General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Lost Cause]

There are a lot if things we don't need, cel-phones, blu-ray, tiny cars that while are very fuel efficient lack any sort of comfort or style. Mostly just luxury items we all take for granted nowadays.
Fear is the driving force behind our affection toward guns? Really? Then why are those who fear us having them or the gun itself? Ignorance maybe? Just asking?
As a species we all fear what we don't understand, to learn a thing is too know a thing, and the fear will go away. Yet there are those who just don't want to learn or understand, they're mired in old beliefs, stereotypes, or popular media propaganda. Sort of how anime is viewed by outsiders.
And as for the military turning on its citizens. Yeah right! The current military an all volunteer force, and many of the now returning veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are less than thrilled with the powers that be, and their decesion making capabilities! I suspect that most would actually join the citizenry in an all out rebellion!
And lastly, there's more too gun than just death and destruction! Look at the lives saved by it, the ability to harvest food.
Or is a resentment of those who just don't get it, that the gun makes those who have them a bit more independent on society for their daily needs? And just tend to do their own thing without care or worry of what there peers think?

[grylsyjaeger]

That's my God Damn Gun Girl.

Fuck yeah, Linda.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That is quite complicated (since they're not reporting it) so I'll direct you to this study/article which makes an attempt at showing how we know (or strongly suspect) the reporting was greatly reduced after the GCA of 1968.

I accept that, but two things:

1) I don't like that website. The opening paragraph at the top of the main homepage makes it very clear where the page maintainer's bias lies. I still read through one of the other articles that you linked from there, but I don't trust his take on things. It may still be useful for reading through the data and websites that he references, though.

2) Any collected data is bound to be inaccurate, and poll data even more so. However, trends are still useful to compare. Unless you want to claim that people in the South are more honest that people in the Northeast, the Gallup poll indicates that there are more guns in the South than the Northeast. The exact numbers ("20 percentage points") is meaningless, but qualitatively the data is still valuable and we can use it for further comparisons.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If your position is that they are useless in self defense, then why do the police have them?

"Useless" is not the assertion I was making, because you can easily disprove that by posting one of your stories about how one person warded off an assailant with a gun. That guns aren't proving to be the defensive force that people are claiming is what I was getting at. If this were true then regions with more guns should have less deaths by assault. Or, if we try to factor in the greater poverty of the South (and with it, greater crime and violence), we should expect that guns - if they provided a protective benefit - should mean that the South would be equal to, or at least only slightly above, the Northeast. The South isn't a third-world country, after all; it may have greater poverty, but it isn't that different from the rest of the country. Yet the data from the CDC speaks for itself: the South is way above the Northeast. And why limit ourselves to comparing the South and Northeast? Are the Midwest and West also in poverty compared to the Northeast? They have greater gun ownership than the Northeast and probably less than the South (but we can't say by how much), and yet they still have greater deaths by guns in assaults. Greater poverty in the South can explain why the South's deaths by assault are so much higher than the Midwest and West, but it is extremely unlikely that guns have nothing to do with these trends.

kyp275 didn't disprove this theory, but correctly pointed out that there's weakness with this reasoning. In order to say exactly how useful or useless guns are when it comes to defense, it would be helpful to know how many of those killed by assault were armed, and it would be helpful if we could find data about failed assaults and whether the victims were armed or not.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Overall the fallacy of "more guns, more crime" has been weighed, measured, and found wanting by John Lott, and Gary Kleck who did an extensive study of it.

We had this issue last time, so I want to remind you that I have never and am not making the argument that guns are related to crime. My stance is that guns are unrelated to crime - they don't cause it, and they also don't prevent it (from a statistical standpoint - I don't doubt that you can find me a handful of stories about a shop owner protecting themselves with a gun).

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

However, even without that study, if you are of the mindset that guns cause crime, then you must FIRST push for the demilitarization of the police in the United States, because you are 8-times more likely to be shot by a cop than a fellow citizen. As the Michael Nida case clearly illustrates.

The article that you linked to is titled "You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist." Since you linked to the article I know that you saw that, yet you still provided the link and then used the term "fellow citizen" instead of terrorist.

"But a fellow citizen could be a terrorist!" you might want to argue. Yes, you're right, but I'm pretty sure that you know what you did here, and I'm pretty sure you know that it was twisting the article to try and support your point. Can we please not go the tabloid route?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The factors you've listed are only partially indicative of what contributes to violent crime, though it does not translate into violent crime with a firearm.
...
If you want to better understand how guns are the best deterent during an assault. I strongly suggest you read Lott's book on the subject.

"More guns, less crime"? The data does not support that in any way. Here's the page on violent crime vs. gun ownership that I've provided before which disproves a link between gun ownership and crime (whether positive or negative).

Edit: It also looks like there are some issues with data fabrication on Lott's part (also from another source, although that one seems to have an agenda). That may not be an author whose data you want to rely on.




In trying to keep my posts short, I'll end it here. The rest of your post would have just involved me criticizing you for trying to bring an "anecdotal knife to a statistical gunfight." However, I will remark on the data falsification claim: claims made with no evidence are often made up, interpretation of data can be wrong and biased, and data collection is imperfect; however, outright falsified data isn't quite as common. Thus when I present numbers, I'm interested to hear your interpretation of the data.

[GundamFan0083]

I'm going to condense this down as much as possible here, since we seem to be repeating things.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I accept that, but two things:

1) I don't like that website. The opening paragraph at the top of the main homepage makes it very clear where the page maintainer's bias lies. I still read through one of the other articles that you linked from there, but I don't trust his take on things. It may still be useful for reading through the data and websites that he references, though.

I already knew you wouldn't like it because he is not in favor of your position.
He is typical of someone who knows the facts of this case and gets annoyed at those who refuse to accept it.
Personally, I also find his use of the word "Liberal" offensive, and I don't like him allowing his emotions to overflow into some of his articles.

His information however, is excellent and he makes his case quite well.
In other words, while his professional courtesy may be lacking, his data makes up for it.

2) Any collected data is bound to be inaccurate, and poll data even more so. However, trends are still useful to compare. Unless you want to claim that people in the South are more honest that people in the Northeast, the Gallup poll indicates that there are more guns in the South than the Northeast. The exact numbers ("20 percentage points") is meaningless, but qualitatively the data is still valuable and we can use it for further comparisons.

The number of guns is also meaningless without knowing how many criminals are re-released into the society by government in those areas.
What the drug gang activity is like.
How strictly current firearm laws are enforced.
And, if the data includes local and city gun control laws into the mix.
Take Illinois for example.
The state laws are not as strict as Chicago, yet Chicago has a vastly higher rate of homicide by firearm than nearly any other part of the country.
Why?
I would submit it is because of many reasons, but among them is their ridiculously strict gun control laws.
Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million people.
Houston, a city with very little gun control, has a population of 2.2 million people, and very little violent crime compared to Chicago.

Legal gun ownership in Houston is vastly greater than in Chicago due to Chicago's strict anti-2nd amendment laws.
Also, in Houston they have a castle doctrine that allows citizens to defend themselves.
So while you could roll back all of Chicago's ridiculous gun laws, they would be useless without also passing a castle doctrine that protects the CCW holder from prosecution.
The standard of living in Houston is also higher overall than in Chicago.
I imagine that is a factor, how much of a factor is debatable.

As John Lott has noted after some of Chicago's gun laws were struck down, the crime rate started to go down with it.

"Useless" is not the assertion I was making, because you can easily disprove that by posting one of your stories about how one person warded off an assailant with a gun. That guns aren't proving to be the defensive force that people are claiming is what I was getting at. If this were true then regions with more guns should have less deaths by assault.

That depends on far more factors than just gun ownership.
How many of those assaults are by repeat offenders?
How many are over reported (domestic assaults by the same person on the same partner are often counted for each incident)?
We also know that in states like Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, gun control is very lax.
Look at Vermont, they even have open carry (meaning you can carry a gun openly on your hip).
In fact, Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in the country, and is one of the safest states to live in.
Why?
Standard of living, that's why.
With the exception of crazied mass killers, most violent crime takes place in poverty sticken areas, that is a fact that we both agree on.
Most violent crime also takes place where, in addition to poverty, you have gangs.
Look at Nevada, it's one of the worst places in the country for violent crime.
It's gun laws are stricter than those in Vermont, yet it's violent crime rate is higher.
Why?
Organized crime is very strong there, gambling, prostitution and a low standard of living make for fertile ground for violence.
Factors that go well beyond gun ownership.
So we're left with the simple facts rather than anything statistics can tell us, because while something may look "good" on paper via number crunching, it rarely reflects what matters in real life.
Especially in a life or death situation with someone attempting to assault another person.
This is why policy making on this should not be done solely using statistics, in fact, statistics should not come into the mix when dealing with inalienable natural rights at all.

Or, if we try to factor in the greater poverty of the South (and with it, greater crime and violence), we should expect that guns - if they provided a protective benefit - should mean that the South would be equal to, or at least only slightly above, the Northeast. The South isn't a third-world country, after all; it may have greater poverty, but it isn't that different from the rest of the country. Yet the data from the CDC speaks for itself: the South is way above the Northeast. And why limit ourselves to comparing the South and Northeast? Are the Midwest and West also in poverty compared to the Northeast? They have greater gun ownership than the Northeast and probably less than the South (but we can't say by how much), and yet they still have greater deaths by guns in assaults. Greater poverty in the South can explain why the South's deaths by assault are so much higher than the Midwest and West, but it is extremely unlikely that guns have nothing to do with these trends.

The North East doesn't have strict gun control uniformly.
Some states are stricter than others, some cities are stricter than states.
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, W. Virginia, and Pennsylvania are relatively the same as Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi in so far as gun laws are concerned.
So regulation isn't the issue here, since clearly its not a factor in states that are comparable to one another.
Now, if we start crunching numbers on racial demographics, poverty levels, drug gangs, and organized crime, then you get a better picture of why the Southern States are so much worse than their Northern counterparts.
Wealth alleviates the stresses and problems for many (though certianly not all) people and raising the standard of living is a must if we are to deal with these issues.

We had this issue last time, so I want to remind you that I have never and am not making the argument that guns are related to crime. My stance is that guns are unrelated to crime - they don't cause it, and they also don't prevent it (from a statistical standpoint - I don't doubt that you can find me a handful of stories about a shop owner protecting themselves with a gun).

That's the problem.
The current data set we have isn't reflecting reality.
There are hundreds of local news reported stories of people stopping crime (as reported by police) yet the statistics don't take them into account.
Why?
I would think it is because there simply is not enough data.
When a crime is stopped, and it isn't reported, we don't know about it.

The article that you linked to is titled "You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist." Since you linked to the article I know that you saw that, yet you still provided the link and then used the term "fellow citizen" instead of terrorist.

That's because I keep seeing these "News Anchors" tell me that if you own a gun you are a terrorist.
They're still using that insane DHS report on "right-wing" violence in the US.
Here is the PDF of the report.
Interestingly enough, that report does in fact support something I said earlier (but James stopped me):

(U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.

"More guns, less crime"? The data does not support that in any way. Here's the page on violent crime vs. gun ownership that I've provided before which disproves a link between gun ownership and crime (whether positive or negative).

Better recheck your source.
Even they admit the following:

Is DataMasher Statistically Rigorous?

No!

...but some mashups could be. We created DataMasher to empower people to discover and discuss government data through manipulation and mapping.

While some of the mashups may be solid indicators and demonstrate real correlations, other mashups may be complete nonsense--it depends on the data sets and the relationship you create. Additionally, the mashups are only as good as the underlying data, which may or may not be strong enough for the relationship you're trying to explore.

Our goal was to build a tool that could be applied to situations where combining data sets and visualizing their result was key. We recognize the benefits of user-generated analysis, but we're having fun and provoking discussions and avenues for more rigorous inquiry, not doing serious social science.


It's a site meant to have fun, by their own admission.
It's not a serious website about statistics.

John Lott and Gary Kleck HAVE been doing a serious study of this for over 30 years.
I'll trust them more than a site meant for "shits and giggles."

In trying to keep my posts short, I'll end it here.

Probably should since your position has been degenerating into a tautology of "because there are more guns in location A than location B, there must be more crime in location A, than location B because you cannot prove that guns provide protection in location A over location B, because the data set I've been using says there are more guns in location A than in location B."

Overall, as Doctor Park Dietz pointed out after Columbine, the media is why there is so much hysteria over "gun violence."
They've created this paranoia and its needs to stop.

Richard Jenny explains this best, besides we could use some levity here:

Ted Nugent took Piers to task...love it!

EDIT: Legem you know better than to use SourceWatch and MediaMatters, they're both far-left groups with an agenda that includes disarmament. I don't believe one whit of what they publish.

[Mentar]

This is the same kind of logical fallacy as "Tear down all hospitals, you're 98214% (number invented) more likely to die in a hospital than at home".

I've been visiting a couple of pro-gun websites, and the sheer amount of non-sequitur nonsense is nothing but staggering. At the same time, since they all tend to repeat the same nonsense, so it becomes "common sense" knowledge. Amazing.

On another note, we just learned what the solution is to the various school massacres: Put an armed cop in each school.

[GDB]

No schools = No school massacres!

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Mentar

I've been visiting a couple of pro-gun websites, and the sheer amount of non-sequitur nonsense is nothing but staggering. At the same time, since they all tend to repeat the same nonsense, so it becomes "common sense" knowledge. Amazing.

Not that the anti-gun sites are any better, filled with people who can't tell a revolver from a machine gun, repeating other nonsense so it becomes "common sense" to them.

On another note, we just learned what the solution is to the various school massacres: Put an armed cop in each school.

And just what exactly is bad about that idea(other than cost)?

[GundamFan0083]

Kudos to NRA for making the correct argument to deal with this situation.

NRA calls for armed police officer in every school
http://wtop.com/289/3166870/NRA-call...n-every-school

I don't like LaPierre very much (I prefer Larry Pratt's view on this issue), however he exposed the cold hard facts of reality in his speech:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

[Mentar]

Yup, that's the NRA for you. First compounding the problem which other civilized nations don't have in the first place (firearms in everyone's hands), and then demanding more of it to combat it.

You know - if their argument "only guns protect from guns" were true, then those American states where the NRA and gun possession rates were strongest should be the safest. Alas, the opposite is true, and pretty much consistently so.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Yup, that's the NRA for you. First compounding the problem which other civilized nations don't have in the first place (firearms in everyone's hands), and then demanding more of it to combat it.

You know - if their argument "only guns protect from guns" were true, then those American states where the NRA and gun possession rates were strongest should be the safest. Alas, the opposite is true, and pretty much consistently so.

You could try to actually answer my question, instead of repeating the same line devoid of any support that boils down to "I'm right, because I say so", while simultaneously oversimplifying the situation.

Or you can just keep doing the same thing, just know that you're not adding anything of value to the debate that way.

[GDB]

I'm curious, though. Every totalitarian movie shows armed forces at every corner, watching the populace for any sign of trouble. Every movie-goer agrees that this is bad, and not a sign of a healthy society. Why, then, is it suddenly a good idea when the NRA suggests it?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You could try to actually answer my question, instead of repeating the same line devoid of any support that boils down to "I'm right, because I say so", while simultaneously oversimplifying the situation.

I'm not oversimplifying anything, just adding facts which you obviously dislike. Or are contesting that empirical data shows that particularly the gun-toting south has the highest firearm-related crime and homicide/accidental death rates compared to the rest of the US?

But to answer your earlier question: Because it doesn't help solving the root cause of the problem, and instead merely adds a quick-fix of dubious effectiveness, considerable cost and perpetuating the problem.

Like I wrote before, as long as America's selfish, violent and gun-toting culture (I have to respect GundamFan0083's very frank national self-appraisal here) does not change, I don't see any easy solutions. So the question is how much carnage and financial overhead the US will have to accept to retain the perceived advantages of the second amendment and its current interpretations.

We'd have to see whether or not the huge financial investment and emotional harm (little kids forcibly exposed to guns) will bring down school massacres at all. I just think that it's no solution to the problem of easy availability of firearms to people who shouldn't have any. I just don't think that America needs even MORE guns to protect from guns. Which is exactly what I wrote before. This general approach obviously failed so far.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GDB

I'm curious, though. Every totalitarian movie shows armed forces at every corner, watching the populace for any sign of trouble. Every movie-goer agrees that this is bad, and not a sign of a healthy society. Why, then, is it suddenly a good idea when the NRA suggests it?

Having a couple police officers in school is hardly the same as "armed forces at every corner".

Originally Posted by Mentar

I'm not oversimplifying anything, just adding facts which you obviously dislike. Or are contesting that empirical data shows that particularly the gun-toting south has the highest firearm-related crime and homicide/accidental death rates compared to the rest of the US?

Sigh, if you're not going to bother reading what has been posted by both sides in the last few pages, then excuse me for not wanting to waste my effort on regurgitating what is plainly available to you with a few clicks of the mouse.

But to answer your earlier question: Because it doesn't help solving the root cause of the problem, and instead merely adds a quick-fix of dubious effectiveness, considerable cost and perpetuating the problem.

There is no single solution that will fix the "root cause of the problem", as it's not a single problem to begin with. As for effectiveness, there's a reason why mass shooters don't go for police departments, I'm gonna let you guess why.

Like I wrote before, as long as America's selfish, violent and gun-toting culture does not change...

as opposed to being arrogant, ignorant, and holier-than-thou?

We'd have to see whether or not the huge financial investment and emotional harm (little kids forcibly exposed to guns)

Huh? what are you going on about? emotional harm? from seeing a gun? yeesh, did you borrow steve job's reality distortion field?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Having a couple police officers in school is hardly the same as "armed forces at every corner".

At what point does it end, though? For now they may only be calling for schools (I say may, because one article I read said they also want them in malls, movie theatres, and other public places, while the other obmitted any mention beyond schools), but shootings have also happened in other public places recently.

There is no single solution that will fix the "root cause of the problem", as it's not a single problem to begin with.

Why does there have to be "one thing" done? Why can't each issue be addressed, rather than lumping everything together and proclaiming it a single big problem? Note, I'm not saying you or anyone here is claiming that, but it's obvious the Government is.

As for effectiveness, there's a reason why mass shooters don't go for police departments, I'm gonna let you guess why.

Because they wear bullet-proof vests?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by kyp275

There is no single solution that will fix the "root cause of the problem", as it's not a single problem to begin with.

True, but I never claimed that there was a "single solution". However, making sure that you can't get a firearm with ease would be an important cornerstone. At least this is what most other western civilizations are successfully doing. Deaths by firearm per capita in the US is over 8 times higher than e.g. Western Europe's average, while the same can not remotely be said for number of violent crimes per capita. You can wiggle as much as you want, the empirical statistical data shows many correlations which may not be scientific proof, but are nevertheless highly indicative.

As for effectiveness, there's a reason why mass shooters don't go for police departments, I'm gonna let you guess why.

I guess that if the next guy running Amok would do it in a supermarket or movie theater, this would be a resounding success, then? Or do you think that guys on tilt would then come to their senses and think "ohmygod, I can't do this, it's wrong" and stop? Or they could simply kill the armed officer first. But I'm looking forward to the next pictures where this scheme actually works and we're getting a real shootout with kids caught in the crossfire. Which isn't all that unrealistic if the other great idea from gun nuts came to pass and the kids should be taught to rush the gunman (yes, that has indeed been proposed as "manly").

To cut a long story short: There are many reasons why this fairly extreme suggestion could fail or not yield the desired results. We just don't know.

[talk about the American national character]

as opposed to being arrogant, ignorant, and holier-than-thou?

No, not really. Especially the American south can absolutely lay a valid claim on these qualities, too. Particularly the ignorant bit isn't even in contention.

Huh? what are you going on about? emotional harm? from seeing a gun? yeesh, did you borrow steve job's reality distortion field?

You are aware that children are generally shielded from certain topics that they are too young for to deal with? Like pornography and violence? I can assure you that security personnel with firearms is not exactly part of a recommended environment for children.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GDB

At what point does it end, though? For now they may only be calling for schools (I say may, because one article I read said they also want them in malls, movie theatres, and other public places, while the other obmitted any mention beyond schools), but shootings have also happened in other public places recently.

Of course, but since schools are popular soft targets, and have proven to be extremely vulnerable, it is simply common sense to have security on-site. At least in other places like malls etc, ccw is an option for people.

Why does there have to be "one thing" done? Why can't each issue be addressed, rather than lumping everything together and proclaiming it a single big problem? Note, I'm not saying you or anyone here is claiming that, but it's obvious the Government is.

Agreed, it's just politics as usual really, most people either don't have the inclination nor capable of analyzing policy for complex issues, so it gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

Because they wear bullet-proof vests?

Actually, unlike what you may see on TV, police officers don't wear ballistic vests everywhere, esp. when they're just inside the precinct. A good 40% of the departments doesn't even require them ('cause then they'd have to pay for it). Also, no such thing as bullet-proof vests, especially since I doubt many officers use trauma plates in their vests.

[Solace]

At what point does security become militia? Picture this scenario:

A department that handles security
A room where all activity in the building and surrounding areas are monitored
Cameras placed in every possible location
Security badges
Security checkpoints
Guarded gates
Armed guards patrolling the grounds
Metal detectors at all entrances
Barred windows

What does that sound like to you? At what point do you go from protecting citizens to imprisoning them?

Do we have more control over the internet so you can't research how to kill people? Do we require psych evals to get a job flipping burgers? Do we ban any media that could give someone "immoral" thoughts? Do we really need to encourage more Big Brother police state idiocy?

The issue being discussed is far too limited. We're trying to solve the problem of cultural violence using the structure of the culture that generated it in the first place. Of course the NRA is going to advocate guns, and blame other parts of society. It's who they are, it's what they believe. Of course you're going to see pushes for gun control. It's what those people believe. Of course you'll see pushes for better mental health. People believe that these incidents are caused by crazy people, while believing themselves to be the sane ones. These people, groups, are the products of the culture as it exists.

You cannot solve problems using the same thinking that created the problems in the first place.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Mentar

However, making sure that you can't get a firearm with ease would be an important cornerstone. At least this is what most other western civilizations are successfully doing.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that achieving this would be quite literally impossible in the US. Not only are there massively more firearms in circulation in the US, you're also looking at a population that will not support a ban.

Deaths by firearm per capita in the US is over 8 times higher than e.g. Western Europe's average, while the same can not remotely be said for number of violent crimes per capita.

Guns tends to be the more effective tool of choice when one wants to kill another, naturally it would be used more often, but that hardly means that said killer would forgo the killing if guns were not available, and the lack of the same disparity in violent crimes shows that.

empirical statistical data shows many correlations which may not be scientific proof

Not much else needs to be said here.

I guess that if the next guy running Amok would do it in a supermarket or movie theater, this would be a resounding success, then?

I find your attempt at strawman to be disappointing. What does protecting school have to do with supermarket or movie theater? are you saying we shouldn't protect school UNLESS we can also protect everywhere else?

Or they could simply kill the armed officer first.

Or the trained police officers takes the shooter down? or suppress him long enough to mitigate potential damage? Do you realize that in these cases of mass shooting, the shooter tends to surrender or kill themselves as soon as armed opposition presents itself?

Which isn't all that unrealistic if the other great idea from gun nuts came to pass and the kids should be taught to rush the gunman (yes, that has indeed been proposed as "manly").

Please stop being ignorant. Should elementary school kids rush the shooter? no, because they would be ineffective, but high school or college? definitely, assuming denying entrance to the shooter is not possible.

This has nothing to do with being manly or not, it's simply the best tactic for survival. If you can't stop the shooter from gaining access to your location, and you don't make any organized effort to stop the shooter, then the only alternative is sit there and wait for your turn to be executed.

Seriously, what are you suggesting here, that people should just give up and sit there and die?

No, not really. Especially the American south can absolutely lay a valid claim on these qualities, too. Particularly the ignorant bit isn't even in contention.

actually, I was parodying you stereotyping and generalizing millions and millions of people, I'm glad you made my points for me though.

You are aware that children are generally shielded from certain topics that they are too young for to deal with? Like pornography and violence? I can assure you that security personnel with firearms is not exactly part of a recommended environment for children.

This, more than anything else, clearly demonstrate you're solidly in the "guns are inherently evil" crowd, where merely the sight of them would spread fear and corruption to all. Were children emotionally scarred because they went out shooting with their parents, something tons of people used to do, and many continues to this day? If so, they obviously didn't get your memo.

Originally Posted by Solace

At what point do you go from protecting citizens to imprisoning them?

I know where you're coming from, but again, I think stretching that from a couple officers in a school is just too much of the slippery slope fallacy. I'm simply being pragmatic here. When insurgents started intensifying their IED attacks along a supply route in Iraq, we had to come up with ways to counter their effort. But even though we have other efforts underway, we still stepped up our IED sweeping missions.

The issue being discussed is far too limited. We're trying to solve the problem of cultural violence using the structure of the culture that generated it in the first place...You cannot solve problems using the same thinking that created the problems in the first place.

Personally, I don't see this as a solvable problem as long as human nature don't change. You can magick away every single piece of firearm on the planet tomorrow, it would not stop people from finding other ways to kill each other, it's one of the thing we humans do best.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The number of guns is also meaningless without knowing how many criminals are re-released into the society by government in those areas.
...
The state laws are not as strict as Chicago, yet Chicago has a vastly higher rate of homicide by firearm than nearly any other part of the country.
Why?
I would submit it is because of many reasons, but among them is their ridiculously strict gun control laws.
Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million people.
Houston, a city with very little gun control, has a population of 2.2 million people, and very little violent crime compared to Chicago.

It may be imperfect and it does not cover every variable, but the data is not meaningless.

Getting to your city comparison, here's something for you to consider: Chicago has a population density roughly four times that of Houston, according to Wikipedia (11,864.4/sq mi vs 3,623/sq mi). Having lived in New York City (population density 27,012.5/sq mi) and Los Angeles (population density 8,092/sq mi), I can tell you that isn't trivial. I also had to chuckle at this line in the article you linked:

Gun lovers are gleeful about Chicago’s deadly summer. ... But Chicago’s murder rate is not proof that gun control doesn’t work. It’s proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

I guess they predicted who would be citing their article and for what purposes. They end with something that we've already agreed upon:

The number-one factor in predicting crime is not guns -- or lack of guns. It is concentrated urban poverty. Because of Chicago’s history as a segregated city, we have a lot of that.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So we're left with the simple facts rather than anything statistics can tell us

Isn't everything you said based on statistics? Crime rates, poverty rates, gang activity... the data on these things will have flaws, just as all data does, but it's useful. You're using it even if you're not citing a source or working with the raw numbers. Take that data, compare it with data on other variables, and then think about what it means. That is how you achieve as unbiased a take on things as possible.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Now, if we start crunching numbers on racial demographics, poverty levels, drug gangs, and organized crime, then you get a better picture of why the Southern States are so much worse than their Northern counterparts.
Wealth alleviates the stresses and problems for many (though certianly not all) people and raising the standard of living is a must if we are to deal with these issues.

And how do you explain the results with the West and Midwest compared to the Northeast?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

There are hundreds of local news reported stories of people stopping crime (as reported by police) yet the statistics don't take them into account.
Why?
I would think it is because there simply is not enough data.
When a crime is stopped, and it isn't reported, we don't know about it.

This cuts both ways. Every time someone wants to commit a crime with a gun and yet is denied a purchase, doesn't try to make a purchase because of the regulations, or has their gun confiscated by the police, we don't hear about it. Crimes that are preemptively prevented before a person can acquire or use a gun won't make it into the statistics or the news, because it's only interesting if some action happens.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Better recheck your source.
Even they admit the following:

No, the source is fine. They pull their data from government databases which, while subject to the same imperfections as any database, is likely to be as legitimate as you can find. The issue that they're talking about is the statistics aspect, and they are absolutely correct to have a disclaimer about that.

For example, go to the link that I provided and look at either the map view or look at the ranking in the table. Their ranking is achieved by dividing "violent crime per 100,000" by "% households with a loaded firearm." The mathematical operations that they're doing are considered statistics, but it makes absolutely no sense. Consider the following example:

They list Hawaii as rank #4. Hawaii has 272.8 violent crimes per 100,000 with a 1.20% household firearm ownership. Divide the first by the second to get 227.33.

Louisiana is ranked #23 with a violent crime rate of 729.5 and household gun ownership of 10%. Division yields 72.95.

Looking purely at the products of division, Louisiana is "safer" than Hawaii thanks to its greater gun ownership... even though it has a violent crime rate of approximately triple that. Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. That's because doing simple division on these figures is a poor statistical method to determine if there is a trend, and what that trend is. A place could have ten times the amount of violent crime, but it would achieve a better ranking if it had ten or more times the amount of gun ownership. (Just by looking at the raw numbers for yourself, I believe you would agree with me that there is no trend.)

I'm pretty sure I made a disclaimer about ignoring the "rank" and looking purely at the raw numbers the first time that I used that link in this thread, but if I forgot to do so the most recent time, then I apologize.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

EDIT: Legem you know better than to use SourceWatch and MediaMatters, they're both far-left groups with an agenda that includes disarmament. I don't believe one whit of what they publish.

I'm not familiar with either site; while I picked up that one may have had a bias, I apologize for linking in two extremely biased sources. On the other hand, I'm a bit puzzled as to why it is that you identify these two sites as having an agenda and thus choose not to believe anything from them, yet you know that Lott and the other fellow also have agendas, and yet you seem to be fine with anything that they say.

The allegations that Lott fabricated or fudged data are serious and should be a red flag to anyone who's interested in the truth. Unless it's proven that he committed data fabrication regularly, I'm still willing to look at his data and read his biased interpretations. Not sure why you're unwilling to do the same for data and authors that don't suit your viewpoint.

[ChainLegacy]

I'm not a fervent gun supporter, but I am skeptical of gun control. I will point out that I would feel safer with a cop at the schools than I would if some law said you aren't allowed to have guns. Maybe I'm wrong or illogical for feeling this way, but if some nutjob wants to go on a rampage, I can't help but feel like they are going to find a way to do it, guns or not, legal gun ownership or not.