School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by Shaun from Scotland

"Guns" are not banned in the UK.

That is true guns are not banned in the UK and as far as I am know they are not banned in France either

Information on the UK gun laws

http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub....ral/gunlaw.htm

Information on French gun laws

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Most victims of violent crime in the US don't require medical treatment either.

89% though? And bare in mind 'free NHS' you can see a doctor over a hangnail if you want. Do you have any figures on this?

Quote:

Aside from that, it is pretty roundly rejected in psychology and criminology circles that violence must be physical, and indeed psychological violence (such as the threat of injury) can be just as damaging to society.

Any crime is damaging to society so I don't disagree in principal (although I'd take issue with 'just as' in many cases) but the near 9 out of 10 incidents in which no-one was significantly injured aren't all terrified victims being terrorised by hulking hardened criminals, a proportion and going to be two guys who never got past the shoving (or even possibly verbal insult) stage of an argument and wouldn't stop talking trash when the police arrived, or a drunk trying to push past a bouncer. A lot of stuff ends up with the police over here that frankly needn't if people weren't such dicks and the way our system works means they get reported and end up in stats like this whether any charges were eventually brought or not. My suspicion is that there is a more 'deal with it' attitude among a lot of Americans (and more discretion avaliable to your police than ours get now) that would lead to minor incidents where no-one is actually hurt being dealt with more informally (not to mention the differences in the legal system, the concept of the victim pressing charges is different here) and while these kinds of figures aren't going to quantify this they may give an indication and could certainly disprove it.

Besides which, psychologically harmful or not, when people are talking about violence and taking potentially lethal precautions against the threat of it they are thinking of physical harm, noone would genuinely argue that a party where there were four push and shove arguments but no real injuries was more violent than one where someone was stabbed would they?

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by varwoche

What I see is an argument that is utterly devoid of intellectual integrity, and so idiotic, that it's pathetic.

Those are some pretty unsubstantiated labels you're throwing around there.

Would you care to try to demonstrate WHY you think it's proper to be so concerned about two dozen high-profile deaths, and unconcerned about two hundred unknown deaths?

The people who grieve in Newtown (and their family and friends around the world) can come together for mutual support. The hundreds of families who lost a child to drowning had to grieve alone. There was no national public outpouring of sympathy for them.

What, precisely, provides "intellectual integrity" to the position that it's proper to be incensed over THESE deaths, and indifferent to THOSE? I really want to hear it. All I've heard so far is the observation that these deaths were deliberate, and those were not. I don't regard that as an important difference. The sorrow a family feels at the loss of a child is no less because the death was not deliberate, and the guilt they feel may well be greater.

What, exactly, makes my argument ridiculous and pathetic? Spell it out, Enrico; don't just indulge in empty name calling. Let's see some intellectual beef behind these slurs.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Ok, that does it for me. This has taken a surreal turn.
Continued comparing accidental swimming deaths with mass murder [...] You are welcome to carry on, I would just feel guilty continuing.

Of course you would. When your attempt to guilt-trip responsible gun owners into "we gotta DO something" because twenty children died is examined in light of "what are you doing about ten times the preventable deaths every year?" it's natural to feel some guilt.

I guess we'll just have to carry on without you.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by orpheus

And you know what? If your kid drowns in a neighbor's pool, you can sue the owner of the pool for negligence resulting in a child's death.

How about that for a start? Any gun used in a crime - the owner is legally liable.

Is that not the case already? I know it is for that other mass killer, automobiles. Unless your car is stolen, as the owner you are liable if it kills or injures someone.

I'd be willing to go one step further with guns -- if your gun was stolen because it wasn't properly secured, you're STILL liable.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

It's just a gun lobby talking point, and not really relavent to the discussion here. We were talking about school shooting, not drownings of kids who are not even old enough for school.

It is relevant to the discussion here. People are howling that we have to DO something, we can't allow children to continue to die like this. Yet, they are willing to continue to let ten times the number of children die every year in swimming pools.

I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored, or whose kid is being killed.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The Bushmaster XR-15^WP used at Sandy Hook would have fallen under the Assault Weapons Ban.

You don't know enough to say that, since it is predicated on the actual weapon configuration. CT has the federal AWB model as state law.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

If that's true, it would clear a lot up for me. I thought it was interesting that a bunch of people coming up with the same ludicrous analogies was a bit odd. So you're saying they're just mindlessly parroting the NRA?

Are you still here? I thought...

Well, since you're back, maybe you can show why the analogy is ludicrous. I'm not mindlessly parroting anything -- I don't get the NRA newsletter, so I don't know what they have to say. I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who have been ignoring hundreds of preventable child deaths for decades, but who are now suddenly up in arms because of a one-time event, even one as horrible as this one. What gives?

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by zeggman

Are you still here? I thought...

Well, since you're back, maybe you can show why the analogy is ludicrous. I'm not mindlessly parroting anything -- I don't get the NRA newsletter, so I don't know what they have to say. I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who have been ignoring hundreds of preventable child deaths for decades, but who are now suddenly up in arms because of a one-time event, even one as horrible as this one. What gives?

Possibly becasue it was an horrific event in its own right.

And yes the preventable child deaths are horrifying but this was doubly so.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Shaun from Scotland

"Guns" are not banned in the UK.

Plus if you phone the police, even about someone with a gun, unarmed police will attend.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by zeggman

Are you still here? I thought...

Well, since you're back, maybe you can show why the analogy is ludicrous. I'm not mindlessly parroting anything -- I don't get the NRA newsletter, so I don't know what they have to say. I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who have been ignoring hundreds of preventable child deaths for decades, but who are now suddenly up in arms because of a one-time event, even one as horrible as this one. What gives?

I think your premise is wrong. No one has been ignoring preventable child deaths by drowning. Some pretty strict laws on pool owner responsibility have been written and enforced. Drownings due to lack of attentiveness of the caregiver are investigated and tried (when there is enough evidence) as criminal offenses.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Possibly becasue it was an horrific event in its own right.

And yes the preventable child deaths are horrifying but this was doubly so.

I still don't get it. Even granting your "doubly horrifying" is an accurate measurement, we still have ten times the number of children dying every year from another preventable cause. When we take number of deaths times the horror multiplier, swimming pools are still the cause of much more suffering. Why is pointing that out "ludicrous"?

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think your premise is wrong. No one has been ignoring preventable child deaths by drowning. Some pretty strict laws on pool owner responsibility have been written and enforced. Drownings due to lack of attentiveness of the caregiver are investigated and tried (when there is enough evidence) as criminal offenses.

I wouldn't oppose additional requirements for responsible gun owners, including harsher (criminal) penalties if a gun owner's negligence contributed to a crime or an accident.

[Dcdrac]

swiimig ppol deaths utterly irrelevent to this discussion, somene dying due to that is a horriying tragedy but is no way on a par with what happened and any attempt to create an equivalence between that and what happend in Conneticut are just plain wrong.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

swiimig ppol deaths utterly irrelevent to this discussion, somene dying due to that is a horriying tragedy but is no way on a par with what happened and any attempt to create an equivalence between that and what happend in Conneticut are just plain wrong.

Yeah, people keep repeating this assertion, but no one can give me a good supporting reason for the belief. The closest anyone's come is that one is "deliberate" and the other is not. I don't think that makes a lot of difference to a grieving parent, and I think "preventable" is more relevant than "deliberate".

Care to try again?

[Dcdrac]

You are being totally disngenous the greif is the same but thethe shooting was on a totally different level to an accidental death whatever the cause, they are not the same.

One was a deliberate act a mass murder

The other whatever the cause accidental uniteneded unplanned.

You cannot honestly say they are the same.

[Belz...]

Don't bother. This isn't the first time Zeggman claims not to understand human emotion.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by zeggman

It is relevant to the discussion here. People are howling that we have to DO something, we can't allow children to continue to die like this. Yet, they are willing to continue to let ten times the number of children die every year in swimming pools.

A query of the CDC Wonder database shows that 4,818 children ages 0 to 14 died as a result of firearms from 1999 to 2010. Swimming pool deaths for this same period and age groups totaled 3,885.

This isn't to say that swimming pools do not pose a risk to children. It just isn't the topic of this thread.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Suicide rates in Australia have been going down since 2000. I have not yet found data that goes back to before the gun buyback of 1996 and 1997.

ETA

From Suicide in Australia: meta-analysis of rates and methods of suicide between 1988 and 2007

Interesting. I've been hearing that guns don't actually play much of a factor on who kills people out commits suicide.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

If that's not dishonest quotemining, I don't know what is....

Way to miss the point completely, and make yourself look foolish.

Really? If a situation calls for a gun, the police or military should be the ones called.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this meant to be a criticism of these who call the police when under threat? Like, you know, virtually the entire civilised world? Unbelievable.

Hilarious, considering tri's criticism of my post above.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Don't bother. This isn't the first time Zeggman claims not to understand human emotion.

What use does human emotion have in a rational argument?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

A query of the CDC Wonder database shows that 4,818 children ages 0 to 14 died as a result of firearms from 1999 to 2010. Swimming pool deaths for this same period and age groups totaled 3,885.

This isn't to say that swimming pools do not pose a risk to children. It just isn't the topic of this thread.

How many red herrings contribute to the death of children?

[Bikewer]

I for one would not respond to a report of a "man with a gun" or any similar such call were I not armed, and hopefully with a backup as well.
There is a long history of shooting at police officers in this country, and individuals who intend to actually ambush police or "go out in a blaze of glory" have been known to call themselves and then simply wait for the police to arrive to start shooting.
Other countries who do not respond in such fashion likely do not have the high incidence of assaults on police we do.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause? Obviously the law of no guns in schools does not deter criminals, so what purpose does it serve?

Originally Posted by Multivac

No, that doesn't sound outrageous at all. It sounds bat-**** crazy!

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Can you explain why you feel that way? Other than your irrational fear of people who are statistically the least likely to shoot up a school.

Originally Posted by Multivac

Ok, I'll try.

1) I do not have an irrational fear of teachers, or anyone else.
2) I do not want my kids to be taught by someone wearing a gun as it sends the message that guns are necessary to be safe, and an ordinary everyday item.
3) If the best way to protect kids from being shot at school is to arm the teachers, then society has failed
4) Everyone gets angry, and it is much easier to hurt someone when angry with a gun than if you are unarmed.

1) Quad wasn't actually talking about teachers and neither was I when I said "people who are statistically least likely to shoot up a school". People in the US with permits to carry a concealed weapon are the least likely to commit a crime. I don't understand why allowing a permitted weapon holder to walk through the doors of a school sounds bat **** crazy unless you feel that there would be some horrifying consequence. I can't see that there is any evidence for that conclusion, and in some municipalities, teachers with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry in their workplace (i.e., the classroom)

2) Again, Quad wasn't talking about teachers in the post to which you responded, but "school staff" is in the discussion so I'll address it; It is highly unlikely that your child would even be aware of the presence of an armed staff member in the school. "Concealed" means concealed. People with permits are required to keep the weapon hidden.

3) One might just as easily say that kids being shot at school was a sign of society's failure. But statistically speaking, the number of children killed at school is far lower than the number of children killed in their own homes. According to ChildHelp, at least five children die every day due to abuse and neglect. Almost none of them with a firearm, by the way. Mass shootings like this are exceptionally rare, And if a magic wand could be waved that would in some way eliminate all mass shootings, the per capita homicide rate wouldn't even budge.

There are a lot of things I would point to as evidence of the "failure" of US society. I could probably fill a couple of pages before I even got to "gun culture". The most glaring failures would be lack of access to healthcare, the outrageous income disparity, and concentration of wealth. If you look at the demography of typical gun violence, you will see that it is concentrated among the very poor. Poverty has more to do with violent crime and homicide than the presence of guns. Other than the emotional content you ascribe to it, allowing a licensed weapon into a school is a non-issue.

4) Everyone gets angry, yet the millions of people licensed to carry concealed weapons aren't shooting people who are rude to them, As I said above, they are the most law abiding demographic in the country. In fact, every weapon holder I've known personally does everything in their power to de-escalate any situation in which they find themselves. It seems like legally permitted gun owners don't seem to get so angry. There's a reason for that.

So again I ask, in light of the information above, what rational reason do you have for banning permitted weapon holders from a school? Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that this will prevent any future school killing, all I'm asking is what is the issue you have with lifting that ban?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Don't bother. This isn't the first time Zeggman claims not to understand human emotion.

I'm certain he understands emotion just fine. The question is why emotion is what we should base our laws on. Shouldn't there be a rational basis instead?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I'm certain he understands emotion just fine. The question is why emotion is what we should base our laws on. Shouldn't there be a rational basis instead?

What zeggman apparently is saying is that we shouldn't feel grief towards people we can put a face on or on a few children because more people die every day. That doesn't seem to have any relation to lawmaking at all. It's just a way to get people riled up.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by DJW

What use does human emotion have in a rational argument?

Aside from the fact that your post has literally nothing to do with mine, emotions can't be the basis of an argument, but you can make an argument that acknowledges the existence of emotion and its impact.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by zeggman

I wouldn't oppose additional requirements for responsible gun owners, including harsher (criminal) penalties if a gun owner's negligence contributed to a crime or an accident.

We have laws that cover that, already. The only thing I am pointing out is that it is dishonest to claim that no one reacts to drownings.

People get very upset, even complete strangers, when innocent people die as a result of someone else's decisions, whether it be leaving a child alone in the bath tub, sitting them on the fence at a zoo, reckless driving, or some crazed individual who decides to shoot up a public place. As a species, we survived and advanced because of trial and error, recognizing patterns and adjusting our behavior accordingly. Since I do not have access to all the crimes in America, I really have no idea if the recent surge in reportings of attempted mass shootings is a real trend or if the news is just scouring local reports for anything even remotely related because of recent events. In the past two years, we've had three mass shootings because mentally unstable people had access to guns. Grant it, the number of people that are killed as a result of these incidents pale in comparison to the number of children who drown, per year. The difference, to me, is not that drowning is any less tragic, it's how I feel in the aftermath. The world doesn't feel less safe because a child drowned in the neighbor's pool. There are proactive responses to that. I can adjust my behavior accordingly to reduce the risk to my own children by keeping an eye on them near water, teaching them how to swim, making sure my neighbor adheres to laws regarding pools. No amount of adjusting my behavior will make my children bulletproof. No amount of teaching my children gun safety prevents them from being the next victim of an armed and crazed individual.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What zeggman apparently is saying is that we shouldn't feel grief towards people we can put a face on or on a few children because more people die every day. That doesn't seem to have any relation to lawmaking at all. It's just a way to get people riled up.

Please quote the post in which I said we shouldn't feel grief towards people we can put a face on or on a few children. I think that claim is an outright lie, but if there is any evidence that I actually wrote the words you are putting in my mouth, I'd like to see it. Produce it.

The whole point is lawmaking. People are calling for changes to the laws based on THESE deaths, based on THIS grief. Other deaths and other grief is not prompting them to make similar calls for changes in other areas.

If anyone is ignoring human emotion, it's the people who shrug off drowning deaths, while insisting that this once-in-a-lifetime tragedy should lead to permanent policy changes.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What zeggman apparently is saying is that we shouldn't feel grief towards people we can put a face on or on a few children because more people die every day. That doesn't seem to have any relation to lawmaking at all. It's just a way to get people riled up.

If that's what you think he's saying, I suppose it wouldn't be surprising that that is the reaction. But that's actually not at all what he's saying, and a less emotional re-reading would relieve you of that delusion.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Aside from the fact that your post has literally nothing to do with mine, emotions can't be the basis of an argument, but you can make an argument that acknowledges the existence of emotion and its impact.

You very plainly made an ad hominum attack on Zeggman when you admonished Dcdrac to not bother engaging with Zeggman. That's what my post had to "literally" do with your post.

Acknowledging emotion explains to me why irrational ideas can gain traction in any discussion, but Zeggman's suppposed lack of understanding of human emotion by you doesn't have any business in the debate.

[Nessie]

It would appear America needs to sort out its swimming pools as well as its guns. As for the other equivalent mentioned, road crashes, they have been dropping steadily

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

From 46,800 deaths in 1990 to 35,900 in 2009. But the number of accidents has not declined as much from 11.5 million to 10.8 million.

Drownings have pretty much remained stable at an average of 3,880 from 2005 to 2009.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

Firearms homicides have been pretty stable 1998 9,275 and 2009 9,146

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So the one area where safety has had an impact is with cars and that is more down to built in safety, airbags etc than anything else. That suggests built in safety would have an impact on gun deaths. So a massive safety campaign to properly secure guns away from children and theft and unauthorised access. Maybe look at better safety switches and trigger guards. Better gun safety and security programmes.

Since people want to look at other death rates, why not instead of arguing over there equivalency why not look at what works else where and try and apply it to other problems. Treat guns like cars and look at ways to make them safer.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It would appear America needs to sort out its swimming pools as well as its guns. As for the other equivalent mentioned, road crashes, they have been dropping steadily

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

From 46,800 deaths in 1990 to 35,900 in 2009. But the number of accidents has not declined as much from 11.5 million to 10.8 million.

Drownings have pretty much remained stable at an average of 3,880 from 2005 to 2009.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

Firearms homicides have been pretty stable 1998 9,275 and 2009 9,146

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So the one area where safety has had an impact is with cars and that is more down to built in safety, airbags etc than anything else. That suggests built in safety would have an impact on gun deaths. So a massive safety campaign to properly secure guns away from children and theft and unauthorised access. Maybe look at better safety switches and trigger guards. Better gun safety and security programmes.

Since people want to look at other death rates, why not instead of arguing over there equivalency why not look at what works else where and try and apply it to other problems. Treat guns like cars and look at ways to make them safer.

+1.

When we address drowning deaths, we look for ways to makes pools inaccessible to unsupervised non-swimmers, and to educate people in how to be safe in the water.

When we address auto deaths, we have education campaigns against drunk, drowsy, and distracted driving. We add features like seat belts and crumple zones to make cars safer. We develop laws for the road, and pay to enforce them.

I'd support similar strategies for dealing with gun violence. I think they could be just as effective in decreasing gun deaths as they have been in decreasing drowning deaths and auto deaths, without infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners (who make up the vast majority of gun owners).

[DJW]

Hey, Nessie, thanks for at least trying to back your thoughts up. The effort is appreciated.

Sorry about the big "but", but:

Homicides aren't accidents, and you seem to be claiming that they are.

I did a simple google search and found this Univ. of Michigan link with some numbers that I hope you'll take a look at, link.

Some of the figures to glance at for those not interested in following the link: Bolding indicates copy/paste from the link

In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.

And another that I wanted to point out:

214 unintentional

One more that really caught my eye:

Of the total firearms-related deaths: 73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old

[Nessie]

I understand homicides are different from all the rest in that they are not accidents. But I think that the principle of looking to improve safety will have a positive affect on homicides.

I see there is a lot of academic public health studies about guns, from John Hopkins Bloomberg Uni to Harvard to privately funded work by the likes of Public Health Law Research.

I don't know if the public health lot are regarded as anti-gun or not, but their appliance of study and science to firearms and overall public health and safety measures to reduce deaths makes more sense to me than anything else I have read so far.

So amongst the solutions I have read so far are increased police crackdowns on illegal guns

http://publichealthlawresearch.org/taxonomy/term/31/all

Restriction of high risk individuals for getting guns

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/center...essRelease.pdf

Gun use and self defence

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ion/index.html

There is even more on general safety and maybe a huge campaign, which I am sure would have popular support at the moment, on the likes of safe storage and child mortality

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9315767

would be of benefit. The aim would try and make the Sandy Hook shooting a tipping point where US society decides it needs to fear the sheer number of guns in its country more than anything else.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by DJW

One more that really caught my eye:

Of the total firearms-related deaths: 73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old

And a further note on 15-19 year-old gun deaths... these are often crime related. From a survey in Boston:

"Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record."

[zooterkin]

Well, who'd've guessed? The answer, according to the NRA, is more guns.

Quote:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Mr LaPierre told reporters.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, who'd've guessed? The answer, according to the NRA, is more guns.

Don't forget the national mental health registry...

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, who'd've guessed? The answer, according to the NRA, is more guns.

His scapegoating of violent movies and video games is idiotic, as is his call for a national mental health registry. That doesn't make him wrong about everything:

Quote:

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.