Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324
Results 346 to 350 of 350

Thread: OT: Over 20 dead in Connecticut elementary school massacre

  1. #346
    The test that ABC did is not valid because the shooter knew in advance who the CCW'er was. The shooter in the video spends about two seconds shooting at the instructor, then goes directly for the armed student. The entire point of CCW is that the criminal doesn't know who is armed.

    The idea that law enforcement is constantly practicing their gun skills and crisis situations is far from the truth. The amount of practice law enforcement gets varies widely across agencies, but it isn't unusual for police to practice with only a hundred rounds twice a year (exactly what the NYPD gets), or less. I personally sometimes go through one or two thousand rounds of aimed fire in a weekend. The last time I walked by the Walnut Creek Police Department's pistol range, there were weeds growing everywhere and a picnic bench was in the middle of the range. By contrast, the range I go to in Concord looks like it has tunnels being drilled through the hill that serves as a backstop.

    The newspaper headline calling LaPierrce the "Craziest Man on Earth" and a "nut" is a good example of the strong anti-gun bias of the media. Does anyone think they are going to get both sides of the story when editors like that run the mainstream media? Also note the complete, 180 degree twisting of the truth--it says that the NRA is blaming everyone else within 90 minutes after, when the NRA was the only side that kept calm for a week before holding a press conference.

    California is not a shall-issue state so there aren't many people who CCW, so I can see why some people here think it is a "fantasy" that CCW'ing works. But I think 40-41 states currently have shall-issue CCW, so there is no need to hypothesize. Citizen concealed carry is a thoroughly proven success. Criminologists have found it to be the case, and even the more cursory studies show how effective is is. Take a look at this one on rampage shootings, which found:

    Average deaths when stopped by police: 14.33

    Average deaths when stopped by civilian: 2.33

    Source: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/

  2. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    The test that ABC did is not valid because the shooter knew in advance who the CCW'er was. The shooter in the video spends about two seconds shooting at the instructor, then goes directly for the armed student. The entire point of CCW is that the criminal doesn't know who is armed.
    Right, and it also put people into a situation where they were told to carry their weapon because something would happen that day, a luxury people generally don't get. The point of the episode was to show that generally speaking stress changes the ability of most people to operate a weapon efficiently. Do you disagree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    I personally sometimes go through one or two thousand rounds of aimed fire in a weekend. The last time I walked by the Walnut Creek Police Department's pistol range, there were weeds growing everywhere and a picnic bench was in the middle of the range. By contrast, the range I go to in Concord looks like it has tunnels being drilled through the hill that serves as a backstop.
    What's your point exactly? That it would be better to have you on site in a mass shooting situation than a police officer who's trained at more than just firing a pistol?

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    The newspaper headline calling LaPierrce the "Craziest Man on Earth" and a "nut" is a good example of the strong anti-gun bias of the media.
    Bias? That was the New York Post, the conservative tabloid, owned by News Corp's Rupert Murdoch. Good luck playing the "nasty biased media" card here; LaPierre's speech deserves every bit of criticism it's been getting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    Also note the complete, 180 degree twisting of the truth--it says that the NRA is blaming everyone else within 90 minutes after, when the NRA was the only side that kept calm for a week before holding a press conference.
    "Kept calm"? The NRA practiced their well-oiled strategy of keeping quiet following a mass shooting, knowing that they'd look insensitive by speaking out, and waiting until later to resume their absolutist stance. "Kept calm". lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    Citizen concealed carry is a thoroughly proven success. Criminologists have found it to be the case, and even the more cursory studies show how effective is is. Take a look at this one on rampage shootings, which found:

    Average deaths when stopped by police: 14.33

    Average deaths when stopped by civilian: 2.33

    Source: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/
    Oh come on. This isn't a "study". It's unscientific summarization of a list of events. If you really want to study the issue, you'll need a lot more data points -- like the weapons used, the location, number of people nearby, distance to nearest police presence etc. You'll probably find that there's a reason why nearby civilians were able to apprehend a kid with a .22 pistol while they were unable to do anything about the guy with body armor and a hundred-round drum magazine. Also, look down the list and you see lots of people tackled by civilians, not many being shot dead by CCW bystanders, so this doesn't exactly support the idea that CCW saves lives.

    He also gets basic stuff wrong. He writes:
    2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
    This isn't even close to what happened. Arroyo was waiting for his ex-wife and son to come out of the courthouse following a child support hearing. It wasn't a mass shooting; he was targeting his ex-wife. He opened fire, killing his ex-wife (so 'only death' is wrong) and injured his son. He drew the fire of police officers, and didn't see Mark Wilson approach. He was hit by Wilson and they exchanged fire; he ended up killing Wilson. A car chase followed, which ended with Arroyo's shooting death by the police.

    Quality "study" there.

  3. #348
    BearyWhite,

    If you think the only point of the concealed firearm episode was to show that people don't use a firearm as well under stress, then I agree with that point. Of course the more people practice, the better they will be under stress. When I mentioned the amount that I (or others who like to shoot) practice versus the police, my point was that police typically are not super-skilled experts and it is not difficult for a civilian enthusiast to equal or exceed their skill.

    The New York Post headline is obviously biased, however conservative you think they are. By the way, there are a significant number of conservatives who support gun control out there, such as Bill O'Reilly; and a significant number of Democrats who oppose gun control, such as blue-dogs representing more rural areas. Again, the use of terms such as "crazy" or "nut" is a sign of obvious bias by the headline editor at the Post. Armed guards and police are frequently used at various schools around the country with success, so I hardly see how it is crazy or nutty to call for their increased use.

    Regarding the piece on gun deaths I cited, I specifically called is "cursory". If you want a comprehensive study by one of the most well known criminologists in the U.S., read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (a summary he wrote is available at http://www.moccw.org/lott1.html. He was the chief economist used by the United States Sentencing Commission before he created his study and was a professor at the University of Chicago when he published it. It is probably the most comprehensive analysis ever done. He found a modest decrease in violent crime from liberalized concealed carry. The worst his critics could say is that concealed carry doesn't increase crime. Anyway, about 40 states are shall-issue with their concealed permits and it works just fine. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it helps, and it certainly doesn't hurt.

    Regarding the modern sporting rifle/semi-auto ban that Feinstein is about to re-introduce in Congress, the Department of Justice published a study done by the criminology department at the University of Pennsylvania in 2004 saying the last one made no difference, or at least at a level impossible to measure. Studies done in the U.K. and Australia on those country's gun bans found no benefit either.

  4. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    BearyWhite,

    If you think the only point of the concealed firearm episode was to show that people don't use a firearm as well under stress, then I agree with that point. Of course the more people practice, the better they will be under stress. When I mentioned the amount that I (or others who like to shoot) practice versus the police, my point was that police typically are not super-skilled experts and it is not difficult for a civilian enthusiast to equal or exceed their skill.
    This is all true, and is exactly why the idea of arming teachers is such a bad one -- most of them won't have the time, interest or ability in practicing enough to equal or exceed decent skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    The New York Post headline is obviously biased, however conservative you think they are. By the way, there are a significant number of conservatives who support gun control out there, such as Bill O'Reilly; and a significant number of Democrats who oppose gun control, such as blue-dogs representing more rural areas. Again, the use of terms such as "crazy" or "nut" is a sign of obvious bias by the headline editor at the Post. Armed guards and police are frequently used at various schools around the country with success, so I hardly see how it is crazy or nutty to call for their increased use.
    I think we're just using these terms differently -- the headline is surely sensationalist, but to say it's biased means that it reflects a history of bias, and the NY Post really doesn't share the same editorial bent as much of the so-called "liberal media". (And from a PR standpoint, LaPierre's comments were indeed nutty.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    Regarding the piece on gun deaths I cited, I specifically called is "cursory".
    If by "cursory" you mean "useless" I agree with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    If you want a comprehensive study by one of the most well known criminologists in the U.S., read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime (a summary he wrote is available at http://www.moccw.org/lott1.html. He was the chief economist used by the United States Sentencing Commission before he created his study and was a professor at the University of Chicago when he published it. It is probably the most comprehensive analysis ever done. He found a modest decrease in violent crime from liberalized concealed carry. The worst his critics could say is that concealed carry doesn't increase crime. Anyway, about 40 states are shall-issue with their concealed permits and it works just fine. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it helps, and it certainly doesn't hurt.
    OK, but that's not what was being discussed. We're talking rampage shootings. You cited the first article to show that CCW's stop rampage shootings (it didn't show that.) This study covers general violent crime stats. It's interesting but doesn't address this idea that arming civilians means a quick end to a rampage shooter. If you're saying that more CCW's makes a mass shooter think twice about even starting their rampage, note that a) they're generally nuts and not thinking rationally and b) also generally plan to die at the end of their spree. I can't see how they'd be deterred by the idea that they'll possibly encounter someone else with a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creeping Incrementalism View Post
    Regarding the modern sporting rifle/semi-auto ban that Feinstein is about to re-introduce in Congress, the Department of Justice published a study done by the criminology department at the University of Pennsylvania in 2004 saying the last one made no difference, or at least at a level impossible to measure. Studies done in the U.K. and Australia on those country's gun bans found no benefit either.
    Ok, I agree that we need something stronger then.

  5. #350
    "Need something stronger"--gun bans don't come much stronger than they do in the U.K. All pistols were confiscated in the 90s, and a few years before that all semi-auto rifles and semi-auto shotguns were confiscated. The firearm homicide rate generally runs higher today than it was 100 years ago when there was no firearms legislation there. If your response is that's because there were never many guns in the first place, then look at Switzerland, where most men are required by law (they have a unique drafted-militia style of army) to keep a firearm at home for their ten-year period of service, and encouraged to keep them after their service ends, and their firearm homicide rate in just as low as the U.K.

    The piece by Lott did not address rampage shootings, but he did write about that specifically in his next book, The Bias Against Guns. I don't have a link to it, so you'll have to take my word on this--he did find a correlation showing that states with shall-issue CCW had less rampage shootings. There aren't that many rampage shootings each year, so I don't know if it can be called it a strong correlation, which you can with the general CCW to violence correlation because of the vast amount of data obtainable from the FBI's uniform crime report and census data. But he still found that CCW decreases rampage shootings based on the data that's available.

    For those teachers who are already into guns, I say let them CCW if they want. For the parts of the country where the gun culture isn't as strong, then armed security might be a better way of assuring an armed presence. Rampage shooters today think rationally enough to know that schools are likely to be disarmed, which is why they tend to pick them as opposed to just walking out their front door and going after the first person they see.

    The NY Post may not be traditional liberal media, but it is still New York City, where the first modern gun control-law was passed in the U.S. I disagree that La Pierre's comments were bad from a PR standpoint, the people who think that are those that are strongly anti-gun to begin with and are not his target audience.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •