Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I stand by my theory of decades of slashing of funding for mental health.madd0ct0r wrote:well, is there anything underlying the number of 'going postal' incidents in the USA?
The point is that the number of lives gun control might save from these random incidents is so small, so tiny, so negligible that it might as well be statistical error in the Census. Against that, you have to weigh the restriction of individual freedom and the enjoyment that many people derive from owning and shooting guns. On a national scale, that deprivation is almost certainly more costly than any extra lives lost due to these incidents.Jub wrote:It might not make much of a change, but it would still, potentially save lives. The only way it wouldn't is if the threat of a victim carrying a gun stops more deaths than owning a gun causes.Surlethe wrote:I don't think random shootings like the one in Aurora or in Columbine really warrant much policy attention at all. They're convenient symbols to talk about, but that kind of single-handed mass slaughter doesn't meaningfully impact annual deaths caused by guns. So this entire discussion about "Joe Average" shooting up a city hall or a movie theater is just pointless, unless someone wants to present evidence that I'm wrong and these mass shootings actually cause significant changes in national gun violence death statistics.
That's not a slippery slope bandwagon you want to get on. That's the motivation for people with some very strange ideas. Like the refuse-seatbelt movement, remove the speed limits, or those that want all drugs/steroids/medicine to be legally available and distributable by anyone to anyone. Where do you draw the line, at what do you draw the line, for who do you draw the line?Surlethe wrote:The point is that the number of lives INSERT WHATEVER HERE might save from these random incidents is so small, so tiny, so negligible that it might as well be statistical error in the Census. Against that, you have to weigh the restriction of individual freedom and the enjoyment that many people derive from INSERT WHATEVER HERE. On a national scale, that deprivation is almost certainly more costly than any extra lives lost due to these incidents.
The standard for all sciences barring physics. P<.05Knife wrote:What are you using as your statistical significance? 0.5, 0.1, or 0.001? Just curious.
Is that dirrected at my post? I ask because I noted that for states that have both less guns and stricter laws, there is still likely a high enough number of guns to go around that people who want to use one for a crime can get one.Lonestar wrote:Stricter than average gun laws is not the same thing as "fewer guns". Usually strict gun laws are targeted against concealed carry or open carry.
Unless you live in California, then gun laws include "based upon what it looks like".
No worries, I'm at work typing between calls so I might not have proof read that post well enough.Lonestar wrote:Sorry, you seemed to be implying that stricter guns laws correlated with fewer legal guns.
You would be surprised how terrible many people (even cops and military) are with a pistol. Hitting a moving target, even when practiced, is a difficult task. If you can manage 10mph perpendicular to the shooter, he'll be relying on luck more than anything to hit you. You can find video of shoot-outs between cops and criminals taking place at less than 10 feet and with more than 20 rounds fired resulting in no hits. I spoke with one cop at a shooting match who, during a foot-chase, an officer he was with got hit in the head with a bullet (and died) fired from a fleeing criminal. The criminal literally just reached over his own head, and fired blindly while still running.Lagmonster wrote:If he has a gun, I'm reasonably certain that neither running nor fighting is an option. He might be a twelve-year old in a wheelchair, and I'm pretty sure I'm still fucked so long as he can see with both eyes and has one working arm. In fact, what I keep hearing in public safety seminars is "if they have a gun, give them whatever they want and hope they go away", which only serves to tell me that the missing variable in that recurring "1) X 2) ??? 3) Profit!" meme is the word "guns".
The problem is kids like with Columbine who were relying on their bombs to do most of the work (and would increased the death toll from the dozens to hundreds if they had exploded). Oh yea, and if cops and school administrators had taken the evidence seriously and their parents hadn't been blind idiots, the whole thing would have been avoided. You can also find numerous incidents of multiple stabbing fatalities. I can dig up many more. The key to these is surprise. Yes, I could likely fight off or run from a similar sized attacker (even with my damaged back) armed with a knife, but not if he's already grabbed hold of me and started stabbing before I know what's going on. Other people in the area may have no fucking clue what's happening until a few more people get stabbed.Jub wrote:I understand that banning guns isn't going to magically get rid of them. You'd need to implement other changes and do it over time while trying to change the underlying culture. However, just with a blanket removal of guns from law abiding citizens, you remove Joe Average's ability to shoot up a movie theater or a school.
