I grew up in a small farming/ranching community in Texas. It was common to see pick up trucks with a gun rack in the back window and even a gun in the rack.



Our daily entertainment typically includes guns, shootings, murders. Most nights they are part and parcel of the TV dramas. A great many of our movies too. Oh, video game entertainment takes it to an amped level.

I don't see that changing. I don't see guns being effectively controlled. We just accept and adapt.

The cost of that civil right, according to your chart, is about 100,000 dead people in 2010, not counting non-homicide firearm deaths, of course.

Why, in your opinion, is this an important civil right? What, today, is its value that offsets the 100,000 firearm homicides in 2010?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The US is not even remotely close to Switzerland for a multitude of reasons; homogeneity being perhaps the most important.


The Swiss example is always trotted out by Pro-Gun types in the U.S. For some reason their brains are blocked from seeing the massive societal and cultural differences between Switzerland and the U.S.

That model WORKS in Switzerland - for some reason, the Pro-Gun side can't see that it's NOT working in the U.S.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I agree. I own 5 guns. I am comfortable with the 'right to bear arms' and 'arms control'. We have it now. I don't mind it being stricter.

I did not, in any way, encourage you to join our gun ownership community. I pointed out that the "defensive use of firearms" is a big #, so when we talk about the cost of gun ownership, we need to remember those folks.

Those ladies with angry violent husbands.....you going to tell them that your solution is that they aren't allowed to buy a firearm? That you'll ensure their safety because just like we can't get drugs, once the government has passed it's law, that husband won't be able to get a gun.

The idea that one person can make another defenseless, thru government firearm laws, to me is a very big deal. No one has the right to make another defenseless. Sure, there's always warts in any simplistic idea, but with cleverness the worst of the warts can be dealt with. The alternative is to question the validity of the fundamental right of self defense.

Do you have the right to defend your family from violent attack or not? If so, is it reasonable for your neighbor, thru the ballet box, to strip you of the means of that defense?

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Those same TV shows and movies, and video games, are a staple in much of the rest of the developed world too.

Why aren't those countries seeing school (or other) shootings occurring with the same frequency?

Are you arguing they are benign?

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm just wondering why those same exact shows, movies and videogames aren't causing kids (or adults) in other countries to go out and shoot up schools, or concerts, or workplaces.

I'm glad, as well, that you live there. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

There's all sorts of articles debunking Hemenway's biased work that you linked to. Here's an example. http://reason.com/...esigned-to-measure-d

The FBI stats you listed don't add value. Defensive use of a firearm is almost always a matter of brandishing, not killing the bad guy.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

i think their solution is to leave their violent husbands; or for their violent husbands to lose their rights to own firearms. i think the wife is going to be safer with no guns in the house, rather than with 2 guns in the house.

i am a part of your community. what i'm saying is that you need to join me, and advocate for a reasonable solution, or you and i both will lose our right to own firearms.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

A smart guy like you can realize that a gun can be used defensively without it causing death. I would venture that most gun owners are reluctant to pull the trigger when threatened, but the mere presence of a visible gun is enough to deter the threat. So the number of justifiable homicides is an inaccurate representation of the defensive use of firearms.

Short of complete and total confiscation, which I guarantee you isn't going to happen in this lifetime, you really are left with the option of dealing with the tactical situation, for lack of a better phrase. So, what are the things we can do to handle the tactical side of the equation?

Saying that more gun laws is the answer is an incomplete solution, because we have plenty of gun laws on the books that no one seems to want to enforce consistently. So again, we have to look at the tactical aspects of this problem, and devise solutions that will protect kids while they're in school.

Is it more and better armed school resources officers? Installation of anti-terror-type barriers and checkpoints? Mandatory active shooter drills and regular training of staff and students?

I also agree that arming teachers simply isn't the solution, nor should teachers be armed. They're teachers, mentors and guides for a reason, and they shouldn't be expected to sling lead with the bad guys.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I think that there are probably some teachers who would be helpful in situations if they were armed. My father (military veteran) retired after teaching for 35 years. At one point he taught gun safety on the side (not at school). He practiced regularly and was a good shot with hand gun and rifle.

Knowing my dad, he would have faced danger to protect his students. If each school had 2 or 3 teachers like him, and I'm sure many do - then it would be an added layer of safety that could save some lives. While it might not be enough to prevent all the murders, it could reduce them.

No offence but if idiotic scales were not used on that graph it would not look any thing like as good

Try 0 to 3.5 and then see how good it looks

Slowman,

Respectfully, you're an idiot. The only way for a woman to deal with her violent husband is to arm herself to the gills. That's the only way. That's the 'MURICAN WAY!

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

How do you tell beforehand which teachers would be helpful, and which are likely to a) mishandle their weapon or not secure it correctly *all the time*, b) shoot the first person they see with a gun (who might be another teacher), and/or c) kill an innocent bystander through lack of judgment and/or skill? Law enforcement officers, who I would hope receive far more gun and situational training than any teacher would ever get, make mistakes even so.

Sorry, the answer is not "more guns." Especially not teachers.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

At issue isn't "guns or no guns". At issue is "should we add another gun law?"

When we add another drug law, does it stop the ellicit use of narcotics? Have we won the drug war with our laws? Heck, have we won the drug wars with our enforcement?

Guns laws only block honest citizens. We already can't be bothered to enforce many of the gun laws on our books. There isn't a link between the (entirely reasonable) concerns of the anti-gun lobbies, hell they're reasonable concerns for everyone, and the solutions the anti-gun lobbies suggest.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

You are onto something. Sometimes I feel that Americans want 100% guarantee of success 100% of the time or they want even try. At least when guns are in question.

That's kind of the problem I see. Americans tend to throw around statistics, looking at countries where gun control was attempted (usually Australia) and then use statistics to prove that it doesn't work. At the same time, they will be the first to say Australia is a different country and what happens there can't necessarily work in the U.S. In other words, it didn't work there and even if it did, they're not the same as us so you can't compare apples and oranges.

Then they point to individual cities (Chicago) or states (California) where gun control measures haven't statistically worked, while ignoring the fact that the city or state beside them doesn't have the same controls, making it easier for people to get guns, and cross the border.

The thing I don't understand is that if the U.S is different than other countries, and isolated places of gun control haven't proven successful, why not try a national policy that is geared towards the U.S.? If no one really knows the result since it has never been tried, why not try? It's the complete lack of trying anything that is disturbing and of course, leads to the 'conclusion" that the NRA is in control of the government or that people don't care. Neither is accurate but that is how the conclusion is reached.

Finally, anyone who doesn't know every detail about every kind of gun, or every detail about every statistic on attempts at gun control is quickly labelled ignorant and therefore any intelligent discussions can't be initiated so the whole thing is dismissed until the next time. It's a revolving door with the same arguments and tactics over and over again.

Trump says the shooter was mentally disturbed.

An article I read said that the shooter has been seen sporting a #MAGA hat. (really important and useful information to include in the article BTW...)

Trump:

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Is a gun the only way to defend oneself?

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

I like the concept of compromise where everyone has some skin in the game. To that end, I really think we have a cultural problem. I have kids and have major issues with the current entertainment/media complex.

Are you willing to give up some 1st amendment rights for me to give up some of my 2nd? I'd say we have way too much violence that desensitizes people portrayed in movies, video games, and on TV.

No. A 100 pound woman should simply learn karate to be able to defend herself against her 250 pound husband. And, we know that restraining orders always work /pink

We can probably count on one hand the number of persons on this thread who have actually taken and returned fire, and none on this thread that had to face what teachers had to face yesterday. No one can predict just who'd perform as expected, though training, training and more training can help reduce the odds that someone who's expected to mount a concerted defense won't simply fold when taken under fire.

This problem of school shootings is a hugely tough nut to crack. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, they're not just limited to rifles, either. The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and managed to kill 33 students and instructors (not sure if he's included in that number, as he shot himself dead once he'd carried out his evil).

An Armalite-style rifle is a .223 caliber, slightly larger than your classic .22 caliber rifle used to hunt small game. It's known as a "modern sporting rifle" and it's a hugely effective home defense weapon and is used increasingly in the hunting of small game and even larger game. There have been a number of instances here in the Detroit area over the last several years where homeowners equipped with an AR-type rifle ("AR" stands for "Armalite," not "Automatic Rifle") have chased away or fired at home invaders and other intruders.

It is not a true "assault rifle," a term that I'd never heard prior to 1994. It surely resembles a US military M16A2 to M4 infantry rifle but it in no way, shape or form can perform as that rifle does.

I and my wife have a few different models of AR rifles for home defense (I've said before that I conceal carry and I don't go ANYWHERE in Detroit without carrying), and I wouldn't willingly give up the AR precisely because it does work as well as advertised. It's truly a "scary black rifle" that, to me, has done more to discourage the random acts of random bad guys than any beat or patrol cop making intermittent rounds has done. The police simply aren't there to protect individual lives and they also simply can't be there in time if the balloon goes up, as we found out (yet again) yesterday.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

The gun has surely made it possible for a 100-pound woman to defend herself against a 250-pound man, though the movies do their best to convince viewers that some 100-pound woman actually has a chance in a fight against a man outweighing her by 50, 75, 100 or even more pounds.

There's an old saying that God created man, but Sam Colt made them all equal. Me, I'm getting too old to carry a cop around on my back. Which is why I carry a concealed handgun.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."