More guns... I mean control (Page 2)

As with most statistics, I pulled that one out of my posterior. You're more likely much closer to the correct number.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that mine are semi-auto's.

...

• I believe that if I had a conceled carry permit and were armed and was in the presence of the shooter, I could have saved lives by taking out the shooter.  I believe that's the case for many conceled carriers...  But the statistical chance of someone carrying who is close and can do something is about as much as winning the lottery.  And more guns isn't the answer.  These random shooting sprees, while the most news-worthy, are the tiniest fraction of gun-related deaths.  Most are drug/gang-related and domestic violence.  So more gun carryers doesn't solve for that or this.  In fact, more gun ownership typically leads to more domestic killings.

 ...

My God, the carnage... did you take out the whole herd?

Having the belief is not the same as having the ability. I recently read one of the many SEAL memoirs that is out there, and the author talked in the beginning of the book about the various special forces being asked to show what they could do in a practice setting (dropping in at night at a target, locating the house, and making the shots, followed by extraction undetected). All the teams did much worse than they claimed they could do, and even worse than they thought they actually did.

I think many CCW people have the belief that they would drop the shooter in a situation like Aurora or the recent mall shooting. How many of them are actually going to practice sites set up with "civilians" and practicing, under fire from a shooter, remaining in control of their weapon and firing? I would bet the number approaches zero.  If trained SEALS and other top special forces guys are not doing as well as they think they can do, how would Joe Carry be expected to reliably be a better actor in terms of taking down the threat without imposing a greater threat to the bystanders? I'm not saying it CAN'T happen - even Lee Harvey Oswald with his crap rifle and minimal training got lucky. I'm saying the belief is not the same as the likelihood.

Here's how I honestly feel:

• I believe and support gun control and gun restrictions.  But I don't think THAT'S the debate or even discussion with regard to this incident.  In three-quarters of most of these mass shooting sprees, the gun used was obtained legally.  And the weapon of choice is typically a semi-automatic handgun, NOT a fully-automatic assault rifle.  I own a semi-automatic handgun and don't think in any way that they should be banned.  I want the ability to protect my family in my own home.  We need to have the discussion about gun laws and gun restrictions, but not as a response to an incident.  It should be a discussion about defining the 2nd Amendment and personal liberties/freedoms and how best to protect citizens and what makes common sense.

• I believe that if I had a conceled carry permit and were armed and was in the presence of the shooter, I could have saved lives by taking out the shooter.  I believe that's the case for many conceled carriers...  But the statistical chance of someone carrying who is close and can do something is about as much as winning the lottery.  And more guns isn't the answer.  These random shooting sprees, while the most news-worthy, are the tiniest fraction of gun-related deaths.  Most are drug/gang-related and domestic violence.  So more gun carryers doesn't solve for that or this.  In fact, more gun ownership typically leads to more domestic killings.

• The discussion should be, but never is, is about mental illness.  Training people to spot it and what to do when the signs are there.  It should be about the mental health industry and how since the Reagan years, it has been gutted and de-funded.  It should be about schools, institutions and the general public having a simple and easy means of reporting concerns about individuals.  Check this out:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map  The predominant link in just about every case is mental illness and almost always, there was some form of warning sign beforehand.  Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech for a year prior practically displayed a billboard with his intentiions.

Departments of Social Services and Child Protective Services (CPS) need more funding.  Think about this:  CPS has one of the most important roles in society; protecting children from physical and sexual abuse and violence.  Yet CPS departments and workers are some of the least funded and lowest paid people in public jobs.  Case loads are huge and the toll the job takes is enormous.  The average service length for a CPS Social Workers is about 18month before burn-out and the need for mental recovery.  Is that right?

Mental illness training needs to be funded.  Public in-treatment facilities need to be re-openned and funded.  Starting in the 1980's they were slashed and many homeless people need in-treatment care.  Laws need to be passed so that when someone is identitifed as a threat to themselves or others, they can be kept detained for more than 30 days.  Medicare & Medicaid needs to pay for the drugs that people need.  Schitzophrenia, borderline personality disorder, disassociative personality disorder...  These are not illnesses to be taken lightly.  When sufferers of these diseases go off their meds - you see what the results can be.

The gun was only the weapon of choice, but it's not the root cause that needs to be addressed here.  In China between '10 & '11, there was a spree of mass killings of children in schools with knives;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)    But again, what was the commonality?  MENTAL ILLNESS.  What we need in this country is more mental illness control!

I think the obvious solution is to enslave someone who has the ability to look into the future.  We can form a whole new law enforcement division around this person and call it the "pre-crimes unit" and arrest people before they commit their crimes.

Having the belief is not the same as having the ability. I recently read one of the many SEAL memoirs that is out there, and the author talked in the beginning of the book about the various special forces being asked to show what they could do in a practice setting (dropping in at night at a target, locating the house, and making the shots, followed by extraction undetected). All the teams did much worse than they claimed they could do, and even worse than they thought they actually did.

I think many CCW people have the belief that they would drop the shooter in a situation like Aurora or the recent mall shooting. How many of them are actually going to practice sites set up with "civilians" and practicing, under fire from a shooter, remaining in control of their weapon and firing? I would bet the number approaches zero.  If trained SEALS and other top special forces guys are not doing as well as they think they can do, how would Joe Carry be expected to reliably be a better actor in terms of taking down the threat without imposing a greater threat to the bystanders? I'm not saying it CAN'T happen - even Lee Harvey Oswald with his crap rifle and minimal training got lucky. I'm saying the belief is not the same as the likelihood.

I think the obvious solution is to enslave someone who has the ability to look into the future.  We can form a whole new law enforcement division around this person and call it the "pre-crimes unit" and arrest people before they commit their crimes.

All I know is that the armed guy with the "belief" has a better chance of getting it done than you do.

AND a better chance of harming bystanders than I do. So....50/50.

And how many armed bystanders were needed to stop the last hijackers on 9/11 from hitting their target? Or to stop the shoe bomber? The underwear bomber? And the guy that isn't just on a shooting rampage, but taking hostages - how will he respond when the CCW "hero" pulls out his weapon to "stop the problem"? Without some data, we can both spin scenarios where it is better or worse to have the CCW "solution", and neither of us can demonstrate that the number needed to help is better than the number needed to harm. (I'm happy to expand that concept if it needs clarification).

AND a better chance of harming bystanders than I do. So....50/50.

And how many armed bystanders were needed to stop the last hijackers on 9/11 from hitting their target? Or to stop the shoe bomber? The underwear bomber? And the guy that isn't just on a shooting rampage, but taking hostages - how will he respond when the CCW "hero" pulls out his weapon to "stop the problem"? Without some data, we can both spin scenarios where it is better or worse to have the CCW "solution", and neither of us can demonstrate that the number needed to help is better than the number needed to harm. (I'm happy to expand that concept if it needs clarification).

AND a better chance of harming bystanders than I do. So....50/50.

And how many armed bystanders were needed to stop the last hijackers on 9/11 from hitting their target? Or to stop the shoe bomber? The underwear bomber? And the guy that isn't just on a shooting rampage, but taking hostages - how will he respond when the CCW "hero" pulls out his weapon to "stop the problem"? Without some data, we can both spin scenarios where it is better or worse to have the CCW "solution", and neither of us can demonstrate that the number needed to help is better than the number needed to harm. (I'm happy to expand that concept if it needs clarification).

There have been a number of recorded incidents where CCW holders have stopped violent crime using deadly force. Can you tell me how much collateral damage has occurred?

sources please

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Anybody else notice that the killings on the map seem to be concentrated in blue states?

Solution, no guns for democrats!

sources please

Not to disagree with you, but it does get tricky when you tie someones rights to medical information and how that is shared with law enforcment. And if I am OK and have weapons, then I somehow end up on a "list", do I get my weapons confinscated and who is going to come do that?

I do agree with you that it is the troubled individual... but intervention and prevention are not as easy as it seems as to when to interdict and cutail one's freedoms.... just because they fit a "profile" and may do something in the future. Obviously there are millions with mental illness that do not go out on a shooting spree.

There are a TON of incidents in Texas....at least 4 a month (the ones that get reported) of a home invasion or robbery where the robber didn't expect someone to be...armed. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Anybody else notice that the killings on the map seem to be concentrated in blue states?

Solution, no guns for democrats!