you're addressing. While not official or peer reviewed, he does provide his methodology and data, and came up with some very interesting facts. When civilians are the first to intervene in shootings (armed or not), the average number of deaths is 2.33. When police are the first to intervene, the average number of deaths is 14.29.

So this certainly indicates that civilians intervention absolutely reduces the total number of deaths. Dramatically. We can sit here and speculate about why that is the case (One theory that immediately comes to mind is that in cases where civilians are able to intervene, the shooter was less well armed and less likely to kill lots of people anyway, for example), but it seems a bit like sticking your head in the sand to insist that they don't have an impact, much less to argue that if more civilians were armed that they might not have an even greater impact.

Secondly, that's not all the Mother Jones study was claiming, and it doesn't address the core issue here. If you limit your data set to only those shootings that *become* mass shootings, then by definition no one was able to prevent it from becoming a mass shooting, right? While we can't know how many potential mass shootings didn't become mass shootings because of the intervention of an armed civilian, it's a good bet that in at least some of the cases where an armed person starts shooting indiscriminately and another armed person shoots him some number of innocent lives were saved, and likely quite a few.

How many? No way to know. As I said earlier, mass shooters can vary wildly in terms of how fast or slow they shoot. How they pick their targets (or don't). How much they walk around or stick to one spot. There are a ton of factors, and frankly (and gratefully) not really a large enough data set to be able to do a great statistical analysis other than to say that they're all a little different. But it seems pretty obvious that everything else being the same, if there's an armed person around who can try to stop them, fewer innocent people will die than if there isn't. At the very least, it's unlikely that will increase the number of people killed in a mass shooting.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#339 Dec 20 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
It's exactly like concluding that airbags don't prevent people from dying in car accidents because in every case where someone died in a car accident and their airbag deployed, it failed to save their life.

Really? It's exactly like that? A passive computer controlled safety mechanism tested exhaustively and tuned to react faster than humans can move is exactly the same as a random person firing a weapon at an assailant?

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Is gun control going to stop mass shootings? No, it's not. Would an armed populace stop mass shootings, no, it won't. The end. Will a law get passed based on emotion that will have unintended consequences and not solve the problem that led it to it's passage? Yes. Welcome to how all laws are passed.

Even the NRA doesn't really believe the "more armed people lead to less mass shootings" thing, it's just a way to set the starting point for negotiations as far to their side as possible. It's as stupid as "without legal guns there's no gun deaths!" Both make no sense. 99.999% of firearms won't be used in a homicide. 99.999% of gun owners will never fire a shot in defense. Can we move the fu[ck on? Guns make you feel powerful, Americans like to feel powerful. That's the root cause of "gun culture" in the US. It's a country with a wild disparity in privlidge, and our mythology says that if the rich land baron rapes your daughter and buys off the cops you and your friends go shoot him. It's the foundational myth of the US, that the people can use force to resolve unfairness. It hasn't been even vaguely true for 200 years, but who cares about that? So long as people feel like they have power in a powerless world, they don't care about the realities.

Nexa was in a school when someone showed up with a gun. No one was shot, I assume it was related to the kid losing a bet about what day in June the lake would unfreeze, and he got upset and rode his lobster chariot into the school with his father's moose pistol. That kid being killed by the pine cone arts teacher wouldn't have accomplished anything. She's from Maine. Try the veal.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#340gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 7:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. There is no such thing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There are very few cases where a civilian (especially armed) attempts to intervene, fails, and the killer goes on to kill a bunch more people.
#341gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 7:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The logic he's using is Smash. The logic. Try to keep up.
#342 Dec 20 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Quote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee. Police caught up to him later. The point being that no one else was killed after the civilian took action (well, except himself). There's no evidence that the shooter would have stopped shooting people if not for that intervention.


This makes no sense. The shooter is randomly shooting at people, assuming he is killing them. All of a sudden some random person dies due to the random shooting and the guy freaks and runs away...

Link this story so that facts you are not mentioning can be read. Try not to ignore this post, normally you are all about creating more hypotheticals but ignored my last post completely.
#343 Dec 20 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts


The logic he's using is Smash. The logic. Try to keep up.


I understood. Your metaphor sucks. I also understood what you were aiming at, although it took some effort getting past your attempts to severely obscure it.

Here's a better metaphor:

That's like saying everyone who undergoes bypass surgery and dies in the OR shouldn't have opted for surgery because it didn't save their live.

See the difference? Human related action where skill matters with uncertain outcome instead of possibly the most tested computer based safety feature in history. The attempt to equate carrying a Glock with Airbags is juvenile and distracting. Your point was valid, you ruined it by removing important factors from the metaphor allowing people to ignore it at so many points before they get to the punchline that most never will even bother. The most common reaction will be "oh yeah, guns are just like airbags" then eyrolling and ignoring the rest.

You suck at rhetoric. Let me once again remind you that when you begin a post thinking I "missed something", just stop.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#344 Dec 20 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,551 posts
This is what you meant to link. But also part of what I was trying to say, about lumping ALL native americans together. They were separate people, with separate nations, and separate views on life.

Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#345 Dec 20 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?

His point is that they were savages, so murdering their children was fine because they would have grown up with a powerful hunger for white women and scalps.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#346 Dec 20 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,551 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
stupidmonkey wrote:
Are you trying to say that because some of them were monstrous, that ALL of them deserved to be treated as monstrous?


His point is that they were savages, so murdering their children was fine because they would have grown up with a powerful hunger for white women and scalps.


Well obviously, but I thought maybe there was more to it then that.

Also LTQ. FFS, it is so EASY, stop making yourself look so silly!!!!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#347 Dec 20 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee.

Nope.

lolwiki wrote:
A local resident, Mark Alan Wilson, was in his downtown loft when he heard the shooting begin. He looked out his window and saw Arroyo at the courthouse steps engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. Wilson, who held a Texas concealed handgun permit, immediately armed himself with his Colt .45 caliber pistol, and left his residence to intervene in the gun battle. Because Arroyo was already engaged in a heated gun battle with sheriff's deputies and Tyler police officers, he did not see Wilson approach from behind.

As Wilson approached Arroyo from behind, Arroyo was taking aim at his son who he had already shot in the leg and wounded. Acting to defend the life of Arroyo's son, Wilson fired a round from approximately 50 feet which struck Arroyo in the back causing him to stumble and taking his attention away from his son. A witness who saw Wilson's round strike Arroyo reported seeing "white puffs of powder-like substance" come from Arroyo's clothing. This is believed to be the first time Arroyo was hit or injured during his attack on the courthouse.

Wilson was forced to take cover behind Arroyo's truck in a prone position and exchanged fire with Arroyo. As Arroyo began to approach Wilson's position, he stood up from behind cover and fired again, hitting Arroyo. Unknown to Wilson, Arroyo was wearing a bulletproof vest, rendering Wilson's shots ineffective. Arroyo eventually fired a shot that struck Wilson, who faltered and fell from the view of witnesses, face down behind Arroyo's truck. Arroyo then walked up to Wilson and fired three more shots at him, killing him.

Officers from the Tyler Police Department including Sergeant Rusty Jacks, a trained sniper armed with a Colt AR-15 rifle, soon arrived on the scene. After more than 116 rounds had been fired, Arroyo attempted to flee and a pursuit ensued. The pursuit continued from the city streets of Tyler to a nearby highway. At the terminus of the pursuit, Arroyo fired at the vehicle of Deputy Sheriff John Smith who had pulled closely behind Arroyo's truck during the pursuit. After taking fire, Deputy Smith returned fire with his vehicle still in motion and used his patrol car to ram Arroyo’s truck. Arroyo stopped his vehicle, exited it, and attempted to fire upon Smith, whose patrol car had essentially come to a stop on the passenger side of Arroyo's truck after ramming it. Smith sped away to avoid Arroyo's shots and gunfire from other law enforcement officers. At this point with Arroyo out of his vehicle, Sgt. Rusty Jacks fired five shots from his rifle hitting Arroyo in the back of the head and killing him instantly as he attempted to get back into his vehicle.


Wilson came up on Arroyo already in a firefight with law enforcement. The whole "shooting civilians" part was over. Wilson attempted to intervene and died for his efforts. Arroyo left later after more fighting with law enforcement. Wilson's efforts, brave as they may have been, had zero effect on stopping Arroyo's shooting.

Also, Arroyo wasn't shooting random people. He was targeting specific people. And he only killed three two (edit: my mistake, the third death was Arroyo himself) people so even if you had the other details correct, it still wouldn't have qualified for the question asked. But you did a great job of showing how an armed civilian can NOT stop a shooter and die instead.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#348 Dec 20 2012 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,551 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Tyler Texas Courthouse shooting I believe. While the civilian didn't kill the shooter (and was actually killed himself), his action is why the shooter stopped shooting random people and attempted to flee. Police caught up to him later. The point being that no one else was killed after the civilian took action (well, except himself). There's no evidence that the shooter would have stopped shooting people if not for that intervention.


This makes no sense. The shooter is randomly shooting at people, assuming he is killing them. All of a sudden some random person dies due to the random shooting and the guy freaks and runs away...


Huh? It wasn't random shooting. The civilian shot the shooter and interrupted him (while he was actually attempting to kill his son, after already killing his ex-wife). The shooter was not able to kill the boy, but instead focused his attention on the civilian, eventually killing him. At that point, more police had arrived and he choose to flee. The point being had the civilian not intervened, it's almost guaranteed that the boy would have been killed and possibly several other people.

Point being that there's no way to prove what would have happened otherwise, but you also can't assume that nothing would have.

I've already posted a list of shootings that were interrupted by armed civilians. How about you go look at them instead of just pretending that none of them prevented additional loss of life. There's the New Life Church shooting, in which a heavily armed man, intent on killing as many people in the church as possible, killed two people and wounded 3 others in the process of entering the church, and was met by an armed civilian with a concealed weapon, who shot him and stopped the shooting. Given the amount of ammunition he had, it's not unreasonable that dozens of people could have died that day had the civilian not stopped him.

There are a number of cases where random people who just happened to be in a location with a concealed weapon have stopped a shooting incident cold. They just don't get much (any) national news coverage because usually few if any people are killed, and frankly it doesn't play into the anti-gun narrative that most people in the mainstream media want to tell the public.

Quote:
Link this story so that facts you are not mentioning can be read. Try not to ignore this post, normally you are all about creating more hypotheticals but ignored my last post completely.


Sigh. I've already linked to a site with a whole list of other links (twice). Here is it again. And these are just the cases where the shooting was public and it's pretty clear that more people would have died if not for the intervention. We can't know at all how many individual cases of self defense with a weapon prevent victimization, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the absolute lower bounds for that is 800,000 a year, with upper bound studies predicting more like 5 million, and the more moderate studies coming in around 2.5-3 million per year.


Again though, all of this is somewhat moot. The statistics are just that: statistics. I'll again point out that absent a removal of the 2nd amendment, people in the US will always have access to firearms. Given that most mass shootings are committed by people who do not have criminal backgrounds and who obtain their weapons legally, the most gun control efforts can do is limit the type of firearms they can use and there's no evidence that this will actually reduce the number of people they'll kill *or* the likelihood of a shooting happening in the first place. We can certainly look at better psychological screening methods and whatnot, but that's never going to be anywhere near 100% either (and opens up a whole privacy can of worms as well).

I think it's reasonable to not just focus on prevention but also mitigation. How do you minimize the harm caused when someone decides to go on one of these shooting sprees? None of that other stuff stops the killer once he starts shooting. The only thing that does is if someone stops him. And the one thing that the statistics do absolutely show us is that civilians will always be present at a shooting before the police arrive (obvious, but there you have it). So if some percentage of them may be armed in the area where the shooting occurs, the odds of stopping the shooting earlier and with fewer deaths is increased.

This is really not in question. If just one of the faculty had been armed at that school last week, we'd likely have far far fewer dead children today. People look at events like this and become outraged that they happen, but they fail to point any of that outrage at the lack of an incredibly simple legal change which would almost certainly save many lives and might even deter these sorts of shooters from picking schools as their target of choice in the first place (although perhaps not in this case). The unfortunate reality is when you support the laws which enforce gun free zones around schools, you are basically contributing to the deaths of those children. And the next batch. And the next. And the next. Shooters have shown that they don't care what kinds of weapons they can use, or how much you tell them it's wrong, they'll still attempt to do these kinds of things. The only thing that stops before they kill as many as they can is someone stopping them. And the odds of that happening increase dramatically if there are armed civilians in the area.


It should be a no-brainer, really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#349 Dec 20 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,551 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think
No, you don't

gbaji wrote:
it's reasonable
No, it's not

gbaji wrote:
It should be a no-brainer, really.
You are a no-brainer, safe during the zombie apocalypse.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#350gbaji, Posted: Dec 20 2012 at 9:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He stopped the killer from killing the boy he was targeting. You read the **** Wiki Joph. You quoted from it. He sacrificed his life to save that of a child. You're right. That just accomplished nothing at all. Had the shooter not been wearing body armor, he might have saved the boy and not lost his life either. The point is that the shooter did not attempt to leave until after Wilson shot him. At that point, despite police being in the area and exchanging shots, he had not been shot. He was holding the police at bay while shooting at his ex-wife and son. It was only when Wilson shot him that he gave up trying to kill the boy and attempted to retreat.
#351 Dec 20 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Also LTQ. FFS, it is so EASY, stop making yourself look so silly!!!!

Do you really think it's an issue of me not knowing how? Or does it seem more likely that it's an intentional stylistic choice?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Bijou, gbaji, Sircyrus, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (47)