Thinking things through a bit more on gun violence and talking point solutions I've heard thus far...
I. First and foremost, we need to recognize that the ROOT problem we have is a violence problem. Especially amongst men and especially young men, violence in our culture is seen as acceptable.
THIS is the root problem that needs to be dealt with.
II. The problem with the "arm the teachers/fortify the schools" approach (beyond the problem that it plays into the notion that violence is an acceptable solution) is that it's operating on the notion that, "This is what we will do IF an armed 'bad guy' gets into the school and starts shooting... THEN we will shoot back... and (giving the greatest possible benefit of the doubt), fewer people will be harmed/killed than might have otherwise happened.
It's a response to a bad situation, not an answer to it.
III. Which is to say, this solution is acting as a REACTION to hopefully (but not definitely) lessen the harm done, it's not being offered as a way of stopping the incidents from happening in the first place.
IIIa. Having said that, some have said that just having the guns present will have a preventative effect, as the would-be violent shooters will not want to go to a place where someone may shoot back.
But what does the data say?
Clearly, some people - i.e., many of these often white young men - who have gone into mass shooting situations, have done so with the expectation of being killed in the process. So, having armed responses on site does not seem to be a deterrent, on the face of it.
But again, what does the data say? It bears research.
IV. Of course, one other problem with this is that it's adding to an already overloaded list of things that teachers are responsible for. If we're arming the teachers and they're tasked with operating as body guards, their pay should increase, as a starting point! (their pay should increase, regardless... teachers are generally underpaid).
But that doesn't help with the fact that they're already overloaded on work. As many teachers have been saying, "You want to arm me? Arm me with support staff. Arm me with reasonable pay. Arm me with the tools and supplies I need, rather than expecting me to pay for it..." etc.
V. This "armed teacher" solution presumes that guns are the best way to stop a person ready to commit violence. Being prepared and trained in programs/philosophies like "Safe Physical Management" (or models like that), presumes the better option is to be prepared to talk people down from violence, rather than reacting with violence to a violent person. Not saying that there are not times where meeting violence with violence feels like the only possible solution, just that it should be a last resort.
Indeed, if we have armed staff shooting back at armed intruders, Wild West style, we have already failed. The goal is to prevent it from happening in the first place, not engaging in shoot outs.
Which is another problem I've had with some who have responded with a "Let's arm the teachers" response... It often is presented as if coming from a rather simplistic and shallow view of the problem. "It takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns..." is a funny bumper sticker, but does not have much depth and seems a rather juvenile response, to many of us, at least.
VI. All of which points back to the root problem that we need to keep in mind:
We have a violence problem.
Especially amongst men and especially young men, our society is one of the worst for producing people who believe that violence and deadly violence are acceptable options to conflict. Other developed nations don't have this, not to the degree that we have it. Nearly. (Again, look at the data).
WHY are we, specifically, producing deadly violent young men? And let's not jump to easy, careless answers off the top of our heads (it's the violent movies! It's video games!)
What does the data say?
This is a topic that needs to be investigated and studied. That is certainly a starting point.
VII. In the meantime, IF we have violent young men as a given, at least for now, what can be done to lessen/ease the problem? Some say making the licensing and regulation of guns - especially guns that can kill a lot of people quickly (assault-style rifles). This seems reasonable and should at least be on the table of discussion.
But, liberal friends, we need to keep in mind that IF we make it more difficult to access assault style weapons, other weapons will no doubt be used, so that is not an ending solution, either. Maybe a mitigating and interim partial solution, but it's only partial.
But, conservative friends, it certainly seems like research and considering regulations and limitations should be on the table.
Some thoughts, for what they're worth.
+++++++++++
Now, to the people who keep saying that "The 'bad guys' don't obey laws so passing new gun regulations won't make a difference," this is a mistaken argument for at least three reasons.
1. We have speed limits. People still break the speed limit, driving faster than they should. Nonetheless, some people DO obey the speed limit and most people will not break the speed limit by too much. The speed limits (and seat belt laws and road safety laws) all combined DO make a difference.
2. Depending upon how the regulations and rules are written, they are still effective even if some people ignore them because they allow for enforcement.
IF a person
was restricted from owning guns for some reason (demonstrated violent
tendencies, for instance) and they owned guns anyway, or tried to buy
guns anyway, the rules/regulations would allow for responsible people to
prevent that from happening or allow for them to be taken away before
harm is done.
3. This is an argument for anarchy. "The 'bad guys' won't obey the rules, therefore, what's the point of laws..." is not a rational argument UNLESS you're arguing for getting rid of all laws and regulations. And even then, it's an irrational argument because regardless of whether you're arguing for anarchy (and hopefully, you're not), the rules DO make a difference (see points 1 & 2).
That laws, rules and regulations make a difference is demonstrable, we can see it by looking at the data. We need data-driven solutions, not fear-based solutions nor solutions based upon irrational or anarchy-based arguments.
3. This is an argument for anarchy. "The 'bad guys' won't obey the rules, therefore, what's the point of laws..." is not a rational argument UNLESS you're arguing for getting rid of all laws and regulations. And even then, it's an irrational argument because regardless of whether you're arguing for anarchy (and hopefully, you're not), the rules DO make a difference (see points 1 & 2).
That laws, rules and regulations make a difference is demonstrable, we can see it by looking at the data. We need data-driven solutions, not fear-based solutions nor solutions based upon irrational or anarchy-based arguments.
++++++++++++
It's been too hard living, but I'm afraid to die
'Cause I don't know what's up there, beyond the sky
It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know
A change gonna come,
Oh yes it will
~Sam Cooke
81 comments:
Half an hour before reading today's post by Dan I had this question in my mind: "I wonder how much of an overlap there is between those who want to restrict the Second Amendment in order to save innocent lives and those who favor the legality of abortion for convenience purposes?"
Any speculation on this from the regulars?
~ Hiram
Just to be clear: We all agree that the 2nd Amendment has restrictions and almost all agree that this is how it should be.
Someone COULD want, for instance, to have unlimited access to dynamite, bombs and nuclear power as means of self-protection against tyrannical gov't actors. But we all agree that the right to bear arms DOES have limits. We can't just go out and buy dynamite or bombs. We can't even legally make them, within limits, without getting in trouble. We are limited in what "arms" we might want to get and that is perfectly constitutional and generally unopposed.
It's not about IF we "restrict" the 2nd amendment, but about what restrictions are reasonable to maintain.
And Hiram, I'm sure that we could all reasonably guess that those who are more okay with more limits on what arms can be held and under what circumstances/regulations are often aligned with those who are more okay with abortion being a medical decision rightly made by families, not the gov't. And vice versa. I don't want to turn this post into an abortion discussion.
Thanks.
OK. This is a long post, so it requires a long response (unfortunately) in order to address the many points. It may likely take two or more sessions. Here goes:
1. We don't have a "violence" problem. We have an "evil" problem, or more precisely, a sin problem. But we'll go with "evil" since there are some that are atheists and "evil" to them isn't as uncomfortable a word to hear than is "sin".
Violence in and of itself is not evil or sinful. It is simply a descriptive term for the intensity of an action or event, such as a violent tackle in football, a violent storm. To say that violence is never an acceptable answer to a problem is inane given the presence of evil in the world. Cops apprehending criminals often must resort to violence in order to do so. Nations resort to violent action in response to the actions of despotic nations' leaders.
Violence is the consequence of a fallen world, tainted by the sin of Adam. People given over to their evil will act violently as they it serving their agendas to do so. Note that no one's been able to talk islam out of their violent behavior for the last 1400 years. When you can figure out how to compel all the world to come to Christ, then perhaps violence will be a thing of the past. Good luck with that. As such, the problem is what do we do about those who decide to engage in violent behavior?
2. Again, violent response is often the ONLY solution to violent behavior. That's called "reality" and one does the innocent no favors by pretending otherwise. Dealing in fantasy only results in more innocent people getting killed, which is what "gun free zones" are: based on fantasy.
The reality is also that in every case where a person with mass murder on his mind was confronted by an armed "good guy", the killing ended and in many cases never began in the first place, and at times without the "good guy" firing a shot. Thus, the violent armed response is a viable and worthy plan for dealing with those who are able to breach the entrance of a "gun free zone".
3. These discussion deals with a situation that takes place regardless of any efforts to prevent the perpetrator from taking this course of action. By the time the choice is made, it really doesn't matter what counseling he had, or if he had any or even if anyone saw any red flags in the first place. It's an easy thing to say "let's prevent these people from making this choice". Until we find a method for actually doing that, steps must be taken on the assumption that these things happen and will again eventually. Said another way, it's a totally different discussion as to how do we expose these evil intentions while they can still be redirected toward a better outcome...particularly one healthier for the shooter.
3a. What does the data say? It says these people choose gun free zones. What more data do you need? The Aurora, CO theater shooting was the most illustrative example, as closer theaters showing the same film were not those that had posted "gun free zone" signs on their doors. The one he chose did. Almost all schools are gun free zones. Despite any desire to die by cop, these people wish to take as many people with them as possible. They know they can kill a lot before "good guys" with guns arrive to take them out. Note how often gun shows experience mass shootings. Here's a hint: they never do. These people never go where there's a chance that someone will immediately shoot back. NEVER. THAT'S what the data says, and it says so clearly.
more...
Thanks for your frankness in response to my question, Dan.
I won't use this post for more on the abortion topic other than just to say that it *could* be taken as an oddity in some people's personal philosophies that they would want more government control over gun ownership in the name of protecting human lives at the same time they want less government control over prenatals.
And with that I'm done in this particular comment thread.
~ Hiram
4. There is already and expectation that our kids will be safe in the schools to which we send them. To expect that school staff is prepared and trained to actually do that is not unfair or unreasonable. What's more, it isn't really necessary to have them all armed up, just so long as there are some on site at all times when kids are present. Just as importantly is to make known that the place is no longer a "gun free zone". The data shows that it will have a deterrent effect.
5. I don't know about you, but where my kids and grandkids are concerned, the only "Safe Physical Management" technique I want to see in an active shooter situation includes the use of a firearm to pop a cap in the dude if your sweet-talking has no effect, which in these cases it won't. These guys come in with the purpose of taking lives. Extend an olive branch instead of a loaded weapon ready to fire means you'll be the first victim. Do you honestly think that no one among the victims tried to talk their way out of being shot? This isn't even good enough to be "pie in the sky". This is blatant "head up the backside" wishful thinking. It doesn't account for reality and I don't even want to see YOUR kids' lives risked to see if such a plan would even have a chance of working. How dare you suggest school staff should risk the lives of the kids in their care!
And what's this "Wild West Style" crap? What makes you think that responsible people with guns fire off shots willy-nilly? How much collateral damage occurred when Congressman Scalise's security people returned fire on the dude who was trying to kill all those other congresspeople? Answer: none. Trained people, Dan. We're talking about trained people confronting shooters, not jugheads with their squirrel guns.
Yet should innocents still die, that must be weighed against how many would have died had trained school staff not been there to use their weapons to stop the shooter. This "Wild West" crap is often thrown around when folks defend the right to carry and WE NEVER SEE IT HAPPEN....EVER. The data is rather clear.
Arming teachers and school staff is NOT a shallow and simplistic response. It's the natural and reality-based response to a deadly situation that results in our kids being murdered. YOUR suggestions are far more risky because they come from the same idiotic notion that evil can be talked out of doing evil. "Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" is not a bumper sticker composed for laughs. It's a reflection of reality, a reality you don't have the courage, integrity or honesty to face and accept.
Look...no one would suggest that non-violent means of prevention should not be employed. No one would suggest that there be no efforts to detect who is likely to resort to mass murder in response to whatever reason so compels in order to dissuade the person from going through with it. But none of it matters when it gets to the point of some asshat showing up at a school or other crowded event with the intention of taking as many lives as possible. None of it matters in the least, because by that time it's too late for "Safe Physical Management" and "Non-Violent Crisis Interventions". And it is that moment for which those like myself are concerning ourselves, because quite frankly, I have far more confidence in a well trained "good guy" with a gun than I have with any dozen shrinks armed with good intentions and techniques that have far less guarantee of success than one well placed bullet.
Juvenile is ignoring reality in favor of pollyanna thinking.
6. Which leads us back the root cause---sin, evil, and/or mental illness. This exists throughout the world and to pretend it is worse here because of the prevalence of guns is another example of ignoring reality. I've posted in other discussions two articles dealing with comparisons between nations regarding gun violence and mass shootings. The comparisons were considered by both to be worthless given all the disparities between nations (population, cultural differences, differences in laws, etc). One was a leftist source and the other a right-wing source and as there was agreement, I feel it safe to say that pretending we're worse than others is foolishness. It also ignores the many ways one can be murdered. When simply speaking of murder, there is less difference between "developed" nations.
More importantly, and the most galling to me, is that anyone thinks comparing us to other nations is a worthwhile endeavor. I prefer to lead and have other nations compare themselves to us. On issues of which we should not be proud, such as this one, there is no need or value in looking across the border as it makes no difference. If we can't see the problem exists, we likely deserve to suffer from it. Fortunately, we know we have a problem.
But there is one place where we can see how the issue has been dealt with successfully and that's Israel. They had a situation where about 100 kids were murdered in an attack on a school and since then all their schools have armed security and teachers. It no longer happens there...or at least it hasn't since that time. But then, Israel isn't afraid to profile, either. They don't have time to waste with fantasies about peaceful ways to deal with violent asshats because they're surrounded by them. They deal in reality and their profiling prevents death. Their school security policies prevent deaths. Their wall prevents deaths.
Reality tells us why we have a problem with crime and criminally violent behavior. It's no mystery except to those who have been enabling it all for the last half century. That would be those like yourself, and I'll be happy to list how you've created this mess another time, but for now, it's you and those like you. I'll just leave it there for now.
7. Licensing and regulating guns has been ongoing for decades at least. That's not an issue, except how unconstitutional it is. There are no "assault style" weapons available to the general public without even stricter qualifying required. This assumes "assault style" weapons are truly military grade, such as M-16s and other full automatic weapons. The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon". It is a squirrel gun in its most common form. It doesn't matter how "military" it is made to look with any number of accessories. It is not "military grade". There are many semi-automatic rifles that never are grouped in this manner simply because they don't look scary as AR-15s can be made to look to snowflakes like you. Most handguns are semi-automatic. Even many revolvers, because they are double-action, are on par with semi-automatics because they don't require an extra step (cocking the hammer) after every trigger pull in order to fire off another round. This means, that if AR-15s were banned, the same number of people can be murdered with pistols. Both can be reloaded quickly and easily. And since most of these incidents are close range murders, rifle or pistol doesn't matter.
So there's nothing new here. Regs and restrictions on the law-abiding are already in place and lefties don't know their asses from holes in the ground when they're talking about firearms. And I don't even own any, yet I still know what reality is.
more....
Now to your three points about bad guys not obeying the law:
1. Speed limits argument is awful. The point is that these laws are disobeyed with incredible frequency. It's only congestion that keeps people honest speed-wise. Remove the limits and people drive at whatever speed with which they're comfortable. On a relatively empty road, speed limits are superfluous. That is to say, one is not necessarily driving recklessly simply because one is moving at a high speed. Limits on speed are arbitrary in many cases and obviously necessary in others (side streets of residential areas, for example). Clearly the law doesn't stop people from speeding, and that's the point. The law doesn't guarantee anything but a form of punishment for being caught breaking it. It changes nothing for those who abide the law, nor for those who don't.
2. Laws of the type this point addresses are already in place. Adding more won't make a difference as they won't have a different purpose in the enacting of them. What's more, it's irrelevant with regard to the issue at hand, which is what to do when an active shooter situation presents itself. The laws are already broken. Those who would or could deny the mentally ill or criminally convicted have already failed. The bad guy has a gun and is going to murder as many as possible. What have we done to prepare for this impending carnage? THAT is the issue, and laws don't matter.
3. It is not in any way an argument for anarchy. The shooter is, by virtue of his intentions, the anarchist already. He is ignoring all manner of law and societal notions of right and wrong. Really. It's an idiotic thing to say since the reality is that it is an argument ABOUT reality. It is a wake up call, as this latest slaughter of school kids hasn't awakened you yet. It is saying...no SCREAMING, "I AM EVIL AND I'M HERE TO KILL AS MANY OF YOUR KIDS AS I CAN BEFORE YOUR LAWS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN STOP ME!!!" What have you done to prepare for this guy except to provide him with a target rich environment with your "gun free zones"?
That laws, rules and regulations DON'T make a difference to those intent on breaking them is demonstrable, we can see it by looking at the data. We need reality based solutions, not kumbaya nonsense the results in more people being victims. That's all you've offered thus far. That's all the gun-grabbers have offered. All the kids that have been murdered in their schools, all the homosexuals murdered in their nightclubs, all the movie goers murdered in their theaters...these victims are numbered far greater than they might have been if not for policies like those you offer over those that would actually have lowered their number. All the available data backs that up, but you ignore it.
Hiram, I suspect there is a large and inconsistent overlap as you suspect.
Craig posted (but it did not show up, that I can see) the following...
"So far, the data says that virtually every one of these school shootings was in a gun free zone. So it seems reasonable to suspect that there might be a connection between those two bits of data. "
In response, I say:
Corollary does not necessitate causation. We can also look at the huge numbers of gun violence here vs how rarely gun violence happens in nations with fewer guns and say, "Hey, there's a corollary there, therefore, it MUST be the huge number of guns that makes the difference."
Both of those would be lacking in analytical depth. We need deep looks at what's happening, not shallow guesses, nor cheap corollaries. Shootings in "Gun free zones" do NOT indicate that gun free zones invite or cause violence.
Beyond that, some of these places where there have been shootings have not been gun free zones. Indeed, there was an armed guard on duty.
Corollaries do not insist upon causation.
We don't have a "violence" problem. We have an "evil" problem, or more precisely, a sin problem.
We DO have a violence problem. We have people killing other people. That violence is a problem.
Now many of us may also consider this violence "evil" or "bad," but the very specific problem is the violence. Look at it this way: For many Christians, there is the belief that all people are sinners. Beyond Christianity, many if not most people recognize "the sin problem," that people aren't perfect.
And that problem may manifest itself in many ways. But the one specific way I'm speaking of is the violence problem. We have people willing to embrace deadly violence and inflict it upon others. That is the specific problem.
I, personally, am fine with calling this violence problem a "sin problem," but sin is vague and general and in this post, I'm talking about a specific problem: The violence problem.
Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but I see it as more accurately reflecting the specific problem at hand.
Violence in and of itself is not evil or sinful.
This is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but you certainly can't prove it.
To me, inflicting unwanted violence against a fellow human IS a problem. Causing harm IS a bad thing. Now, I might consider it justified (in the case of bonking an abuser over the head or getting him in an arm lock to stop the violence against another), but it is still a wrong, to me. That it's justified is different than saying it's not "bad."
That is my opinion and I'm welcome to it.
, violent response is often the ONLY solution to violent behavior. That's called "reality"
Again, an unsupported opinion and not one that you can prove with data. THAT is reality. You'd have to define "often," and then you'd have to demonstrate why it was "often" the "only" solution. You can't do this, of course, it's not provable. But you are welcome to your opinion.
In the classes on Safe Physical Management that I've taken, we recognize that violence MAY be a needed solution at some point, but it reflects a failure to resolve the problem otherwise. We tend to believe that most violence CAN be stopped without a violent response and I personally have seen this to be the case in working with sometimes violent people.
I will say that it certainly often feels to us that a situation has reached a point where the only solution we can think of is violence, or causing harm to someone, or restricting someone, but when we do this, we are causing violence to a fellow human being, a fellow child of God (for those of us who believe in such) and that is not nothing.
the violent armed response is a viable and worthy plan for dealing with those who are able to breach the entrance of a "gun free zone".
Here would be where I'm calling for data to support this hunch. Please provide data, not just feelings and emotions.
One was a leftist source and the other a right-wing source and as there was agreement, I feel it safe to say that pretending we're worse than others is foolishness.
Again, that is why it's important that we look at the specific, named problem: Which is VIOLENCE (or, to be even more specific, undue violence against innocent people). It is measurable. It is demonstrable. We have more deadly violent attacks than other developed nations. Do they have different cultures, different values, different outlooks, different laws? Yes, of course! That is whit's important to look at the differences and figure out what DIFFERENT values, cultures, rules, etc, that we should embrace IF we want to see a decrease in deadly attacks.
I think most people want to see these numbers decrease, even if we have to change some of our values, ideals, mores, or rules.
I'm not sure what your point is there. Not that you need to explain it.
I don't know about you, but where my kids and grandkids are concerned, the only "Safe Physical Management" technique I want to see in an active shooter situation includes the use of a firearm
I want to see what we can do to prevent the attacks from happening in the first place. Or, to phrase that antagonistically, as you opted to do, "I don't know about you, but where MY kids are concerned, the only thing I want to see is the attacks to be prevented in the first place."
Prevention in the first place is preferable to armed guards, even if they worked. I want the better solution, not the lesser response to an already happening attack. That an armed guard MAY stop an active shooter when he's only killed five people and before he's killed ten is cold comfort to the families of the five dead.
I'm trying to look at places where we can all come together, and prevention is surely something we can all agree upon as a preferred solution.
And that's enough for tonight.
If anyone has data that they want to bring up for consideration, please do so. But don't bring up sloppy data, please. Research based answers is what I think we need to look for.
So, instead of choosing to look at and analyze that particular set of data points, you choose to dismiss them. Simply announcing that “correlation doesn’t equal causation”, doesn’t indicate an analysis of the data, nor does it disprove causation. If one is going to give significant weight to the “other countries” argument, then you introduce and must explain the fact that the two worst school shootings on record occurred in countries with much different gun laws.
I applaud your desire to look at the “data”, I just can’t help but think that if you don’t look at all the “data” and evaluate it fairly and without bias, that your won’t reach a reasonable conclusion. I also don’t think it’s possible to have a conversation about “data” without serioly and significantly engaging with the years of data compiled and studied by Dr John Lott.
We’d also have to evaluate the “Research based” objective data that demonstrates that “Safe Physical Management” is an effective means of preventing or dealing with an active shooter situation. I’m sure you’ll provide that soon.
If I missed it, I apologize, but what exactly is the goal you hope to achieve?
I'm dismissing nothing. Not whether or not armed guards may help and not whether or not fewer guns help. I'm talking about looking at what the data shows and proceeding from there.
Really? When you emphatically state that “Shootings in “gun free zones” do NOT indicate...”, you’re not dismissing the possibility? You admit that a correlation exists, yet somehow seem adamant and definitive that there is NOT a connection.
I’ll be patient and wait for the data that supports the efficacy of “Safe Physical Management” in an active shooter situation and for you to explain what your preferred result would be. Thanks in advance for providing the data to support your preferred tactics.
It seems like this shouldn’t be an either/or situation. It also seems like the complete failure of the sheriff’s department in responding and the FBI in enforcing the existing violations of laws, suggests that counting on the government for protection or prevention is not the wisest course of action.
I'm sorry if I was less than clear. I'm saying that we do not make policy based solely on the observation of corollaries. If we did that, then the answer would be to remove guns from society at large (because we can see that most free nations that have limited access to guns have zero public school shootings and mass murders) and armed guards (because some places where there are armed guards see fewer shootings).
But you're not suggesting that, are you? I mean, do you think that given the CLEAR correlation between states with limited guns and few/no school shootings, that the answer is in limiting guns?
My point is that we need to research the issue and look for data driven solutions, not emotional knee jerk reactions.
Do you disagree with my point?
As to the Safe Physical Management (SPM), it's not specific to gun violence, it's about physical restraints and otherwise dealing with violent people (not with guns). The point there was that the least restrictive, least aggressive, talked through, talked down solution is the right and best solution. In SPM, if it reaches the point of having to aggressively subdue someone (to protect others or himself), then we have failed.
I believe I've read that law official research considers reaching the point of firing weapons to be a failure, as well, although they may not use that term. The point is, we can probably all agree deadly violence should a last resort.
To help make it clear, where I said, "Shootings in "Gun free zones" do NOT indicate that gun free zones invite or cause violence..." the point I'm striving to make is that Shootings in "Gun free zones" do NOT perforce demand by rational necessity the conclusion that gun free zones invite or cause violence. I was just trying to be briefer in my language, but there's a clarification.
Got it. You don’t have data to support your belief that “SPM” is/has been/will be effective in an active shooter section, and you aren’t interested in determining if there is data connecting “gun free zones” to school shootings.
It seems as though the goal would be to look at all the “data” and draw conclusions from there, not to dismiss some “data” as “correlates”, without demonstrating that with “data”.
I’ve clearly said, that looking a “data” driven solutions is valuable. I’m simply pointing out that exclusion of some “data” raises questions about the validity of any conclusions. The absence of “data” regarding “SPM” in active shooter situations, seems contrary to your desire to base solutions on “data”.
So, to be clear, I agree with you in basing things on “data”, I just think it should be based on all available “data”.
Perhaps clarity over brevity might be of value.
Quickly, for now anyway, to say that because we have more guns that this fact is data significant to any cause/correlation argument requires proving that the mere possession of guns leads to their misuse and abuse. In what possible way does the simple presence of any given weapon compel a person to use it to murder? It's an absurd notion. But with "gun free zones", on the other hand, it is quite clear that these places are routinely chosen for the purpose of mass murder simply because one can go about the business without the likelihood of interference, simply because the murderer is the only one with weapons. What more data is required to understand the foolishness of "gun free zones" and making it known far and wide that a location is one?
There was no armed guard "on duty" when the shooter began his deed. He was outside the building, not in it. I would add that no one would suggest that any armed personnel would be present at the exact spot a shooter is when he first opens fire. But the presence of such people would reduce the number of dead as they rush to the scene prepared to do more than put themselves between the shooter and his initial targets. Unarmed, as the beloved coach was in Florida, one simply becomes another target...and the death toll mounts. What data is required beyond this to push one toward the rational?
I stated it in such a way that I think most people could easily understand what I was saying in context, Craig. I am sorry that I didn't state it in such a way that you understood it, however. I suspect that your hostility towards me is making you read my writings in a state of constant hyper-criticism.
I mean, think it through. The very point of this post is that we need to look at what the data is saying to find the best, most likely set of solutions. The point was LOOKING AT THE DATA.
Therefore, it would not be reasonable, given that context, to think that I meant, "Look at the data... but not ALL the data, I want us to ignore some of the data..."
That is not a rational conclusion to reach from my words, in the context of what was written.
No need to respond. I'm just trying to help you perhaps understand why you're not understanding what is surely obvious to unbiased readers.
In what possible way does the simple presence of any given weapon compel a person to use it to murder?
First of all, I don't know that it does.
BUT, secondly, one could make the case (and I'm pretty sure I've read research along these lines) that a society is heavy-laden with guns and an attitude that guns are an acceptable way to solve problems, that society might reasonably see more killings because they believe gun violence is acceptable way of solving problems. Or also, an indicator of a mindset that says that "I can ONLY be safe IF I have a gun. The world is scary and the BEST AND ONLY SURE WAY I can be safe is with guns. Lots of them. Because I might need to use them against other people..."
The guns are an indicator, in this theory, of a mindset that is leading to the problem(s). Not that the guns are causing the problem, but that they are an indicator of the mindset that causes the problem.
I'm not saying that this IS the case, just that it's a theory that could be plausible.
Thus, by changing the mindset (one where people are not convinced that they need guns to have safety and without the guns, they don't feel safe and that it's acceptable and even noble to use guns to kill that which they find scary or intimidating or that makes them angry), one might see a decrease in the perceived "need" to own guns, and a corresponding decrease in gun violence.
Which is why I still maintain that the underlying problem is the violent attitude problem. If we make guns harder to own and yet people still have this same mindset, they will likely just drop back to other violent means or less destructive guns.
the presence of such people would reduce the number of dead as they rush to the scene prepared to do more than put themselves between the shooter and his initial targets.
This is an unsupported theory, keep in mind. It MAY decrease the number in some cases. It may not. It may in many cases. It may not. My point is that if we have an active shooter on site, we have already failed. Having a "good guy" attempting to shoot back is too late.
The better solution is to seek understanding and ideas on how to reduce it reaching that point. Prevention. Not reaction after there are already dead and wounded on the ground.
Also, suppose there are staff on site with guns and a metal detector to keep guns out. What happens when a bad actor overpowers the armed teacher, takes their gun and suddenly, there's a gun on site and harm results?
That may not happen. It may. We don't know how these things will go down.
My point remains that we need to seek solutions to stop these attacks from happening in the first place, not react to them after the fact.
Thank you so much for your condescension, I always appreciate your openness to those who agree with much of what you say.
I take it that you will not be providing the data for “SPM” as it relates to active shooter situations. I take it that you won’t be addressing the “data” regarding the unbelievably high percentage of shootings that take place in “gun free zones”, v. shootings that take place elsewhere. I take it that you’ll not be addressing the extensive data compiled and analyzed by Dr. Lott.
Which raises the question, “What “data” are you planning to analyze!”. Of course, the question about what you hope to achieve remains as well.
So, please, by all means examine all of the data and present your expert conclusions. I eagerly,but patiently, await this masterpiece of clarity and “data” driven analysis.
By all means, go for it.
There's just so much wrong Dan presents that I'm sad I lack the time at present. There's so little in his "theories" that's plausible, to say nothing of how they fail to reflect reality. Part it involves his insistence that we have a violence problem. That's like saying we have a moisture problem when the problem is that the roof leaks. Violence is a consequence or manifestation of the problem Dan won't address.
You just raised s point I hadn’t even considered. Dan’s entire construct is based on the premise that violence is always (100% of the time) a “problem” or is wrong. Yet, this premise hasn’t been proven to be fact, it’s just assumed. There is also (I think) an assumption that violence can always (or the vast majority of the time) be prevented by “SPM” without using “violence”. Finally, it appears there is a distinction being being made between “violence” and “force” which may or may not be valid.
All in all, it’s a lot of words, a concerted attempt to not show his ignorance of guns and gun laws, but nothing even hinting at a realistic practical solution.
I’ve also given the “unmentionable” some thought. For consideration, the Judeo/Christian theological position is that humanity is sinful by nature, the materialist would argue that violence is the natural state of man. (Nature is red in tooth and claw.). Two extremes, yet both disagree with Dan. I find that interesting.
Another point that Dan doesn’t consider is if murder is perpetrated in as non-violent manner as possible, is it less problematic for him? If a victim was drugged in a manner so as to eliminate the ability to feel pain, and then was gassed while sleeping, does this make the murder more palatable? If Cruz's only desire was to murder as many kids as possible, but in a non-violent manner, I can't see how the means has any bearing on the intention to be known for murdering a great number of kids. "Violence" is not the problem at all.
Some research on the topic...
"If you can intervene as early as possible and provide a ton of supports around these troubled youth, you can really prevent this from occurring," said Lazarus, who has served on a team that responds to school shootings. Interventions need to be focused not on punishment, but on how to get troubled youth into counseling, he said.
"Prevention must start long before there is a gunman in parking lot," Cornell said. "You don’t prevent forest fires by waiting for the trees to start burning and then try to snuff out the flames. The news media must stop perpetuating the idea that shootings are only prevented with security measures."
The number of schools employing uniformed officers skyrocketed from about 13 percent in 1994 to over 51 percent 2014...
But two of the deadliest school shootings -- Columbine and Virginia Tech -- occurred despite the presence of armed police. Columbine had an armed school resource officer, while the morning of the shooting at Virginia Tech, five officers plus the police chief were present on campus. In both shootings, the killers were well-aware of armed officers on their campuses.
[ie, knowing that there were "good men with guns" present was not a deterrent. dt]
Metal detectors have been implemented less often due to the cost. The research on their effectiveness is not extensive, but some studies do show a beneficial effect.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/15/how-do-we-prevent-school-shootings/
And yes, I'll pass on making the case that killing a fellow human being is a moral good. It may be the less bad scenario on rare occasions, but killing a fellow human, someone's son or daughter, brother or sister, IS a bad end result for those of us who believe in the dignity and worth of human life.
More thoughts from, I believe, a libertarian source...
Over-the-top security measures in airports provide the illusion of safety rather than actual protection, and they come at a significant cost both in money and in civil liberties.
You wouldn't realize it from listening to Hannity, but schools have already beefed up security significantly since the 1990s. One way they've done it is by hiring "school resource officers"—law enforcement agents that work in the school. In fact, 43 percent of public schools in the U.S. have an SRO right now, up from 20 percent in 1996, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That includes Marjory Stoneman Douglas and every other school in the district where it's located.
Between 1999—the year Columbine happened—and 2005, the federal Department of Justice gave schools $750 million to hire cops. There's scant evidence that this spending binge made schools any safer, since the school crime rate had already been trending downward...
...whatever benefits those measures bring come with ugly trade-offs. The ubiquitous presence of law enforcement in public schools has led to serious infringements of students' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and it has increased the likelihood that minor disputes between students will escalate into criminal justice issues.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/parkland-florida-shooting-cops-schools
Maybe I’m just not seeing it, but I see little of substance in Dan’s two comments. The “point” of the first comment is so obvious as to be ridiculous. Clearly if it’s possible to identify the person who MIGHT shoot up a school years in advance there are numerous options to help. But, the political left has taken some of those options away by limiting the ability to involuntarily commit someone for treatment. I the current case, we see failures so numerous on this score as to suggest that Broward County will be paying out millions of dollars in settlements.
Now the problem with this apparently reasonable course of action is that our legal system doesn’t allow for intervention based on what someone MIGHT do in the future. (It’s pretty clear that Cruz broke enough laws that there was justification in this one case.). We have a legal system designed to punish crime, not prevent it. I’m not sure I’m ready to completely overhaule our legal system for such a laudable goal.
In the second comment Dan seems to be arguing that since violence in schools is trending down, that it’s pointless to even look at security issues. Seems contradictory to me, but whatever.
If, we accept the unproven premises that “violence is the problem”, then wouldn’t it make sense to look at what are the most common types of school violence and work on those? Locally, we had a rash of incidents where students violently attacked teachers and staff, are these incidents not worthy of consideration?
It would be interesting to see what percentage of school violence these mass shootings represent. It seems pretty clear that bullying is at least a potential cause of these shootings and also most likely a cause of suicides, but it’s not quite as sexy as trying to blame innocent people and inanimate objects.
Again, I’m all for looking at data and letting that drive the discussion, I’m just saying that it’s more about what data you choose than anything else. I guess it’s too much to hope of a both/and rather than either/or.
Craig, let me help you: The POINT is to look at the data. I provided some data for consideration and what some people were concluding.
Consider on.
That is the point.
I hope that helps you understand the point.
Seriously, Craig, it's hard to respond to you without sounding like I'm talking down to you. That is not my intent. My intent is to clarify what you reported not understanding.
To further clarify (what should be obvious, but to be on the safe side), this is not ALL the data or ALL the issues. It is some data for consideration.
~Dan
Dan doesn’t consider is if murder is perpetrated in as non-violent manner as possible, is it less problematic for him?
Oh, yes, of course. Sweet murders are fine and I have no problem with them at all. It's perfectly moral and kind to nicely take someone's life by quietly gassing them. That is not violent at all and just hunkydory. I mean, those Jews and others in Nazi Germany thought it was a nice thing, so, yeah, I'm cool with it.
Do you all even think about the words you write?
~Dan
Dan, again, your condescension is unhelpful. I’ve addressed the “data” (limited and without context as it is). I’ve raised questions and tried multiple times to understand what your goal is. I’ve also been waiting for the “data” for “SPM” and it’s effectiveness in an active shooter situation.
What you’ve maybe chosen to miss, is that you’ve yet to provide any “data” that argues against the position you’ve historically taken. So, while you keep repeating that you theoretically want to look at “all the data”, you’ve been selective and one sided up to this point. If you’re really going to consider “all the data”, then please do so. I’ll applaud it when you finally do. As I will when you provide the “data” that demonstrates that efficiency of “SPM”. But, until you get around to doing what you claim you want to do, I see no reason to refrain from pointing out your tardiness.
One hint, you can tell that I’ve considered the “data” you’ve provided by reading my comments where I respond to the “data”.
I’m not sure why you percieve questioning of the completeness of your “data” to equate to a personal attack on you or to choose something other than the “way of grace” in your reply.
As before, I eagerly await your “SPM data” as well as your consideration of the voluminous “data” offered by Dr. Lott and others. I’m sure that your exhaustive survey of all the “data” will get there eventually.
to provide any “data” that argues against the position you’ve historically taken.
Craig, despite my clarifications, you continue to miss my point. Even when I say, "THIS IS THE POINT..." you miss it.
I'd be willing to bet that whatever position you think I've "historically taken," it's likely not my actual position, or a misunderstanding of it, at least.
I'll pass on further clarifications, here. I am being honest: I don't know how to help you understand my words. Here's a hint, though: Look for where I say "THE POINT IS" and read the words immediately following that.
Good luck.
~Dan
Are you suggesting that the position you've historically taken is one that leans toward more restrictions on guns rather than less restriction on guns?
It makes sense that you'd pass on additional "clarifications" of you positions because they're unnecessary. Perhaps you've missed it where I've expressed my hope, that you'd provide more "data". Perhaps you've missed where I've expressed hope that you have "data" that supports your hope that "SPM" is effective in active shooter situations. Maybe you've missed where I've expressed hope that you'd explain what objective you hope to achieve by "considering" this selective "data". Maybe you've been so focused on your perception of my "confusion", that you've missed my consideration of the selective "data" you've offered.
I'm really not sure why you struggle with the concept of my agreeing with your opinion that we SHOULD consider what the "data" tells us before taking action. I'm also not sure why you have such a strong objection to my suggesting that we should consider more "data" rather than less "data".
Perhaps, if you spent less time in condescension, and more time providing as much "data" as you can, things might work better.
"I suspect that your hostility towards me is making you read my writings in a state of constant hyper-criticism."
I suspect, this is where things went off the rails. First, given your re-wording and acknowledgement that the quote I questioned was written favoring brevity over clarity, it seems that you're acknowledging that you could have been clearer and more specific. Second, my asking for clarification regarding a specific quote of yours is hardly "hyper criticism". Third, it's telling that you ascribe my lack of total agreement (despite some level of basic agreement) to my "hostility", yet you somehow fail to consider the hostility inherent in your responses.
I'm going to respectfully suggest that if you'd like to spend more time providing "data" from all perspectives, and allowing consideration and comment, that seems like a reasonable and adult way to proceed. If you'd rather focus on your perceptions of one tongue in cheek comment I made, that's certainly your prerogative. But, doing so does detract from the point you appear to be wanting to make.
Let’s try this. If “violence” is the most pressing problem, is it possible that we could get a definition of what constitutes violence for the purposes of this thread, and can we see “data” that delineates what the most common types of violence are?
For instance, I saw a statistic reported that claimed 17,000 school rapes in a 4 year period. If this is true, then it seems like rape affects many more people than do mass shootings, and that it would be a higher priority.
Well, there was certainly condescension directed at me. But my point clearly extrapolated the notion of "violence is the problem" to less violent means of achieving the same goal. My point indicates violence doesn’t matter as a target of focus. It's impotent rhetoric that's serves no useful purpose. While anger management therapy has it's place, of greater concern is "what if it fails?" You can spend more time, money and focus and THE DATA shows clearly that it won't ever eliminate manifestations such as Parkland. The primary focus...the 1st order of business...is what to do to protect the kids against that.
As to your latest offering, having one cop on premises is insufficient even if they have the courage to act. Here's some data provided by a Florida law enforcement I heard speaking. These events typically last, on average, 3-5 minutes. Police response takes at least 5 minutes. A single SRO must be in the exact location of the shooter at the exact moment he decides to start shooting in order to prevent student deaths. Adding teachers who volunteer for the task raises the likelihood of armed response being more immediate. So the suggestion of armed personnel having no deterrant effect simply because there's only one guy with a gun MAYBE on site at the right time doesn’t wash. Also, deterrance alone isn't only consideration anyway, nor the most important one.
Art, like with many things, if access is regulated then it’s possible to have few officers cover the territory.
If “violence” is the most pressing problem, is it possible that we could get a definition of what constitutes violence for the purposes of this thread, and can we see “data” that delineates what the most common types of violence are?
1. I didn't say it's "the most pressing" problem. I said we have a violence problem.
2. It seems rather obvious, but in this post, I'm speaking specifically of violence by bad actors against innocent people. In our nation, we have more murders per capita than most of the world. In the following list, we are number 4, behind El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
No other western or first world nation has a rate that compares in any way to ours.
So, I'm talking in this post about violence, in general, against innocent folk, but to streamline the conversation, let's isolate that to the murder rate. (I will note that our rape rate is ~in the top ten globally, too.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
We have a violence problem and it can be seen in our murder rate. I think that is clear from the post, but if not, there it is.
Now, I've answered that question. Help us all understand if YOU are understanding my words, Craig. You stated just a few comments ago something about, "the position you’ve historically taken."
I don't think you KNOW what position I've historically taken on the topic of violence as it relates to solutions to deal with our violence problem/murder rate. Please demonstrate that you DO know what you're speaking of (i.e., that you understand my actual points) and tell me what YOU specifically think my position that I've "historically taken" is.
Or perhaps just admit that maybe you don't really know.
1. No you didn’t use that exact terminology, but it’s the one single problem you chose to write about.
2. Thanks, I know how difficult that must have been.
I addressed specifically what I meant by my comment, perhaps you missed that. In case you did, I was not referring to your general position on violence (I’d presume you’re against it in virtually any conceivable situation), but to your position on gun regulation. Again, I’m sorry you missed that.
Now that we’ve got that cleared up, I’ll wait for all the “data” you have to share.
To be clear, will you be providing “data” regarding the most empirically supported way to prevent murder and rape and how “SPM” will effectively combat both.
FYI, the reason I asked for the definition is that the scope of what constitutes “violence” seems pretty broad after trying to get some data on actual levels of violence. Therefore defining the term seemed worthwhile.
No Craig, you did not answer my question. All I can see is where you ASKED a question...
Are you suggesting that the position you've historically taken is one that leans toward more restrictions on guns rather than less restriction on guns?
You referenced my "position I've historically taken." What specifically do you think that position is?
Are you saying that my "historic position" is that I lean towards more restrictions on guns? If so, then you are mistaken. I've not argued much for more restrictions. I have said that I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but I have not argued for them, not in general.
So, what specifically did you mean when you made that statement? You appear to have in mind that I have historically held some specific position, what is it?
Please answer.
will you be providing “data” regarding the most empirically supported way to prevent murder and rape and how “SPM” will effectively combat both.
I've already answered this once. It is another case of you reading my words but not understanding my meaning. Go back and re-read what I've already answered before re-asking a question that's been re-answered.
My answer was quite clear the first time I gave it. Your position (regarding gun policy,as you’ve articulated it, leans towards additional regulation as opposed to against additional regulation), but please continue to focus on this relatively unimportant tangent if you think it helps you make your case about violence.
I read your response where you mentioned that you don’t actually have any empirical “data” that supports your contention that “SPM” would be effective in eliminating violence, is that the answer you were talking about? If it was, I’m sorry, I simply assumed that you would have data that showed the effectiveness of something you were advocating as a specific means to minimize violence, I apologize for thinking that you did. My bad. I’m really sorry. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you wouldn’t have offered some specific method without “data”. I’m really sorry about my misunderstanding.
Now that I understand that you don’t have data on the effectiveness of “SPM”, I’ll wait for the rest of the “data” you have to share. Please, continue.
So, are you not recognizing, then, that you do NOT understand what my position has historically been?
My position, historically, has been just what the point of this post is: we have a violence problem.
I lean towards answers that make most sense in dealing with the problem we have.
Understand?
I don't think you even understand that you don't understand.
Dan
Any hints as to what answers seem to make sense to you?
Got it, your views in gun regulation, which I looked at yesterday, are that we have a violence problem. Yet, you want to focus on this, rather than on providing “data”.
Helpful.
I've been providing data. I will continue providing data. The point of this post is not to say, "Here is the answer." The point is to not point to simplistic, emotion-based responses as the answer, but that we should look to data. All data.
A point with which you agree.
I was just also pointing out that you have an understanding problem and a belligerence problem when people point out you may not be understanding something right. This is something I would keep in mind, if it were me having the understanding problem, when I read for possible solutions or when I go on the attack on the "other side" for their proposals.
For instance, in spite of reality, the Right and people like the NRA continue to call the progressives and Dems "socialists" and "the enemy" who "want to take away our guns..." when none of that is reality.
I'm supporting reality-based solutions based on the data, that's all.
~Dan
Of course it's reality.
I’ve been politely and respectfully asking for more data for quite some time. I’ve not been belligerent in the least. But if you want to base your response to me on what some nameless “conservatives” have said, I can’t stop you, but it doesn’t seem productive to me.
Just so you know. There have been numerous leftists who have spent the last week or so filling social media with death threats to Dana Loesch and her children as well as multiple “kill the NRA” graffiti. There are also a more than adequate number of DFL politicians who are advocating banning specific types of guns, in just the type of knee jerk, emotion driven, non evidential manner you seem to be advocating.
It’s abundantly clear that you won’t be proposing solutions, I’m just still waiting for more data and data from all aspects of the conversation.
If it’s “reality” that folk on the left don’t want to “take away our guns”, why would dems in the house float a proposal to do just that.
“The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.”
“Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said.“
I guess that’s some reality supported by data.
I guess banning 75-80% of all firearms going forward isn’t technically “taking away” guns, it’s just preventing law abiding citizens from purchasing replacements.
Maybe you could address Lawrence Tribe and the “research” that led to him putting out false “data”, then trying to minimize his falsehoods when he got caught.
As I await the opportunity of having the time to address certain comments in detail, I wonder if Dan could take a moment to reconcile for us his concern for our "violence problem" with his support for visiting severe violence on the unborn...a violence he recently claimed he no longer believes is immoral.
I would also point out that while you're dealing with your "violence problem", violence will continue. What's more, you must have a close to perfect record in both identifying who is likely to resort to the most heinous level of violence, as well as perfectly preventing them perpetrating violence. That will come at as great a cost financially as securing schools against violence, if not moreso given human nature, and a far greater cost in time and of course lives. One needn't demand data to accept this reality.
It's interesting that Feo rants and raves because "we're" not doing whatever pops into his mind right this second because of the mounting toll, while Dan seems willing to take his time and look at all the "data". That's quite a juxtaposition.
In any case, they're two sides of the same coin in refusing to address the real issues.
Yes, but in this case Feo is more consistent in that he’s willing to trample on rights and sort out the carnage later. Dan, as on any issue where he advocates a position based in pacifism, is willing to tolerate some additional carnage while he studies all the data. I agree that doing something knee jerk is not the most helpful, but at some point the watching seems like it’s doing nothing.
To be clear, I do believe that whatever (if any) steps are taken that those steps should be reasoned and impose minimal limits on those who aren’t part of the problem.
I wasn't going to comment off-topic in this thread, as I noted above, but I just saw that Stan has blocked something from Dan on transsexuals (?) and wonder if Dan saved a copy of his comment so that he can post it here.
~ Hiram
Hiram,
Dan has made himself unwelcome at a host of blogs...largely for behavior he pretends occurs here, but doesn't.
82% of Dan’s buddies want to ban semiautomatic weapons and 50% want to ban all guns. But “nobody” wants to ...
Dan doesn’t seem to understand the concept of the ban. He keeps expecting a different result.
1. Craig: You DO recognize that I'm not the president, nor in Congress, nor do I have any power to make changes, other than my vote and advocacy?
2. In this post, I'm advocating to look at the data and let our decisions be data driven, not just knee jerk reactions. THAT was the point of the post.
3. The point of this post was NOT to look at all the data available out there. I don't have that kind of time, although I do enjoy looking at what data I can find in the time I have and consider the reasonable implications of that data.
4. That some people think that, given the data, to stop selling to the general market semi-automatic weapons of war... especially and specifically to people under 21, is not "taking away their guns." It's limiting access to some arms.
5. We DO THIS ALREADY and everyone is fine with it. That is, we already limit the sell and ownership of nuclear weapons, TNT and other bombs. Some people are saying that the automatic and semi-automatic weaponry that has been used, as a point of fact, in many attacks over the last few years are more like bombs and should, therefore, be limited.
6. In saying that Obama or the Dems are NOT proposing "taking away their guns," we're talking about taking away their right to own some guns. NO ONE is taking that away. THAT is the point.
Do you understand that point?
Do you understand that we already limit what arms people have access to, and you agree with this, in fact?
Please answer these questions before saying anything else on this post.
I have not seen any data that says liberals want to ban all guns. I suspect you have faulty data, but by all means, provide that data if you have it (after answering the questions above).
Hiram, Stan had posted on his blog that he "KNOWS" what God thinks about transgender people. I merely pointed out that he does not know this, it is his opinion, NOT any objective knowledge.
He responded, as you can see, by false claims about what I was saying. I did not say I disagreed with God or with the Bible, even, just what he was reading into it.
Indeed, his response made my point: The Bible does NOT SAY ONE SINGLE DAMNED THING about the transgender issue. It just doesn't. GOD has not offered an opinion on the topic. Not in the Bible and not anywhere that I know of.
Nonetheless, Stan has taken his opinion and, when I disagree with his opinion, said that I'm disagreeing with God.
That is some scary ass shit, conflating one's opinions with God.
Stan ain't God.
He is certainly welcome to his unproven and unprovable opinions about what maybe God does or doesn't think, but he shouldn't state these opinions as if they were facts.
That was the point that I made to Stan (politely, humorously, even) that he either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented in his response.
Such is life in fundamentalist world, unfortunately. It's something I believe we need to be wary of and work against.
Here's the result of one recent poll:
"Sixty-one percent of respondents said they believe strengthening gun control laws and background checks would prevent future mass shootings.
In addition, 76 percent of those surveyed said those who have been treated for mental illness should not be able to own a weapon.
[A point with which I disagree. "Being treated for mental illness" does not equate to "violent." Again, looking at the data. ~DT]
The poll found 63 percent of respondents believe weapons like the AR-15 should be banned."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/375513-majority-support-ban-of-semiautomatic-weapons-poll
This is a poll of all people, not just Dems or liberals.
Other interesting polling data on the topic here, at Gallup...
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Wherein we see that over 90% of the public favor "Requiring background checks for all gun purchases...," a common sense and reasonable restriction. Why wouldn't we do this?
I understand that you made roughly 5 points, one of which contradicts your earlier claim where you said you were going to look at all the data.
You also claimed no one wanted to ban guns, yet dats shows a different story.
I’ve already agreed that we limit arms, never denied it, actually proposed some additional potential limits at my blog. But you probably knew all that before you asked
Perhaps you missed my reference to the democratic members of congress who have introduced a bill that would ban the vast majority of all firearms. Maybe that explains your confusion.
I’ll try to make this really simple for you. How about if you just focus on presenting data?
Well, Craig. This post is not about presenting data, only about looking at all the data in order to arrive at sensible legislation. This makes it sound like Dan is supporting something reasonable without really doing anything.
I would argue that looking at data is already an ongoing practice and as such Dan's call is really a moot issue. But then, he seems more than willing to accept "data" that is seriously flawed. To wit:
"Sixty-one percent of respondents said they believe strengthening gun control laws and background checks would prevent future mass shootings."
Like Bernie Sanders, he regards opinion as data. Worse, opinion such as the above is based on emotion driven by recent events still fresh in the mind. What's more, how does one strengthen a law or background checks except by disciplined enforcement of existing laws and check policies? Said another way, do we really need to strengthen so much as merely do the job responsibly? I'd say the latter. IF that is what's meant, how do we achieve perfect dotting of "i's" and crossing of "t's" that will others with criminal or mental issues from perpetuating the next school shooting?
"In addition, 76 percent of those surveyed said those who have been treated for mental illness should not be able to own a weapon."
More so than above, this isn't news and it's possible the remaining 24% are those who understand not all mental patients are violent or dangerous to others. The real problem, again, is in the application of this policy and making sure that those who should not be permitted firearms are denied upon any attempt to acquire them. That's what background checks are for and when the process is done properly, the insane don't get guns.
"The poll found 63 percent of respondents believe weapons like the AR-15 should be banned."
This one is especially flawed and specious simply due to the many false narratives surrounding the AR-15. Gun grabbers focus on this particular weapon due to how accessorizing it can make it appear to resemble and M-16 and thus they've rationalized inflammatory rhetoric to stoke emotional response from low information listeners. Prime example being "weapon of war the purpose of which is to kill as many people as possible". It's typical stuff from no-idea leftists that parallels their slanderous descriptions of conservatives, fundamentalist Christians and pretty much anything they oppose.
"Wherein we see that over 90% of the public favor "Requiring background checks for all gun purchases...," a common sense and reasonable restriction. Why wouldn't we do this?"
Because I don't want to have to do a background check on a close friend I've known all my life.
Gentlemen, over and over, with each comment you make, you indicate and demonstrate that you don't understand my words. I'm truly sorry, but don't know how to help you understand and don't have unlimited time to help you.
In the meantime, Marshall, just because you have decided that you are suited to make the call as to who can and can't be trusted, does not mean jack shit.
You simply aren't authorized to make the call for the rest of us. THAT is why we need regulations.
If you aren't able to understand words in normal English communication, then why should the rest of society trust your judgment on your "friend's" ability to rightly handle deadly tools?
Again, you simply aren't in a position to decide for the rest of us who should and shouldn't be armed.
No need to respond, either of you. I'm done trying to explain things to you in this thread.
"In the meantime, Marshall, just because you have decided that you are suited to make the call as to who can and can't be trusted, does not mean jack shit."
It does when such sales are of the type I reference. I don't need to do a background check on someone I already know well and who is willing to exchange money for my gun. You're willing to let women kill their own kids and I can't sell my gun to a friend? What kind of idiot thinks like that?
"You simply aren't authorized to make the call for the rest of us."
But that's just it. I don't presume I have such authority. Those of us who understand both liberty and Constitutional concepts wouldn't. I will say this, however: you ain't much of a friend or brother if you don't know a friend or brother well enough to make such a call about them. Another example of your "embracing grace", I see.
"THAT is why we need regulations."
As the Parkland incident clearly shows, existing regulations aren't being enforced. How will more of them make a difference? Try explaining that.
"If you aren't able to understand words in normal English communication..."
I understand more than you have the integrity to admit.
"...then why should the rest of society trust your judgment on your "friend's" ability to rightly handle deadly tools?"
No one has to. The rest of society can arm themselves against me if they don't or they can stay in their gun free zones. But there you go embracing grace again, assuming I'd sell a piece to a friend or family member whose character I can't defend.
"Again, you simply aren't in a position to decide for the rest of us who should and shouldn't be armed."
I'm not deciding for "the rest of you". I'm deciding for me and the friend to whom I've sold my bazooka.
Since you haven't the stuff to respond to my counter arguments, perhaps you could enlighten me as to which words in normal English communication you like to pretend I'm unable to understand. There's an icecube's chance in hell you might be right, but there's no way to know unless you point it out.
“I’m done trying to explain things to you”
In other words, “I’m not going to look at and present “data” from any source that might show a positive outcome.”, “I’d rather nitpick you guys until I make up enough reasons to shut down this “conversation”.”
It’s too bad Dan is so predictable, even more so that the only other blog he comments at is the one where he knows he’s banned.
I’ve said this at least 5 times, let’s see all this “data”.
One wonders how long you’ll be content to study “data”, instead of actually proposing some concrete steps.
Curious if your going to explore the voluminous data and conclusions drawn by Dr Lott and the data regarding the threats and harassment aimed at the NRA, Dana Loesch, her husband and children. Maybe how that affects the conversation.
Just a case in point:
In other words, “I’m not going to look at and present “data” from any source that might show a positive outcome.”
No, No, no. This is literally NOT what I said or suggested. What I said was what I literally meant: I'm done trying to explain things to you fellas when you over and over keep not understanding what I'm saying. When you keep saying things like "In other words..." and then say something that is NOT what I'm saying, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying and there just isn't any point in explaining, eventually. It becomes clear that you two (and others like you) have very little interest in understanding OR perhaps very little ability to understand or perhaps some combination of the two or something else, I don't know. I'm just pointing out the reality that despite clarifications, despite reading into others' words ideas that literally simply aren't there, despite attempts at explanation over years and years, you all still continue to not understand and to misrepresent - and giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are misrepresenting others' words simply because you can't/aren't understanding them.
Regardless of the reason or the motive, you are not understanding and what I'm saying is that I have no real energy or motivation to keep trying to explain what you two keep not understanding.
So, I wish you well. Good luck in life. My one word of advice to you two: Don't be so sure that you understand others words and ask questions and be slower to presume you're understanding the answers/words of others, given your history.
Or not. Regardless, good luck.
Got it. You now have your excuse to not do what you said you were going to do.
Does your suggestion that we ask questions mean you’re going to answer the ones you’ve been asked.
Just to be clear, this is much more about pointing out how predictable you are the minute anyone disagrees with you. Thanks for that. Thanks especially for demonstrating grace and tolerance for someone who agrees with you.
Yet as Lott’s profile rose, his work came under scrutiny. The National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, assembled a panel to look into the impact of concealed-carry laws;
15 of 16 panel members concluded that the existing research, including Lott’s, provided “no credible evidence” that right-to-carry laws had any effect on violent crime.
Economists Ian Ayres of Yale University and John Donohue of Stanford University argued that Lott had drawn inaccurate correlations: Cities had experienced a spike in crime in the 80’s and 90’s in part because of the crack epidemic, not because of strict gun laws. When they extended their survey by five years, they found that more guns were linked to more crime, with right-to-carry states showing an eight percent increase in aggravated assault.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-lott-guns-crime-data/
Impressive, you’ve shown “data”, that demonstrates disagreement. You’ve offered a source that under no definition could be considered unbiased, with no actual discussion of the “data” or interacting with the actual studies in any way.
Your evenhanded unbiased search of the “data” is exhaustive.
I can only wait for your exhaustive examination of the bullying and threats of violence from the left to pro 2nd amendment public figures.
Clearly your goal is to take a comprehensive, unbiased, thorough look at “data” across a broad spectrum and to compile it.
If you bothered to look over my current post at my blog, and followed the comments thread, you would have found a link that addresses the "aggravated assault" question. If need be, I'll post it here.
Here it is:
https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/concealed-carry-permit-holders-crime-statistics/
Note Dan’s silence on the verbal violence being constantly directed at people like Dana Loesch and here family. Referring to her with misogynistic terms,wishing death to her and her children, and more. Days and weeks of this, and silence from Dan.
Post a Comment