This is not a gun thread but a social thread question.

Why is it that whenever there is a mass public shooting there is a forum stating how much that more guns are needed in our society to prevent such shootings?

This question is after reading the LBN thread on the recent Lane Bryant tragedy in which five women were murdered.


Do we feel that unprotected by the most draconian police state this country has ever offered?

Or are we just that paranoid that all our countrymen are out to get us?


Or is our (America's) current paradigm of education and firearm availability so out of step with the rest of the civilized world that it is just a fluke that we have the situation we have today?

:patriot: :patriot:

I see this one as a much simpler question.

However unlikely mass shootings are (and they are indeed incredibly unlikely - an individual is far more likely to drown in a pool), in general the only viable defense against them is armed response. So it's not that there needs to be any great degree of paranoia that any given one of us is likely to faced a mass shooting, it's just that if it were me (and many others) if by any wild chance that were to happen, I'd much rather have the means to defend myself than not have those means. It's like having an inflatable vest in a pontoon boat. They very very rarely become needed, but if they do it's a real bugger to be without one.

It's not a sociological question based on any kind of emotional response, merely a question of how much value you assign to protection against very low but very harmful probabilities.

the background noise of our culture is that we are on our own and shouldn't expect help from others, so too in matters of trauma and self-defense.

you have the resources to hire your own body guard.

Most people do not.

If we really want to be protected we need to make sure that the police are well-trained, well-paid and that there is enough of them to deal with the criminal elements in our society. We also need better social programs, like a free quality education through college for the underclasses to deter young people from turning to a life of crime and giving them a chance for improving their lot in life.

The best they can do is to apprehend a criminal AFTER the FACT. We already have free education, though not through college which isn't suitable for some people anyway.

Nice to hear from you, but our inner city schools are a mess and they need a big infusion of money to make them work for that environment. In California we used to have a state college system that was tuition free and many young people of color got out of the ghetto by attending them as well as poor white kids and they were able to get their degrees. Many of our current minority politicians came out of that environment. However, thanks to Reaganomics when he was governor that era has passed.

I also disagree about the prevention factor of the police for crime. Well patrolled neighborhoods do cut down on crime. Also, at one time we had police in two-car squad cars. Now many patrol alone and sometimes are afraid to confront a commotion that could lead to crime because they are alone and have to wait for back-up.

When we had problems with excessive drug dealing in our neighborhood, by our house, we called the police. They not only responded, but actually used our deck to watch some of the nonsense going on late at night. They formed a plan, and implemented it, and as a result the deserted overgrown field behind the alley is no longer a haven for violence, prostitution and drug dealers. It is also no longer an overgrown field, but affordable housing. It not only a police effort, but a community effort.

I would say they prevented any number of crimes.

But you have no way to know that any given specific crime was actually prevented by the cops. It is merely hopeful conjecture on your part. But our discussion here isn't about generalities - if some crazed character breaks down your door in the middle of the night to murder you, the cops can't do shit to stop them.

ordinary citizens are not protected by police who are close enough to prevent crime. The police may do a nice job of collecting evidence and statements after the fact. But they just can't be around everyone, all the time. Nor would we want them to be that close, all the time.

Better social programs, education, health care, sure. Legalizing drugs would help, too. Keeping violent criminals in prison for entire sentences might reduce repeated crimes, or at least delay them. There are many social remedies that might help.

Meanwhile, protect yourself and your loved ones as best you can.

underfunded. Also, they aren't getting the best applicants anymore because of the danger and lack of incentives to do a dangerous job. It isn't worth the while of candidates who could be good police officers. Instead police departments are attracting people who sometimes are no better than the criminals. It's just that they are paid to be thugs by the taxpayer.

Banging through frozen water to get a duck in a pair of leaky waders just isn't as appealing now...

And have not had a situation that I could not get out of without a gun since... But that's only been for the last 45 years. Who knows?

so there is that...

We do not live in Tombstone or Deadwood today.

They don't wait for you to amble out of the saloon and ready your gun hand. They don't necessarily even know who it is they're shooting at.

I'm all for social services and education and mental healthcare and all that. I'd even prefer to live in a country without guns. But they exist and dangerous people have them and until someone can figure out how to disarm them, they won't be disarming me either.

And those fucking Clantons came down the road.

I know I didn't, but then that's because I have a sense of humour.

???
I don't think you mean to claim that nobody ever gets shot...after all that would pretty much wreck your original point. Or maybe there actually are dead people writing posts here on DU...who knows?

Cops can't be everywhere. Unfortunately, they usually arrive too late to protect and merely document what happened. So, of course, any rational person feels unprotected.

Faced with the possibility of becoming a victim, people make choices. Some people chose to attempt to pass laws that limit ownership of weapons. Others decide to acquire weapons for self defense. Both groups have convincing arguments to back up their position. Many people who would normally not consider owning a weapon for defense decide to acquire one. More guns lead to more violence.

Politicians, realizing that the gun issue attracts voters, take one side or the other. Local, state and national governments pass laws that sometimes are reasonable, sometimes restrictive, and sometimes permissive.

What we need to do is to address the root problem... why is or society so violent? Could it be lack of opportunity, caused by the failure of our educational system? Is it possible that the violence in rap music, movies and video games promote violence in real life? Could addiction to and the use of illegal drugs contribute to the problem? Does the justice system fail to incarcerate the truly dangerous individuals? Do prisoners become more dangerous behind bars?

Lots of tough questions with few good answers. To reduce the plague of violence in our nation will require real change in many of our beliefs and institutions. At the very minimum we need to insist that our schools educate and that we find ways to create meaningful and profitable employment for the youth in our country. We also should seriously examine our drug policy. The "war on drugs" is a long term failure that resembles our efforts in Iraq. Lots of money spent to achieve little result.

I grew up in the fifties and the sixties. The doors to our house and car were unlocked. The only gun in my house was a .22 revolver from which my father had removed the firing pin. Compared to today, the murder rate was very low and people rarely had items stolen. I knew several hunters who owned guns, and a couple guys who liked to target shoot. No one I knew had a gun for self defense. There just was no reason to.

I doubt if we can go back to those times, but if we try we can work to make this a safer less dangerous nation.

"So, of course, any rational person feels unprotected."

Oh, I disagree. I don't get worried about lightning when I'm not in a grounded building. Going around worrying about violence and crime strikes me as paranoid. Keeping a gun around, when it's more likely to shoot a family member, would strike me as irrational.

"Could it be lack of opportunity, caused by the failure of our educational system?"

Lack of jobs, pretty much certainly.

"Is it possible that the violence in rap music, movies and video games promote violence in real life?"

No.

"Could addiction to and the use of illegal drugs contribute to the problem?"

No.

but since that is not the case, it makes much more sense to have the means to effective self-defense. Taking the responsibility to do so - safely - isn't so hard as to make it an unreasonable option.

Violence and gun violence and crime and gun crime are definitely a social issue, and it is also strongly related to illegal drugs. The number of guns has been ever steadily increasing, yet crime rates go up and crime rates go down. Besides the peaks during Prohibition and the "war on Drugs", there is much more direct coorelation between the number of 15-25yr old males in society then the number of guns.

From a New Haven, CT. study:
"Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented to a wide array of law enforcement, government and community representatives in order to solicit ideas for strategies to reduce violent gun crimes and illegal gun possession. Some of the data presented included:

A large percentage of offenders and victims were 15-21 years of age.

Most offenders had serious criminal histories.

One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges.

Over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense.

Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities. "

Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed statistics indicate it is.

"Besides the peaks during Prohibition and the "war on Drugs", there is much more direct coorelation between the number of 15-25yr old males in society then the number of guns."

Then that would be the problem of prohibition, not the drug.

Using a gun defensively does not necessarily involve killing a person, or even firing the gun.

Most defensive uses of firearms do not include discharges, and many if not most are never reported to law enforcement.

But neither does spousal abuse, suicide, or accidents.

:shrug:

Total gun deaths: approx: 27,780
Defensive gun uses: ATLEAST 300,000 (Clinton DOJ), more likely 500,000 minimum...even higher estimates exist, but we'll go with the minimum to be sure.

Amd compared with the 1.4 MILLION violent crimes annually (FBI stats), I will take the potential positive & effective self-defense use over clearly unfounded fear of mis-use any day.

A gun in the home's 1.3 times as likely to accidently shoot a loved one than a suspect.

4.6 likely to murder a loved one.

37 times more likely to be involved in a suicide.

You're arguing that since guns can be used to threaten a criminal into giving up, then those numbers are invalid. But then you'd also have to include the number of times the gun was used to threaten a loved one, narrowly miss a loved one, or misfire in a suicide attempt.

It's fun to pretend though.

Do you have (national) links to confirm your data for me?

A rational person should be concerned about lightning. A lot of people in Florida get killed because they ignore common sense when walking outside in a thunderstorm. I've personally known several people who got knocked off their feet when a lightning bolt struck near them. During the summer we often read stories about deaths caused by lightning. I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian and I have at times made comments that might piss off the God that the Fundies believe in. Therefore, in case he exists, I try not to make myself a target.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/06/18/lightning.awareness/index.html

I also take care to practice situational awareness when I walk the streets of some city like Tampa. Again, I try not to act like a target. I believe that if you go looking for trouble it will find you. Therefore, I'm careful of where I go and I show respect to people. If all fails I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry. I practice with my weapons and while I don't consider myself an expert with a firearm, many people who have watched me shoot do. The absolute last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon to defend myself, but if necessary I won't hesitate.

My mother and my daughter used handguns to discourage rapists. Quite possibly I exist and my two wonderful grandchildren exist because of the proper use of weapons to deter criminals. No one was hurt in the incidents.

You disagree that the availability and use of illegal drugs causes violence. A statement from the link I provide below:

"Broadly speaking, the link between drugs and violent crime could occur in three ways: violent crime by consumers of drugs, violent crime associated with the production and distribution of drugs, or violent crime directly associated with the attempt to enforce drug prohibition."

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/drugs_and_violence/Drugs_and_violence.html

You disagree that video games and rap music contribute to violence. The army uses video games to train soldiers. You might find this link interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302437.html

As for lyrics in rap music:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3695-violent-song-lyrics-increase-aggression.html

Perhaps we should consider legalizing some drugs, reducing the profit motive involved in illegal trafficking.

I hesitate to recommend censorship for video games and rap music. I feel that might prove as big a failure as the war on drugs and hopefully would fail in the courts. However I feel violent video games and gangsta lyrics can contribute to problems in our society. Solving this problem will require pressure on the companies who produce this material to act in a more responsible manner.

As I stated before, Guns don't cause violence but violence causes guns. Reducing violence should reduce the proliferation of guns in our nation. Our problem is finding real solutions to lowering the crime rate. If we all work together and elect politicians who really have our best interests at heart, we might make some headway.

i think guns can create violence. sometimes people get angry or frustrated but feel like they have no outlet.... put a gun into the equation.... some people have knee jerk reactions and do things they might not normally even think of doing. who and what is around them can dictate how they react.

it just depends on the person tho
and unfortunately we wont check peoples health backgrounds to see if they are at risk of hurting someone or themselves with the gun.
i guess ultimately i see gun ownership as a priveledge and if u cant handle the huge responsibility you shouldnt have one. you are holding someone elses life in your hand everytime you hold a gun. it deserves respect and to be treated as safely as any thing else that can hurt or kill someone. guns arent toys.

Declaring a place to be free of weapons without implementing physical security to make sure that it really is free of weapons just creates fodder for empty self-congratulation, and an enhanced target opportunity for anyone who is looking for an easy place to pull off a mass shooting. Places that do so inevitably fail to accept responsibility and accountability for the security of people who enter.

Places like the secured areas of courthouses and airports are true gun-free zones because they have controlled entrances with metal detectors, X-ray machines, guards, etc. But there are no real controls at the entrances to places like college campuses and the District of Columbia.

Someone who has been properly trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense should be permitted to do so anywhere, except places where guns pose an obvious threat to physical security. For example, MRI labs (because of powerful magnets), and places where compressed gas cylinders are kept. Of course any places with such clear hazards are not (or should not be) open to the general public anyway.

would have been the same?

(Take into account the idea of the victims feeling more inclined to take defensive actions when faced by knives rather than guns).

a gun is intimidating as hell. I haven't had one pulled on me since I was 18 but even though I came out on the better end of that deal, that moment will live with me forever.

If those guys were armed with knives do you feel that the death toll... ...would have been the same?

Impossible to say for sure, but I suspect if you could magically eliminate all firearms from society or otherwise make it impossible for bad people to get them, we'd see an increase in the number of mass killings that involve bombs, cars, toxic chemicals, etc.

be fewer deaths attributable to them?

Look at the other industrialised nations in the world that have more stringent rules for firearm ownership and tell me that you can see no correlation.

I don't want to take away your sports guns, I do want to make it more difficult for the cretins of America to get their hands on weapons that make it easy to kill from a distance with impunity.

You would not have accomplished anything meaningful.

That is pretty much what has happened in Australia by the way. Handgun deaths down, bludgeoning and stabbing deaths up.

I don't want to take away your sports guns, I do want to make it more difficult for the cretins of America to get their hands on weapons that make it easy to kill from a distance with impunity.

I don't follow your logic. A weapon that can kill a deer or a bird from a distance can just as easily kill a human from a distance. A weapon that can accurately punch a hole in a piece of paper from a distance can just as accurately punch a hole in a human from a distance.

This has been going on since Whitman set up shop in the tower.

This is why we stopped people from ordering a Manlicher via mailorder since Kennedy's brains were blown over the trunk of his Lincoln.

You're right. A weapon can punch a hole in a dove from a good distance and a 50 cal can do a bit more.

Google "Bath school massacre 1927". Worst school mass killing in history, no firearms involved.

The effect of guns on curbing crime is very well documented, and very simple to understand. Criminals are more likely to choose an unarmed target, as it increases their chances of successfully victimizing that person. In places with higher levels of gun ownership, it is harder for criminals to determine whether or not their potential victims are armed. This results in fewer crimes committed against people, as more criminals are likely to be hesitant.

When an area has very restricted or nonexistent gun rights the rate of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and assault) is likely to rise. Conversely, areas with well established gun rights, particularly concealed carry rights, is likely to see violent crime decrease. Interestingly, the decrease in violent crime is often accompanied by an increase in property crime (burglary, car theft, etc) as criminals substitute potentially armed people for targets which can't defend themselves.

This has been substantiated in numerous studies, probably the most noteworthy being the two Justice Department studies on criminals by Wright/Rossi and by Gary Kleck and John Lott's study More Guns, Less Crime. Also interesting to note is the Australian and UK experience with virtually banning gun ownership. Both cases closely parallel the noteworthy US experience in Washington DC; when guns where banned violent crime skyrocketed. Unlike DC, both nations saw a slight drop in murder rates after the bans, which allowed the governments to claim success. This is a fallacy, as the decrease was easily offset by the thousands more rapes, robberies and violent attacks which took place in the years after the laws were passed.

For years I did not believe this. If I was involved in this discussion a few years ago, I would have sounded much more like the anti-constitutional side of the crowd. This changed when I started looking into the issue and realized that there was no sound justification for my beliefs. The more I researched, the more I realized that the assumptions I had made were all wrong. This has since become a very important issue to me, as I realize that protecting and supporting our Second Amendment rights is the best way to protect us from violent crime.

It's that simple, but over-the-top gun enthusiasts think they can gain ground by using the Cheney/Bush tactics: make an isolated threat a cause celebre' and occasionally you can gain some political mileage out of it.

OTOH, the over-the-top gun enthusiasts are failing now as miserably as GWB's "boogeyman" tactics, but in their isolated worlds, as in GWB's, they can't see that.

:wtf:

preferring to hassle the poor, ethnic, and harmless.

:)

Therefore I shall let it die an honorable death after this post. :toast:

comments come back to haunt us in November.

It's one of the few times we can talk about guns in the main forum. There are plenty of DU members who have a strong opinion one way or the other, but the topic is usually relegated to a sub-forum I suspect most people don't know about. That forum is dominated by gun rights members, and anti-gun members (both the hardcore gun haters and the uninformed casual people who like the AWB) seldom venture over.

So when someone gets shot, someone invariably interrupts what should be a thread offering condolences and says "more/less guns could have stopped this". The gun lovers/haters jump on the chance to argue, and the people who usually don't think about the topic jump in for a new intellectual discussion.

More people should check the topic sub-forums, IMO.