Gun Free Zones

[thegreekdog]

And Greek, homicides are not the only crime committed on school grounds that students could protect themselves from.

Did I suggest we shouldn't allow students to carry guns?

I merely pointed out that I don't want the government to spend my tax dollars (directly or indirectly) on armed security guards at school, which is consistent with my status as a libertarian and small-government type.

[Phatscotty]

And Greek, homicides are not the only crime committed on school grounds that students could protect themselves from.

Did I suggest we shouldn't allow students to carry guns?

I merely pointed out that I don't want the government to spend my tax dollars (directly or indirectly) on armed security guards at school, which is consistent with my status as a libertarian and small-government type.

I don't think you did no, nor did I think that was what you meant, or that would even have anything to do with this. However, my post was to your implications about how many students die in school shootings per year. There is a lot more

[mrswdk]

If everyone had a defence rifle then everyone would be safe.

[patrickaa317]

If everyone had a defence rifle then everyone would be safe.

As long as everyone that had one was trained and mentally capable of handling the responsibility...

"Just because you can buy water pipes from Home Depot, it does not make you a good plumber."

[mrswdk]

I was being sarcastic. More guns does not equal more safety.

[patrickaa317]

I was being sarcastic. More guns does not equal more safety.

Just as less guns does not always equal more safety either. The increase or decrease in safety all depends who the people gaining/losing guns are.

[Symmetry]

Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

[Symmetry]

I was being sarcastic. More guns does not equal more safety.

Just as less guns does not always equal more safety either. The increase or decrease in safety all depends who the people gaining/losing guns are.

I would be very interested in the statistics of countries that enacted "less guns" but saw a decrease in "safety".

[patrickaa317]

I was being sarcastic. More guns does not equal more safety.

Just as less guns does not always equal more safety either. The increase or decrease in safety all depends who the people gaining/losing guns are.

I would be very interested in the statistics of countries that enacted "less guns" but saw a decrease in "safety".

There are a crap ton of variables in that request but to satisfy your wants, check out the stats in East Africa. They have some of the world's lowest gun possession rates yet some of the highest homicide rates.

This is a completely different culture which is one of the biggest variables that cannot be represented in pure numbers but it represents what you wanted.

[patrickaa317]

Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

Sarcasm? Mandatory weapon training is ridiculous in my mind. I'd like to find someone who feels otherwise just so i can call them a nutcase. Weapons training should be completely voluntary.

[Symmetry]

Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

Sarcasm? Mandatory weapon training is ridiculous in my mind. I'd like to find someone who feels otherwise just so i can call them a nut-case. Weapons training should be completely voluntary.

No sarcasm intended. I find the dialogue between 8 year olds have to wear bullet proof vests vs some right wing nut job arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle kind of an easy one.

[patrickaa317]

Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

Sarcasm? Mandatory weapon training is ridiculous in my mind. I'd like to find someone who feels otherwise just so i can call them a nut-case. Weapons training should be completely voluntary.

No sarcasm intended. I find the dialogue between 8 year olds have to wear bullet proof vests vs some right wing nut job arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle kind of an easy one.

Gotcha. I wasn't sure who you were talking to but obviously it was not me.

Carry on.

[Phatscotty]

I was being sarcastic. More guns does not equal more safety.

Just as less guns does not always equal more safety either. The increase or decrease in safety all depends who the people gaining/losing guns are.

Here is a quandary for those who turn to the police to solve everything, or that nobody else can possibly be qualified enough

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2014 ... /301030038

Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.


“When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.

“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

Craig’s statements Thursday echoed those he made Dec. 19 on “The Paul W. Smith Show” on WJR (760 AM), when he said: “There’s a number of CPL (concealed pistol license) holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction. I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”

Robyn Thomas, director of the the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, disagreed.

“I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime,” Thomas said. “There’s no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them.”

Rick Ector of the Firearm Academy of Detroit, which teaches gun safety classes, said Craig’s comments are unusual for a police official.

“It’s a huge, radical departure for the police chief to say good people should have access to firearms,” said Ector. “I’m not ready to say he’s pro-gun just yet, but it’s vastly different from what police chiefs have said in the past.”

Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police director Robert Stevenson agreed.

“A lot of police officers have no problem at all with law-abiding citizens having guns,” Stevenson said.

“I think it’s probably like the citizenry: Some are for it, some are against it. But most police chiefs don’t want to talk about the subject.

“It’s a divisive issue, and a lot of times chiefs are reluctant to get in the middle of those debates. Gun control, the death penalty — most chiefs try to stay out of those discussions. Craig speaks his mind; you’ve got to give him credit for that.”

According to a March 2013 anonymous poll of 15,000 officers by the law enforcement website policeone.com., almost 90 percent of the respondents believed casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present during shooting incidents, while more than 80 percent supported arming teachers who were trained with firearms.

Although Craig said more responsible gun owners would likely lower crime, in the past he also has called for a ban on assault weapons, regulating high-capacity magazines, tighter restrictions on Internet ammunition sales and more stringent background checks for merchants who sell firearms at gun shows.

Detroit police have reported 73 justifiable homicides in the city since 2011. The number in 2013 was 15, down from 25 the previous year.

Most of those cases involved citizens who defended themselves by killing criminals. Among them: 77-year-old Willie White, who in March 2012, fatally shot a man who’d broken into his northwest Detroit home.

Prior to the incident, White’s home had been broken into several times. The break-ins stopped after he killed the 18-year-old intruder, he said.

“I think these criminals would definitely think twice if they knew more citizens were armed,” White said. “I know it stopped them from breaking into my place.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i don't think there is much you can do about mass killings with guns. whenever some freakazoid snaps there are plenty of options for him to obtain a gun and plenty of venues full of defenseless people to ambush. i'd be for removing guns from US citizens if you could remove them from the world population. including military. that means we'd go back to fighting wars like they did in the movie braveheart. which would probably be less deaths per war. but alot more pain and suffering. not sure which of those would be better. i'd hate to have a broadsword shoved into my chest or be impaled by several crossbow bolts. or that guy that had the hammer smashed into his skull.....

yucko.

i don't necessarily feel safer with or without my gun right now. but i don't fear life. i also understand that my life does not depend on whatever safety measures the govt. sees fit. if i die or get shot in a mass killing i'll just chalk it up to i was in the wrong place at the wrong time. of course i don't want that to happen to me or anyone else, but i also don't want to be restricted against owning something that can be easily obtained regardless of whether or not it is legal. i'll continue to buy guns until i'm physically unable to. which is most likely not going to come to pass in my remaining 25-50 years or so.

[mrswdk]

There are a crap ton of variables in that request but to satisfy your wants, check out the stats in East Africa. They have some of the world's lowest gun possession rates yet some of the highest homicide rates.

This is a completely different culture which is one of the biggest variables that cannot be represented in pure numbers but it represents what you wanted.

You know East Africa includes Somalia, right? Hardly a fair example.

[PLAYER57832]

Phattscotty -- its an old debate, and one the right wing is losing. That is the reason the NRA went extreme-- they feared losing members. In other words, they were acting like any greedy corporation, only pretending that they were out to save people's"souls"

As noted above, you can have all the armed people you want and it won't stop the few nutjobs intent on doing real harm. Even if no guns were available, they would find other means-- and,as bad as an assault rifle attack is, I am not sure I prefer a fire bomb. In fact, I DON'T!

IN some areas, where there truly is a real risk to kids, trained,armed people are warranted and I, for one, am not going to object to the minor increase in taxes that might be needed to keep ALL kids,even those in bad areas, safe in places like Philadelphia,

That said, armed people is not "the answer", its an emergency measure. The answer is improving society, the conditions kids live in. That is a never-ending battle. That is, solving poverty completely will never happen, if for no other reason than the definition of "proverty" keeps shifting. Still, we can mitigate things.

My issue is that guns have become a surrogate for solving many real problems. Guns are not a panacea to solve crime, but they are not the "devil's tool",either. I would like more general awareness of guns, gun safety.

For the record, i DO think wider gun training in schools would be a good thing, but more like 10 year olds,not 8 year olds, and tied in with sports leagues.And, I certainly don't think it should be mandatory.

I DO think mandatory service terms, including not just military,but other types of service would go a long way toward both uniting and teaching society, but that is a different debate.

The fact that arsonists exist doesn't mean we do away with fire.

[patrickaa317]

There are a crap ton of variables in that request but to satisfy your wants, check out the stats in East Africa. They have some of the world's lowest gun possession rates yet some of the highest homicide rates.

This is a completely different culture which is one of the biggest variables that cannot be represented in pure numbers but it represents what you wanted.

You know East Africa includes Somalia, right? Hardly a fair example.

Sym's request was to know of an area with less guns and more violence. Does somalia fit that? Yes. Note I said there are a lot more variables that need to be considered than just +/- guns and +/- violence.

[mrswdk]

Variables like Islamist insurgencies?

[thegreekdog]

IN some areas, where there truly is a real risk to kids, trained,armed people are warranted and I, for one, am not going to object to the minor increase in taxes that might be needed to keep ALL kids,even those in bad areas, safe in places like Philadelphia,

To my knowledge, there has never been a mass shooting in a Philadelphia school. And it would not be a minor increase in taxes (for you, it would be no increase in taxes, for whatever that's worth).

Kids are unsafe in Philadelphia due to drug dealing and related issues. Perhaps we can legalize drugs in Philadelphia. Would make it a lot safer for people like the two girls that were killed in their home when two masked men entered to burglarize the place.

[patrickaa317]

Variables like Islamist insurgencies?

That is one of them. Would the average citizen be safer there if they were allowed and had access to arm themselves?

[mrswdk]

I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

[Neoteny]

The only thing that validates you is the AK.

Phatscotty or a Somali rapper?

Too easy, really, what with communism and all that.

[patrickaa317]

I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

Again, it depends who is getting them. More variables than just +/- guns and +/- violence. Holder's concept of fast and furious across the Mexican border definitely did not make anyone safer either. I'll agree that more guns does not always equal more safety. The two are not mutually dependent nor are they mutually exclusive.

Sym was the one that wanted examples, didn't specify where. Plenty of more localized examples of restrictive gun laws in places like Chicago where it is more violent than more passive gun laws such almost any place in the south if he was talking US soil.

[Symmetry]

I thought we were talking about gun crime in the US, not open warfare with al-Shabab.

But for the sake of debate: no. I don't think that allowing ordinary Somalis to arm themselves would make Somalia safer, just like pouring guns into Syria would not make Syria safer.

Again, it depends who is getting them. More variables than just +/- guns and +/- violence. Holder's concept of fast and furious across the Mexican border definitely did not make anyone safer either. I'll agree that more guns does not always equal more safety. The two are not mutually dependent nor are they mutually exclusive.

Sym was the one that wanted examples, didn't specify where. Plenty of more localized examples of restrictive gun laws in places like Chicago where it is more violent than more passive gun laws such almost any place in the south if he was talking US soil.

Of course I wanted examples of increased gun ownership and relaxed gun legislation resulting in lower gun crime. I'm happy to discuss it anywhere, and I apologise for forcing you to dodge around the question. I should have been more direct.

[Lootifer]

Would mandatory weapon training in rifles reduce the number of people who take up ams? Im a little unsure where this argument is going.

Sarcasm? Mandatory weapon training is ridiculous in my mind. I'd like to find someone who feels otherwise just so i can call them a nutcase. Weapons training should be completely voluntary.

Do you call mandatory driver training equally ridiculous?

edit: Wait I may have your point mixed up. What are you calling ridiculous? Making it mandatory to have the entire population trained in weapons, or, making it mandatory to have training before you are legally allowed to use a fire-arm?

I think you are referring to the former where myself and Sym are referring to the latter (I think).