Gun Control

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by nyillinois

N=1

True. And I even commented that I'm not arguing causation. I'm simply stating the fact that in an environment where guns are everywhere, crime is low and gun violence is 0.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

It's an interesting article. The author in part uses Canada as an example of success. It's hard to get exact #'s but it appears that if we use 1974-5 as a baseline (just prior to gun control in Canada) there are now about 45% as many murders as there was. That sounds like a resounding success for gun control.

OTOH, during that same period of time the murder rate in the US dropped by 47%. Since gun laws were liberalized in the US people could claim that gun law relaxation has been a boon to murder rates dropping.

I think what the data taken together shows though is that gun availability probably had nothing to do with the declines in Canada or in the USA.

I cannot speak to Scotland and Australia tonight.

The other thing that people refuse to accept is that Americans are not Australians. It seems obvious, but people don't understand it. We know that New Yorkers are rude and obnoxious and that Hoosiers are inbred illiterates but for some reason we cannot fathom that the excessive rules that seem to work in other parts of the world may work (or not work) in part due to the way those people approach life.

This is most clearly evident when comparing Western Culture to Middle Eastern Culture, but more subtle differences are also abundant. For example, go look at "Happiness" evaluations. You'll find that people in other nations are significantly happier than Americans despite having less or working more. They have lower expectations and therefore are happier. It's like comparing a Northwestern basketball fan (if there is such a thing) to an Illinois basketball fan.

I don't think it's a stretch then to think that violence will manifest itself in different ways also. The assumptions of cause and effect regarding violence, and any sociological behavior for that matter, are overly simple and largely irrelevant.

[nyillinois]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

1 > 0 though which is the batting average of the counter-argument.

Statistically speaking, 1 is not greater than 0

[nyillinois]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

But you see the difference is this is a Gun Control thread not a eulogy for children like the other thread

Makes sense.

[nyillinois]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

True. And I even commented that I'm not arguing causation. I'm simply stating the fact that in an environment where guns are everywhere, crime is low and gun violence is 0.

I was not implying that you argued causation.

I was referring to your sample space. The example that you mentioned doesn't add any more weight to your argument because of it's limited evidence.

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Sure Bob. I'll give you a hint though. I wouldn't want you to travel through life without understanding that.



http://www.lookfordiagnosis.com/mesh...usality&lang=1

It's a British medical term. We use multifactorial causation here more commonly. My training was by a number of Brits. They insisted on gray and a few other terms that are hard to shake.

Couldnt agree more. Funny, though, how some assert that problems like gun violence are unsolvable because their causality is multivariable, yet social problems like poverty could be eradicated instantly because their causality is simply a matter of making the parasites get off their asses.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinibob

Couldnt agree more. Funny, though, how some assert that problems like gun violence are unsolvable because their causality is multivariable, yet social problems like poverty could be eradicated instantly because their causality is simply a matter of making the parasites get off their asses.

I agree. We are all, myself included, hypocrites to our beliefs. Another example. We couldn't possibly deport 6 million illegal aliens but it would be no huge shakes to confiscate 300 million guns.

[mattcoldagelli]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

If you want any reference that it was a bad idea to politicize the other thread you'll note two posters banned as I feared would happen.

Who was banned?

[Leonardite]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

It's not about taking guns away from criminals!!

I'm not following... You want to take guns away from... Law-abiding citizens??

[illinifan31]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Who was banned?

I only saw one, but you can check the first page.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by nyillinois

I was not implying that you argued causation.

I was referring to your sample space. The example that you mentioned doesn't add any more weight to your argument because of it's limited evidence.

Actually, in this case it does. It's not a statistical argument. However the counter argument was that if you have guns readily available people will kill other people. That was the null hypothesis and I disproved it.

[bmb777]

So liberals think its a dumb idea to have cops at every school? Think about this, an active shooter situation ends when a second gun arrives on the scene.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by bmb777

So liberals think its a dumb idea to have cops at every school? Think about this, an active shooter situation ends when a second gun arrives on the scene.

As a parent I can say I don't like the idea of my children being exposed to armed guards. If it's necessary for their safety, OK, but if there is another option I would prefer it. This isn't Afghanistan and I'd like my kids to actually be children. Taking away their innocence and their feeling of safety too early in life can really have psychological ramifications later in life.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

As a parent I can say I don't like the idea of my children being exposed to armed guards. If it's necessary for their safety, OK, but if there is another option I would prefer it. This isn't Afghanistan and I'd like my kids to actually be children. Taking away their innocence and their feeling of safety too early in life can really have psychological ramifications later in life.

I mentioned earlier that my kids HS has a police officer assigned to it and has for a decade or so. I think it was a response to 9/11. The kids barely notice her. She is a fully trained officer so sometimes she gets called away but she is almost always there. My kids tell me there are few fights because of her. They say that when she is in the parking lot after school things empty more smoothly.

I think it is just a common sense maneuver that most people would get used to very quickly. It might not stop an assault but it might save a lot of lives. And the knock on benefits in terms of a safer school absent a lunatic attacker is worth considering.

BTW, she gives all the DARE talks. She works with the kids to understand the dangers of drunk driving. She investigates drug charges in the school. Since she knows the kids so well she is able to let the local PD know who the likely trouble makers are, etc.

[gibb52]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I mentioned earlier that my kids HS has a police officer assigned to it and has for a decade or so. I think it was a response to 9/11. The kids barely notice her. She is a fully trained officer so sometimes she gets called away but she is almost always there. My kids tell me there are few fights because of her. They say that when she is in the parking lot after school things empty more smoothly.

I think it is just a common sense maneuver that most people would get used to very quickly. It might not stop an assault but it might save a lot of lives. And the knock on benefits in terms of a safer school absent a lunatic attacker is worth considering.

BTW, she gives all the DARE talks. She works with the kids to understand the dangers of drunk driving. She investigates drug charges in the school. Since she knows the kids so well she is able to let the local PD know who the likely trouble makers are, etc.

That is the situation at the HS here in town as well, and I believe pretty common at a lot of HS around the country. Not so common at middle schools and certainly not at grade schools.

But if that's what it takes to ensure safety I'm for it. I think the kids wouldn't even notice the officer after a couple of weeks.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by gibb52

That is the situation at the HS here in town as well, and I believe pretty common at a lot of HS around the country. Not so common at middle schools and certainly not at grade schools.

But if that's what it takes to ensure safety I'm for it. I think the kids wouldn't even notice the officer after a couple of weeks.

Let me start by stating I don't think there is one solution since every situation is different. First graders getting killed in CT is the same as bystanders getting killed on the west side of Chicago in that they are innocents killed by someone that doesn't care about human life. Is there a solution to ending gang violence on the west side and someone that has snapped in Newtown? If there is, I don't know what it is.

As for police at school, perhaps it helps or has helped. It logically makes sense that it would, but it certainly can't ensure safety. If someone really wants to do something crazy, you can't stop them. I also think calling for armed guards in all schools is an understandably emotional response to what happened at Sandy Hook. Many people want less government and someone calling for armed guards at all grade schools three weeks ago would be challenged on their proposal for more government and who's going to pay for it.

I don't know what the answer is and in fact I'm not even sure what the problem is. As terrible as the recent incident was, are shootings at school a significant problem from a pure numbers perspective? If more people are killed by drunk drivers then would we call for a ban on all alcohol? Would we ban all cars?

Are guns the problem or are they the solution? I lean toward the problem, but I don't know what the answer is. Two firemen were just shot to death responding to a house fire. I don't know any details, but will it turn out that the guns used were legally obtained, illegally obtained and does it matter if two firefighters trying to serve the public have been shot to death.

A very complex issue that I can't get my mind around.

[illini80]

Originally Posted by illinicb

Let me start by stating I don't think there is one solution since every situation is different. First graders getting killed in CT is the same as bystanders getting killed on the west side of Chicago in that they are innocents killed by someone that doesn't care about human life. Is there a solution to ending gang violence on the west side and someone that has snapped in Newtown? If there is, I don't know what it is.

As for police at school, perhaps it helps or has helped. It logically makes sense that it would, but it certainly can't ensure safety. If someone really wants to do something crazy, you can't stop them. I also think calling for armed guards in all schools is an understandably emotional response to what happened at Sandy Hook. Many people want less government and someone calling for armed guards at all grade schools three weeks ago would be challenged on their proposal for more government and who's going to pay for it.

I don't know what the answer is and in fact I'm not even sure what the problem is. As terrible as the recent incident was, are shootings at school a significant problem from a pure numbers perspective? If more people are killed by drunk drivers then would we call for a ban on all alcohol? Would we ban all cars?

Are guns the problem or are they the solution? I lean toward the problem, but I don't know what the answer is. Two firemen were just shot to death responding to a house fire. I don't know any details, but will it turn out that the guns used were legally obtained, illegally obtained and does it matter if two firefighters trying to serve the public have been shot to death.

A very complex issue that I can't get my mind around.

A good post in that you illustrate the complexity of the problem and there is no one who knows what the solution is. In some ways, I think it is similar to the drug problem. By that I mean what may help in one situation may actually make another situation worse. The net effect is unknown.

I don't know the solution either, but I doubt that it would have made a difference in the case of Sandy Hook. He got his guns at the easiest place he could, but he could have gotten them elsewhere without that much difficulty and he was determined to kill.

[KBLEE]

It turns out that the individual who shot the firefighters was a convicted felon. So, there is no way he obtained his weapons legally.

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by bmb777

So liberals think its a dumb idea to have cops at every school? Think about this, an active shooter situation ends when a second gun arrives on the scene.

Police chiefs have come out and said they flat out don't have enough cops to police every school and still field a viable police force.

Originally Posted by Leonardite

I'm not following... You want to take guns away from... Law-abiding citizens??

No, I don't think "law-abiding citizens" should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

The other thing that people refuse to accept is that Americans are not Australians. It seems obvious, but people don't understand it. We know that New Yorkers are rude and obnoxious and that Hoosiers are inbred illiterates but for some reason we cannot fathom that the excessive rules that seem to work in other parts of the world may work (or not work) in part due to the way those people approach life.

This is most clearly evident when comparing Western Culture to Middle Eastern Culture, but more subtle differences are also abundant. For example, go look at "Happiness" evaluations. You'll find that people in other nations are significantly happier than Americans despite having less or working more. They have lower expectations and therefore are happier. It's like comparing a Northwestern basketball fan (if there is such a thing) to an Illinois basketball fan.

I don't think it's a stretch then to think that violence will manifest itself in different ways also. The assumptions of cause and effect regarding violence, and any sociological behavior for that matter, are overly simple and largely irrelevant.

Much the same way it would be ridiculous to say that countries with more lax gun laws from 30-40-50 years ago as others have done right?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

Police chiefs have come out and said they flat out don't have enough cops to police every school and still field a viable police force.

Did you know water at room temperature is wet? Because you are sort of stating the obvious. Nobody is suggesting moving the current police into the schools and keeping everything else the same.

But if you hired more police, if you retasked them away from the drug war, you could easily do it. Somehow we have armed guards at grocery stores and Sam's clubs but we cannot afford them in the schools? Somehow the rent a cop at the bank doesn't scare us but having them where our most prized possession spends 8 hours a day is scary?

No, I don't think "law-abiding citizens" should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Then it is WONDERFUL that you live in that state you live in because it is the ONLY state that agrees with you.

[illinicb]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Somehow we have armed guards at grocery stores and Sam's clubs but we cannot afford them in the schools? Somehow the rent a cop at the bank doesn't scare us but having them where our most prized possession spends 8 hours a day is scary?

We do? I don't have a Sam's Club by me that I'm aware of, but I've never seen an armed guard at any retail establishment that I've been in in recent memory nor have a I seen one in a bank that I'm aware of.

Perhaps those are things are true by you but I don't see them by me or at least I haven't noticed them. I work downtown and do see some security officer at the bank I sometimes go into. If he is armed, I've never noticed it.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinicb

We do? I don't have a Sam's Club by me that I'm aware of, but I've never seen an armed guard at any retail establishment that I've been in in recent memory nor have a I seen one in a bank that I'm aware of.

Perhaps those are things are true by you but I don't see them by me or at least I haven't noticed them. I work downtown and do see some security officer at the bank I sometimes go into. If he is armed, I've never noticed it.

Your failing to notice doesn't make it untrue. Every hospital has its own police force. There are more than 30 officers in one of my hospitals. Armed guards are ubiquitous and rarely create a problem for anyone. They provide a valuable service and help keep us safe.

The local Target security guy is always armed. He's a good friend of mine. I don't know if all Target's have armed guards but certainly some do.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

Police chiefs have come out and said they flat out don't have enough cops to police every school and still field a viable police force.



No, I don't think "law-abiding citizens" should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

1-thats not answering the question I posed. by not answering it I guess you are agreeing liberals think its a dumb idea to put a cop in every school.

2-you are brainwashed by the media then in regards to conceal carry. 49 states have concealed carry. in every state when the law passed, liberals cried and moaned and said it would turn into the old west. shootouts every day in the streets. cops gunned down every day. and in every state, every time that didnt happen. crime actually went down, not up. a majority of cops who are not high ranking officials, but a majority of patrol officers support law abiding citizens being able to carry concealed carry. they know those people are no threat to them. there have been several instances where a citizen with concealed carry has helped out a cop. I think it was Rhode Island a year or 2 ago, a man killed a cop, but an ex-marine carrying concealed weapon fatally shot the suspect.

think about this. in every mass shooting, it ended when the second gun arrived on the scene. ended by either the shooter killing himself, or the cop fatally shooting him. or the suspect giving up.

when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Your failing to notice doesn't make it untrue. Every hospital has its own police force. There are more than 30 officers in one of my hospitals. Armed guards are ubiquitous and rarely create a problem for anyone. They provide a valuable service and help keep us safe.

The local Target security guy is always armed. He's a good friend of mine. I don't know if all Target's have armed guards but certainly some do.

I bet you if you paid them enough, off duty police would work in schools 8 hours a day. when I was a cop, I sometimes did some off duty security stuff. it paid good, typically 20 dollars or more an hour. and for the most part it was boring. I often spent 8 hours either walking around the building(steak n shake, white castle, ect) or sitting inside reading a book. security companies often hired off duty police for those jobs because we could carry guns, and could actually have arrest powers in case something happened. regular security guards, many of them didnt carry a gun, and couldnt do anything but call for on duty police if something happened.