Discussing The Colorodo Shooting & Gun Laws

[jimmy-joe]

Vignettes, anecdotes and hypothetical situations may make for interesting conversation, but they are not nearly as compelling or persuasive as actual data and statistics.

So what's the statistics on reported crimes vs. unreported? And who gathers that? Or is the only 'actual' data that which is gathered by governments, colleges, and philosophers?

Logical falllaaallaaacyyyy!!!!! :) (fallacy of course.. was just phonetically spelling how I would say it if this was a voice conversation!)

Of course, the government probably knows everything and tells us the truth %100 of the time! Also, the college professors and the vast majority of their students are obviously patrolling the streets at night.

Why don't we get some data from the criminals! Because if it's a statistic, a data sheet, or a report, it's clearly the only truth!

And forget common sense! Clearly it HAS to be on paper to make sense.

And let's not forget that it's ONLY law-abiding citizens using legally purchased weapons doing these crimes. Clearly there are never any gang shootings, clearly there are never any serial killers that like to use guns, clearly none of the automatic weapons used in many of these crimes are actually used... Clearly the Russian mafia doesn't use weapons anywhere but the U.S.

Clearly there's no illegal weapons throughout all these countries with bans on them.

Clearly the black market has died in most of the world, so now only the places where guns can be traded legally have such crime...

And the last clearly... Clearly none of these people doing these crimes are trying NOT to get caught, so we MUST know about ALL the crimes committed.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Another reason I consider the existing laws to not qualify as 'good.'

The weak gun laws in some states creates a trafficking pipeline to others. This is exactly why 'States Rights' is not adequate to ensure public safety.

​

"

New York and the data collection centers of the six primary states for illegal weapons to New York -​

Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina...​

​

- could mobilize and form an interstate gun trafficking pact. This "I-95 Compact," named for the interstate we all share and shamefully dubbed the Iron Pipeline, would exchange uniform gun data that are collected at each participating state's data center.​

​

Startling statistics on illegal gun trafficking only serve to underscore the critical need for this database. The ATF reports that 85.9% of traced guns used in crime in New York City come from outside the state. In 2007, guns came from Virginia (358), Pennsylvania (305), North Carolina (290), Alabama and Georgia (243 each), and South Carolina (213). Illegal guns originate from these states because of their weak gun laws, but also because of a virtually undetectable mode of available transportation on Interstate 95.​

Read more: http://www.county.org/education/events/2012/CATC/documents/Handout - Urschel.PDF "​

 

[BloomInWinter]

As a public health issue, illegal ownership and use of guns is a problem - but guns don't kill nearly as many people as accidental deaths.

This raw number (guessing that's what you're referring to) however is encompassing all accidents - in bathtubs, kitchens, pools, bedrooms, garages, sports arenas, parks, public places, workplaces, service areas, etc.

Of course the numbers would be smaller for guns. Only 1/3 of households have guns. Not every person is around guns, and not every day. The incidence would be smaller based on that.

Far greater numbers of people use & interact with all these other risks.

As a percentage, though, guns are MUCH higher in death:use ratio.

Accidental Deaths = "accident
[ak′sidənt]
Etymology: L, accidere, to happen
any unexpected or unplanned event that may result in death, injury, property damage, or a combination of serious effects. The victim may or may not be directly involved in the cause of the accident. Accidents frequently are the result of both physical and mental factors that can result in unsafe operating systems at work, home, or other sites." Source: Dead Link Removed

 

[BloomInWinter]

So what's the statistics on reported crimes vs. unreported? And who gathers that? Or is the only 'actual' data that which is gathered by governments, colleges, and philosophers?

Logical falllaaallaaacyyyy!!!!! :) (fallacy of course.. was just phonetically spelling how I would say it if this was a voice conversation!)

Of course, the government probably knows everything and tells us the truth %100 of the time! Also, the college professors and the vast majority of their students are obviously patrolling the streets at night.

Why don't we get some data from the criminals! Because if it's a statistic, a data sheet, or a report, it's clearly the only truth!

Your comments here malign the work of literally thousands of caring, committed professionals who investigate, document, report, aggregate, analyze, hypothesize, test, re-test, write about, and publish public health statistics.

"something is a fact if it matches objective reality. For something to be objective, it must be outside of the mind and not be based on feelings or biases. This is the opposite of an opinion, which is what an individual thinks or feels about a subject."

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-opinion.htm[/DLMURL]​

You are espousing opinion instead of facts. Nothing Catjudo has said is logical fallacy here.

Your response here with the multiple !!!! is a logical fallacy, however, called 'argument by vehemence.'

"Argument By Vehemence:

being loud. Trial lawyers are taught this rule:

If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you don't have either, pound on the table."

Source: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html​

It would be helpful if you could please provide some source citations for your opinions. If I'm mistaken and you are correct, I'd be willing to read a valid source and you could help enlighten me. Thanks!​

 

[jimmy-joe]

Your comments here malign the work of literally thousands of caring, committed professionals who investigate, document, report, aggregate, analyze, hypothesize, test, re-test, write about, and publish public health statistics.

You must be forgetting that we are talking about crime... Who cares what thousands of caring and committed and intelligent people are saying? I never said that they have NO idea what's going on, I said that by the very nature of who they are and where they aren't(aka down in the "shit" where a lot of stuff goes unreported), leaves much blank area.

And yes, if you are talking about criminal activity, unless we are in the generation of the world's dumbest criminals(Throughout all criminal society currently), then legit, caring, law-abiding citizens, will not be able to get a full picture of the criminal world. Which is all that I said about the data/statistics.

UC cops and their co-workers will have a better understanding, but that still is far from complete. Which is what I said.

So yes, taking an inherently incomplete view, even taking a lot of them and combining them, does NOT give you the full picture.

It's called common sense. Which I don't show much of because I keep arguing with black-and-white thinkers who insist that other people are using black-and-white thinking.

Why is it that I say things clearly and they often get repeated incorrectly?

 

[BloomInWinter]

Why is it that I say things clearly and they often get repeated incorrectly?

You are stating your opinion, then backing up your opinion with yet more opinion, without presenting any observable evidence or citing of reliable sources to back up your arguments.

'Common sense' is no basis for public health policy. An example of why common sense is not logic nor evidence of fact for instance, is it used to be 'common sense' to own slaves, to make children work in factories, to deny human rights to women.

If you could please cite some evidence to back up your opinions and then we can discuss the merits of that.
Otherwise, your opinions, however eloquently stated, are still just your opinion, which of course you are entitled to. But when your opinions are in opposition to evidence-based information, others are entitled to question that.

 

[Barberian]

I've been kind of watching this thread for a while now. I've been tempted to post, but thought better of it, as this is a very touchy subject for many. This post may or may not fit in the current trend of the thread and is probably a bit rambling, as I have so much I want to say, yet don't want to make pages of a post. Some sections may not make complete sense as I'm trying to keep this as short as I can, and may accidentally omit something.

I may... or may not own a gun. It's nobodies business but mine. I've spent countless hours at the gun range with a variety of guns including a grenade launcher. I've been on an anti/counter terrorist team, and reserve military police fully qualified to do patrols by myself. I've been assigned to a team that assisted in the protection of President Regan when he often switched from Air Force One to Marine One and back during his many visits to his Santa Barbra ranch and various political activities in central and southern California. I've been in the middle of a riot of up to over 100 people as a military police officer. I did not have to draw my gun. I was willing to if necessary. I was trained two shots to the center of body mass, aim at the head, if it's still there (the person is still standing), shoot it as the person is either wearing body armor or on drugs.

I see all this debate about if guns are good or bad, etc... Personally I believe a gun is just a piece(s) of metal and wood or plastic. It is not evil, it is not good, it has no thoughts or emotions or intentions. It just is. The purpose of it's creation is to kill/injure/destroy something it is aimed and fired at. A secondary purpose of it's creation is the protection of the person who has possession of it, and it's owner's interests through intimidation by it's ability to destroy.

Personally I believe the problem with guns is the popular media - movies, tv, etc. In western culture (mostly America) almost every move, tv show, etc has gun violence as either a main part of the theme or will sooner or later be incorporated into the plot. Someone, or a great number of people will be shot as a means of accomplishing part of the storyline. This is in almost EVERY movie or tv show.

This "trains" people to think of using guns when they are angry. Constant exposure to an idea, action, is a way of training someone. It is a slow and insidious way of brainwashing people to use guns when they become violent. The more violent of a sector of society they live in, the more gun violence is a part of every day life. Gangs = gun violence as they live (and die) a very violent life.

This all loops back to why guns are a popular way to kill or injure someone. It is the most common form of violence shown in the movies and tv to kill someone. It is relatively easy vs the amount of physical effort. It is the safest form of violence to the perpetrator as they can do it from a safer distance. The perpetrator's physical size, health, endurance and strength don't matter as long as they can lift and aim the gun.

No one will ever be able to eliminate guns in America, nor the rest of the world. Eliminate the gun violence in popular media and the gun violence world wide will drop drastically. American movies and tv shows are re-shown world wide, and influence the media produced outside America. This would take some time as reruns are and will continue to be popular. Install a "responsible hero(s)" in the popular media that abhor the use of guns. This is of course somewhat skewed and unrealistic as the drug culture will continue to be a gun using violent subculture with lots of homicides. A new generation would have to grow up without being exposed daily, hourly with gun violence in the popular media.

I know popular media will not change any time soon, so where does this leave us at? Personal responsibility.

In no particular order:
1. Keep your guns locked in a safe when not in use, unless you have a reason to carry a firearm, and can do it legally.
2. Only use them to remain proficient (target practice) unless you are hunting or use them in the defense of life, and liberty.
3. Never be under the influence of drugs or alcohol when handling or in the possession of guns.
4. Never handle a gun when angry.
5. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill or destroy, loaded or not.
6. Never let a person who is not proficient/trained with guns handle them unsupervised.
7. When ever possible, ensure those around you who are in possession of a gun observe any an all safety rules.
8. Do not be afraid to restrict access to your weapons any person who you do not trust COMPLETELY with your life.
9. You can never "un-shoot" someone. It's permanent, and possibly lethal. If it wasn't a justified shooting, you will probably spend time in jail regardless of how you felt, what you thought.
10. You have very little time to decide whether or not to shoot. The courts have years to decide if it was justified. The truth may not "win the day" in court.
11. Last but not least. If you own a gun, get training on it. Keep training so you are proficient on it. Know how to use it, when to use it, when NOT to use it. Know how to keep someone from taking it away from you and using it on YOU.

 

[Girl3]

Yet if you look at individual states data, there are many states where far more than 1/3 of the households own guns but have low incidences of gun related deaths. There are also states that have low rates of gun ownership but higher incidence of gun related deaths. The data I quote is directly from the CDC, NCBI, and the NHAMCS - these are statistics that have been kept yearly for decades by the federal government.

Part of the problem for most people is that if you Google anything about guns are that you get these various websites purporting statistics based on their agendas - and those agendas are found on both sides of the fence.

What percentage of the population drives drunk - certainly not 1/3 - however, drunken drivers account for 1/3 of vehicle fatalities. You are far more likely to die from a drunk driver hitting you than you are to be shot. Furthermore, gun related deaths are concentrated primarily in certain areas - where gang related violence is the norm. Gangs and societies that allow gangs to proliferate inculcate that gang-type thinking is an accepted norm, when it is not.

I would never insist that non-gun owners go get a gun. Nor would I suggest even for a second that any other country should adopt a second amendment like ours - because I have no opinion on how other countries run their governments, since I do not live in them. When I visit other countries I abide by their laws. But I really don't want anyone dictating to me that I cannot or should not own a gun, as I've owned them legally my entire life and don't commit crimes.

Criminals don't have to use guns to kill you or harm you. The three times I was assaulted/batered in college, the perpertrators were men, in two instances two men working together. One of those men had a prior record of 27 assaults - those merely being the ones prosecuted. Many serial killers have preferred to strangle or knife their victims.

Between heart disease, cancer, and COPD - more than a million people die a year and most of it is related to smoking and overeating. Is it better that we allow cigarettes, fast food, soda, junk food since those deaths are self-inflicted? You or your child are nearly twice as likely to drown as you are to be shot - yet we don't have anti-pool and spa lobbies, because let's face it: everybody likes a pool or a hot tub. You are 3 times more likely to die of the flu than get shot - but you don't hear me calling for mandatory flu shots.

I think people like to think that they are in control of their lives at all times, and that when something happens like a James Holmes, it gets people thinking "here - we can control this kind of death". James Holmes was smart enough to make bombs - if he couldn't have gotten guns, he'd of made bombs. There really is nothing we can control - not even ourselves - all of the time.

 

[anthony]

I also think more alignment with centralising medical diagnosis with law enforcement officials, would also curb some of the gun violence, i.e. if a person is diagnosed with a mental illness (PTSD being one) then a police officer should arrive on their door to remove their gun until such time as a psychiatrist deems their mental health to no longer fit that diagnostic criteria. That would curb one aspect of where people have a gun, then have a bad time in life... at which point "some" take to drastic action during such time.

A point Barberian mentioned above, being it is simply too easy to pull a trigger versus fight. Even a knife, it isn't as easy as one may think to fight with a knife. A person normally doesn't die either from a knife attack.

Statistics outside the US in countries that have strict gun controls, clearly cite more benefits for such strictness for public safety and health, than allowing them readily.

The psychology of a person at the point of desperation when given a gun versus fists / knife, have vastly different outcomes for their own safety, public safety and medical outcome.

I won't advocate that a hunter who legitimately hunts his food in the woods, or culls animals for farming, from such a rifle required, however; that shouldn't mean an assault / automatic rifle either. There are those who legitimately sport shoot, clay or target, again, legitimate use. Those weapons then have no purpose leaving say a gun club.

There are plenty of ways to meet all parties needs IMHO... other than those who believe they should have a weapon on them / at home for safety. If you removed them all and thus culled them from criminals at the same time, suddenly a weapon for home protection is no longer required. That is what living in Australia, UK, Germany, etc, is like. You don't have to fear someone entering your home with a gun. It is a rare, rare occurrence to even happen, and usually those involved are drug / gang related, not against the public.

When you have guns running rampant, then the logical argument is to then also have a gun for protection in your home.

I hear it time and again from Americans about this, usually because they cannot imagine a life without guns. It does exist outside the US... where your every day criminal doesn't have a gun, nor can they get one with any ease.

It would be the same in some third world places, where a gun is essential due to the issue of guns in the populous, thus criminals.

It really is a massive attack by both the public and the police if a country is ever to rid guns where life of a gun shot is pretty much removed. I remember when Australia had the gun amnesty years ago. People were financially rewarded for anonymously telling authorities of someone with a gun, who wasn't registered. It worked quickly and swiftly.

Again... I think America's heritage is focused on guns, and I don't believe that will change. Texas is living proof that when you put guns on near every second person and openly displayed, the deterrent alone of being shot by everyone around you if you pull that weapon for anything other than shooting legitimately... your chances of survival are about none by the time you get maybe one shot off.

Saying that... plenty of other countries heritage has been gun focused, yet changed over time to meet safety of the public.

 

[Girl3]

Governments using citizens to rat each other out goes back thousands of years. While everyone recalls the story of Judas selling out Jesus, the political aim behind that act was in the interest of not only the local governor of Judea but for the Roman empire in general.

Hitler was able to not only get Germans to give up other Germans, but he convinced the French to round up their own Jews and cart them out of the country. Likewise, Mao Zedong convinced the Chinese to undergo a cultural revolution by turning in those who didn't go along with Mao's philosophy. They were able to round up and 're-educate' millions. Those who couldn't be re-educated were killed by the government who had decided their thoughts and beliefs were inimical to the communist way.

I realize that many people think - well it's only guns - but having citizens report on each other on something that up until that moment in time was legal, is a precedent that has been set repeatedly in the world. Incrementalism makes it seem so rational and right.

 

[Anna]

Sadly as always, there is the minority who ruin everything for the majority. I agree more restrictions should be in place. Checks should be made, people should be limited to the amount they are allowed to have. They should need a license.

However, taking guns away will not stop the problem. You take away their guns, they use knives, take away the knives they will use stones, sticks, take that away, they use their bare hands. If someone is mentally disturbed and wants to hurt people, they will sadly find a way to do so, it doesn't matter how.

What pains me is the mental health system that ignores these people or does not give them the treatment they need. It allows them to walk the streets. People turn a blind eye, noone wants to be responsible.

Apathy kills.

 

[anthony]

However, taking guns away will not stop the problem. You take away their guns, they use knives, take away the knives they will use stones, sticks, take that away, they use their bare hands. If someone is mentally disturbed and wants to hurt people, they will sadly find a way to do so, it doesn't matter how.

Actually... humanity does not quite work that way. Give a person a gun and a knife, then tell them to attack. See how many with the gun easily pull that trigger versus how many with a knife actually engage the target. The majority with a knife will drop it / turn and run with it.

Hand to hand combat is not easy, like movies make it out to be. Pulling a trigger is very easy, hence the issues with guns versus other weapons. Crime statistics are very clear on these things, and other weapons barely scratch the surface due to the requirement of physical effort involved.