Gun Free Zones

[thegreekdog]

TGD
I wouldn't have the least idea how present levels of gun violence in the USA compare with previous centuries , you got any stats ?
Gun related deaths are related to the quantity and availability of guns, period. Would homocides stop without the availability of guns , of course not , but accidental deaths and spree killings would almost certainly decrease.

Yeah, I think that would be the case as well, I'm just not sure. Unfortunately, my firm has an automatic block on any searches involving the word "gun" on google (this is also related to reason I cannot see many Hot and Sexy pictures in that thread) and wikipedia only has statistics from 1976 to 2004.

Here is a link to the graph in Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

It details homicides (which include suicides and accidental killings) by weapon type. Handguns account for by far the most deaths and reached a peak in 1993 of about 14,000. "Other guns" (not sure what is in that category) accounted for far less (less than knives, for example) and had a peak in 1980 of about 4,000.

I suspect that the legality and availability of guns do have a relation to homicides in the United States. That seems like common sense. But, ultimately, the question is whether there is some other factor at work. That could be anything from cultural issues generally and criminality generally to poor schools to violent video games and movies.

On the suicide issue, easy access to a method is certainly a big part, It's common sense that someone who wants to die will find a way, but it's one of those areas where common sense is wrong.

I may have misheard this, but wasn't there a study that showed that different types of people tended to commit suicides in different ways? For example, women wouldn't, generally, shoot themselves, while men would.

[Symmetry]

TGD
I wouldn't have the least idea how present levels of gun violence in the USA compare with previous centuries , you got any stats ?
Gun related deaths are related to the quantity and availability of guns, period. Would homocides stop without the availability of guns , of course not , but accidental deaths and spree killings would almost certainly decrease.

Yeah, I think that would be the case as well, I'm just not sure. Unfortunately, my firm has an automatic block on any searches involving the word "gun" on google (this is also related to reason I cannot see many Hot and Sexy pictures in that thread) and wikipedia only has statistics from 1976 to 2004.

Here is a link to the graph in Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

It details homicides (which include suicides and accidental killings) by weapon type. Handguns account for by far the most deaths and reached a peak in 1993 of about 14,000. "Other guns" (not sure what is in that category) accounted for far less (less than knives, for example) and had a peak in 1980 of about 4,000.

I suspect that the legality and availability of guns do have a relation to homicides in the United States. That seems like common sense. But, ultimately, the question is whether there is some other factor at work. That could be anything from cultural issues generally and criminality generally to poor schools to violent video games and movies.

On the suicide issue, easy access to a method is certainly a big part, It's common sense that someone who wants to die will find a way, but it's one of those areas where common sense is wrong.

I may have misheard this, but wasn't there a study that showed that different types of people tended to commit suicides in different ways? For example, women wouldn't, generally, shoot themselves, while men would.

i wouldn't doubt that, but if you are interested in the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magaz ... wanted=all

It;s not an easy read, and it made me rethink the way I looked at suicide, which would have been close to your take on it.

[comic boy]

Crime is not driven only by the easy availability of guns but firearms are the easiest way to escalate the level of violence and by extension lead to more deaths than would otherwise occur. I would venture that if penalties for waving a gun in public were stiffened , and the penalties for getting stoned were lessened , then US jails would be less crowded and criminal violence would decline.

[thegreekdog]

Crime is not driven only by the easy availability of guns but firearms are the easiest way to escalate the level of violence and by extension lead to more deaths than would otherwise occur. I would venture that if penalties for waving a gun in public were stiffened , and the penalties for getting stoned were lessened , then US jails would be less crowded and criminal violence would decline.

I would be interested to see what would happen to violent crimes if the US legalized all drugs.

I'm not sure waiving a gun in public is the problem. It's more the guns themselves.

[Phatscotty]

[AAFitz]

Now this is at least a sane idea.

However, without training it would be insane.

There are approx 100,000 public schools, so you want a minimum of 100,000 more guns.
There are 3 million teachers, so if every teacher(which would be insane) had one, that would mean 3 million more guns.
There are 90 million students.

The number of children that would get killed if you added 3 million more guns next to 90 million of them, would be so sickening as to not contemplate.

Now, placing armed, tested, stable marines would indeed make most feel more safe, and if I had kids at a school, I certainly would welcome the idea.

However, without a level of training, placing that many more guns, would absolutely be asking for more accidents and more murders. Its just a matter of pure statistics.

In any case, I think the best option, and the most obvious and immediate one, is really making sure people cannot get into a school with guns. I imagine every school in the country is just a little bit safer now, because of increased security precautions. Its unfortunate that its a result of another school shooting.

[Phatscotty]

Now this is at least a sane idea.

However, without training it would be insane.

The issue of training is clearly addressed. Where do you come up with these responses?

[AAFitz]

Crime is not driven only by the easy availability of guns but firearms are the easiest way to escalate the level of violence and by extension lead to more deaths than would otherwise occur. I would venture that if penalties for waving a gun in public were stiffened , and the penalties for getting stoned were lessened , then US jails would be less crowded and criminal violence would decline.

I would be interested to see what would happen to violent crimes if the US legalized all drugs.

I'm not sure waiving a gun in public is the problem. It's more the guns themselves.

I would be interested to see purple elephants fly to the moon and bring me back cheese, which I probably would if the US legalized all drugs.
(not really. Ive only ever tried pot once or twice and never considered or been close to anything else. Now I dont even eat meat during the week or eat dairy, so...yeah...im all talk on this one)

[AAFitz]

Now this is at least a sane idea.

However, without training it would be insane.

The issue of training is clearly addressed. Where do you come up with these responses?

Actually, that's clearly just a qualifier as part of my entire response, and obviously so.

Where do you come up with being so unable to understand basic and obvious things?

And if you read that closely, the veterans they are talking about here, are not necessarily the same ones trained in protecting people. They could just be trained Marines, which does not automatically train them for being at a school with young children every day for years on end.

Seriously, please tell me you really are a troll and not as unintelligent as you seem. Would you seriously automatically employ every Marine with security and infantry skills to look over your children? Maybe you would, but I bet even some of the Marines themselves would know better that it would take more training than that.

I will say I wont expect you to complain about the price tag on this one, but surely some of your bffs would.

[PLAYER57832]

I dont advocate a gun ban , its probably unworkable in any case , but in the long term I would like to see a mentality shift . The idea that one has to carry a firearm to feel safe , the notion that owning a gun enhances ones freedom, the fear mongering propoganda spewed out by the NRA , these are all highly negative mindsets.

These ideas (carrying a firearm to feel safe, enhancing freedom, fear mongering propaganda) are not ideas perpetuated by anyone other than gun owners who do not use their firearms for any illegal purpose. People committing crimes with guns are not carrying firearms to feel safe, do not feel that firearms enhance their freedom, and are not fear mongering. As someone smarter than me wrote above:

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.

The ideas translate into gun sales, guns , legal or not , lead to deaths , law abiding citizens still manage to accidently kill others. Bottom line is that the more guns in circulation , the more deaths there will be , reduce the guns and the end result will be fewer fatalities.
Answer me a simple question ; Do you think the number of firearms in circulation corelates to the number of gun deaths and would the USA be a safer society today if stricter gun controls had been in place for say the last 30 years.

It depends on what stricter gun controls you are talking about. I would say tentatively yes.

Let me ask you a return question: why is there more increased gun violence now than in the 18th, 19th, or early-to-mid 20th centuries?

My point with that question is to wonder, aloud, whether it is the availability of guns or something else that causes the number of gun-related deaths to increase.

breaking in (admitting that.. have not gone through and read the whole thread yet), but
the answer is multiple.

If you talk about the kind of (still rare) mass shootings such as we have seen all over the media in recent years, then its partly that the technology just did not exist back then.

When better guns came around, they were expensive. Teh AK-47 became most well-known due to the wars. Soldiers learned to use them.

Beyond that, a lot of this does have to do with failure to understand and deal with mental illness.

One problem is that people who have guns tend to talk about and just use different language than people who want them controlled. Listen to the control folks and its about safety, particularly of their kids. Some of those holding guns talk about freedom.. the ability to hunt, shoot for sport, etc. And, then you have another group that talks about safety, protection.

So, you have multiple conversations going on, so that people wind up talking AT each other rather than to each other.

[Phatscotty]

Now this is at least a sane idea.

However, without training it would be insane.

The issue of training is clearly addressed. Where do you come up with these responses?

Actually, that's clearly just a qualifier as part of my entire response, and obviously so.

Where do you come up with being so unable to understand basic and obvious things?

And if you read that closely, the veterans they are talking about here, are not necessarily the same ones trained in protecting people. They could just be trained Marines, which does not automatically train them for being at a school with young children every day for years on end.

Seriously, please tell me you really are a troll and not as unintelligent as you seem. Would you seriously automatically employ every Marine with security and infantry skills to look over your children? Maybe you would, but I bet even some of the Marines themselves would know better that it would take more training than that.

Of course people who are gonna carry guns in our schools need to be trained. I doubt you will find a single person who would disagree with that. But you can pretend to bash me on that basis. you can do better is all

quick question: how will the reduction in consumption/production of arms reduce crime?

[AAFitz]

Now this is at least a sane idea.

However, without training it would be insane.

The issue of training is clearly addressed. Where do you come up with these responses?

Actually, that's clearly just a qualifier as part of my entire response, and obviously so.

Where do you come up with being so unable to understand basic and obvious things?

And if you read that closely, the veterans they are talking about here, are not necessarily the same ones trained in protecting people. They could just be trained Marines, which does not automatically train them for being at a school with young children every day for years on end.

Seriously, please tell me you really are a troll and not as unintelligent as you seem. Would you seriously automatically employ every Marine with security and infantry skills to look over your children? Maybe you would, but I bet even some of the Marines themselves would know better that it would take more training than that.

Of course people who are gonna carry guns in our schools need to be trained. I doubt you will find a single person who would disagree with that. But you can pretend to bash me on that basis. you can do better is all

quick question: how will the reduction in consumption/production of arms reduce crime?

And again, thats why I put it in there, as a qualifier that specifically states training is necessary, before blindly suggesting to just send Marines in. You are then, in fact, bashing me for adding what, Phatscotty: "[not] a single person who would disagree with ," I wasnt bashing you on that in any way. It wasnt even directed at you, but the more sane people to show I wasnt blindly suggesting Marine guards without training. I was, however, bashing on you for being too stupid to realize it was just a qualifying statement, in return for you bashing me, for just being thorough with my response.

Also, I already answered that follow up question and quoted it above when you asked it the first time........
(im not bashing you here, just pointing out the obvious, again.)

[AAFitz]

TGD
I wouldn't have the least idea how present levels of gun violence in the USA compare with previous centuries , you got any stats ?
Gun related deaths are related to the quantity and availability of guns, period. Would homocides stop without the availability of guns , of course not , but accidental deaths and spree killings would almost certainly decrease.

Yeah, I think that would be the case as well, I'm just not sure. Unfortunately, my firm has an automatic block on any searches involving the word "gun" on google (this is also related to reason I cannot see many Hot and Sexy pictures in that thread) and wikipedia only has statistics from 1976 to 2004.

Here is a link to the graph in Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

It details homicides (which include suicides and accidental killings) by weapon type. Handguns account for by far the most deaths and reached a peak in 1993 of about 14,000. "Other guns" (not sure what is in that category) accounted for far less (less than knives, for example) and had a peak in 1980 of about 4,000.

I suspect that the legality and availability of guns do have a relation to homicides in the United States. That seems like common sense. But, ultimately, the question is whether there is some other factor at work. That could be anything from cultural issues generally and criminality generally to poor schools to violent video games and movies.

On the suicide issue, easy access to a method is certainly a big part, It's common sense that someone who wants to die will find a way, but it's one of those areas where common sense is wrong.

I may have misheard this, but wasn't there a study that showed that different types of people tended to commit suicides in different ways? For example, women wouldn't, generally, shoot themselves, while men would.

To a large degree, men use guns, women use pills. Women tend to make it easier to clean up, while the men dont give a f*ck....statistically speaking.

More importantly, of those that try and fail to commit suicide, something like 90% dont ever try again, which means suicide is usually an impulse, and without a sure-fire way of ending it like a gun, more people would possibly live through their attempt, never to try again.

[AAFitz]

Crime is not driven only by the easy availability of guns but firearms are the easiest way to escalate the level of violence and by extension lead to more deaths than would otherwise occur. I would venture that if penalties for waving a gun in public were stiffened , and the penalties for getting stoned were lessened , then US jails would be less crowded and criminal violence would decline.

But then unemployment would go up.

[AAFitz]

I dont advocate a gun ban , its probably unworkable in any case , but in the long term I would like to see a mentality shift . The idea that one has to carry a firearm to feel safe , the notion that owning a gun enhances ones freedom, the fear mongering propoganda spewed out by the NRA , these are all highly negative mindsets.

These ideas (carrying a firearm to feel safe, enhancing freedom, fear mongering propaganda) are not ideas perpetuated by anyone other than gun owners who do not use their firearms for any illegal purpose. People committing crimes with guns are not carrying firearms to feel safe, do not feel that firearms enhance their freedom, and are not fear mongering. As someone smarter than me wrote above:

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.

That's completely untrue. Many things are illegal because they are dangerous and can be used by criminals to cause great harm.

Further, there is absolutely no doubt that people who have committed crimes with their guns, also argued for their right to carry those arms as well.

And it is absolutely true, that by you fighting for a freedom to carry a gun, you steal my freedom of feeling safe without one.

Can you provide me some more examples of items that are illegal because they can be used by criminals to cuase great harm? I doubt there are many things.

To the extent you can find many things that are illegal because they can be used by criminals to cause great harm, my response to that is that we should make those things legal. Just because there are other laws that denigrate the rights of the law-abiding in favor of protecting society from criminals does not make any of them right.

I don't see a lot of murderers, attempted murderers, or accused in Philadelphia arguing about their right to carry firearms.

Then you should purchase a gun, which is legal.

Stinger missiles, armed tanks, plutonium, nerve gas(unless you buy some insecticide), hand grenades...and those are just the joke answers

We should definitely give out missiles to everyone, as long as they promise not to use them to hurt anyone.

Its not fair that I cant go buy one.

[Phatscotty]

The Progressives will never overturn the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

[AAFitz]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Hitler labeled the Jews as traitors to Germany as well.

I think your point is kind of silly.

[Phatscotty]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Just keep pushing to take away American's rights. Your actions will speak louder than words

[AAFitz]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Just keep pushing to take away American's rights. Your actions will speak louder than words

Again, Im not pushing to take away rights. I'm pushing to preserve them.... and really, aren't I just using words here anyways?

[Phatscotty]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Just keep pushing to take away American's rights. Your actions will speak louder than words

Again, Im not pushing to take away rights. I'm pushing to preserve them.

Which rights are you trying to preserve (without severely violating others)?

[AAFitz]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Just keep pushing to take away American's rights. Your actions will speak louder than words

Again, Im not pushing to take away rights. I'm pushing to preserve them.

Which rights are you trying to preserve?

In addition to the many you fight to steal, the right not to have assault rifles available to wipe out schoolchildren.

And again, I must ask...arent I just using words here...what "actions" are you refering to....

The constitution use of "right to bear arms" no more makes specifically owning an assault rifle a right, than it does owning a nuclear missile.

[stahrgazer]

I like how the airlines do it. Pilots volunteer for an extensive program that, when completed, allows them to carry in the cockpit. Schools could, similarly, have teachers, administrators, etc., volunteer to complete a similar extensive training program to allow them to carry in the classroom.

"Who" is not publicly disclosed, so the potential is, any/all. Thus, schools are no longer totally defenseless, and maniac cowards might choose other targets.

Most assuredly, maniacs will always choose targets, and most assuredly, they'll find a way be it knives, guns, bombs, poison (remember Tylenol and other over-the-counter pill poisonings years back?) But at least kids in school would no longer be totally defenseless sitting ducks because the prof might be packing.

[Phatscotty]

I like how the airlines do it. Pilots volunteer for an extensive program that, when completed, allows them to carry in the cockpit. Schools could, similarly, have teachers, administrators, etc., volunteer to complete a similar extensive training program to allow them to carry in the classroom.

"Who" is not publicly disclosed, so the potential is, any/all. Thus, schools are no longer totally defenseless, and maniac cowards might choose other targets.

Most assuredly, maniacs will always choose targets, and most assuredly, they'll find a way be it knives, guns, bombs, poison (remember Tylenol and other over-the-counter pill poisonings years back?) But at least kids in school would no longer be totally defenseless sitting ducks because the prof might be packing.

Sounds great! I fully back it!

[Phatscotty]

“Gun Free” Chicago Ranks #1 as the Deadliest Alpha World City

NBC Chicago reports on some of those “Chicago values” the city’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Democrat, naturally) touted, justifying his alderman’s refusal to grant a license to a Chick-fil-A potential franchisee.

Chicago likes to compare itself to other world cities, so Ward Room thought it would find out how we rank in violence. It turns out no one can top us. Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate — higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

Chicago’s murder spree of 19.4 per 100,000 is more than three times that of New York’s (6 per 100,000) and more than two and a half times of Los Angeles’ (7.5 per 100,000), its closest American competitors. Caracas, Venezuela, which apparently is not an Alpha world city–thank you Hugo Chavez–has a higher murder rate of 130 per 100,000.

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/gun-free- ... z2FYxx7251
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

[Phatscotty]

The Progressives will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. They will be labeled traitors to America and defeated before it could ever happen.

Ive labeled you as a traitor to America several times, as I truly think you are to the very ideals it was actually based on.

Im sure they will care as much as you do.

Just keep pushing to take away American's rights. Your actions will speak louder than words

Again, Im not pushing to take away rights. I'm pushing to preserve them.

Which rights are you trying to preserve?

In addition to the many you fight to steal, the right not to have assault rifles available to wipe out schoolchildren.

And again, I must ask...arent I just using words here...what "actions" are you refering to....

The constitution use of "right to bear arms" no more makes specifically owning an assault rifle a right, than it does owning a nuclear missile.

R U Sure?