Yet another school shooting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That's just it. I don't cower in fear. Ever.
I also don't revel in ignorance.
I wear a seatbelt despite it being over 20 years since I've been in an accident as well.
A better comparison, I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, my garage, my shop, and on my deck by my grill. I've never had a home fire, but I check my extinguishers and replace them when they expire. I don't fear fire, I prepare to combat it if necessary...and then enjoy my life.

I want to respond to earlier comments as well and will tomorrow, but this one just jumped out to me.

If you're stashing guns around the house, you sound like someone who does have considerable fear of a home invasion. That's not a bad thing, we all have our own fears.

House fires kill thousands a year (along with pets) and cost untold monetary damage to property. Most people are willing to buy a few smoke alarms and fire extinguishers to combat this. But most won't spend over $10,000 to install a sprinkler system in their home despite that risk. They don't install fire resistant doors.

Automobile deaths are around 37,000 I believe. A seat belt doesn't take much effort to put on and comes with the car. But most people don't install aftermarket cages and expensive harnesses for protection. They don't put on fire suits either.

But when we're talking statistics, less than 100 people in this country die from burglary related homicides. Even less from strangers. You're as likely to die from a bee sting as you are from a random home intruder. I don't think you leave the house in a beekeepers suit.

Perhaps you do go those extra lengths I mentioned to protect yourself and your family from more dangerous things in this world. But it feels more like an irrational fear of a home invasion or overcompensation for something else.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But when we're talking statistics, less than 100 people in this country die from burglary related homicides. Even less from strangers. You're as likely to die from a bee sting as you are from a random home intruder. I don't think you leave the house in a beekeepers suit.

My day job is risk management, and this is precisely why I struggle so much with most of the reasons given to justify gun ownership in the US. If there's a 0.025% chance that the rifle I have at home would be used to defend my family against an intruder vs a 0.05% chance that my kid would accidentally shoot themselves with it, I mean.... There are actual numbers out there, it's possible to determine the likelihood of some of these events happening.

The only one I buy is post-Katrina type situations in certain areas, based on the god awful job the US government has done there in recent history, and it's an argument for improvement in the US government's crisis response rather than it is for arming your citizens to defend their families & homes with their lives.

[JPhillips]

It reminds me of my wife's problems with OCD. I wonder if there's a corresponding belief that if I don't have guns I'll be attacked.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

please don't try to suggest that I'm being hysterical or that I believe that gun owners are on the verge of armed revolt.

I'm now at the point where I have literally no idea what you are even trying to say. I'm not playing a gotcha game here, I just have no idea. Here's your words:

Originally Posted by thesloppy

do I personally consider collective GOP gun owners a tyrannical threat? No,

And earlier, talking about the same group of people:

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Tyranny seems just as likely to spring out of that environment than be held back by it, to my eyes.

I don't know how to read these statements as anything other than flatly contradictory to each other. Of course it's very possible that one or both don't fully reflect your point of view; certainly it's very easy to mis-state or be misunderstood in an online forum. But lacking some sort of clarification I don't think there's any way for me to respond intelligently.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't know how to read these statements as anything other than flatly contradictory to each other. Of course it's very possible that one or both don't fully reflect your point of view; certainly it's very easy to mis-state or be misunderstood in an online forum. But lacking some sort of clarification I don't think there's any way for me to respond intelligently.

Let me try and state it as clearly as possible: I don't believe that American gun owners are serving to actively prevent government oppression AT ALL. I consider the threat of US government oppression requiring armed revolt so remote that I think the division of gun ownership strictly along political lines is actually a more realistic threat to American standards, political procedure & lives....but that doesn't necessarily mean I expect that threat to be realized in any way. A likelihood of .0005 % is infinitely more than zero, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm expecting the first result to happen.

And again, just to put a fine point on it, I relayed that my dad shot & killed himself, my cousin was shot & killed by a co-worker, and my friend cleaned student brains off the wall of the Roseburg massacre, and your response is to go out of your way to repeatedly misunderstand me, question my intelligence, sincerity and understanding of the stakes, force me to fully qualify everything I say AND disbelieve me when I try to do so??

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you're stashing guns around the house, you sound like someone who does have considerable fear of a home invasion. That's not a bad thing, we all have our own fears.

House fires kill thousands a year (along with pets) and cost untold monetary damage to property. Most people are willing to buy a few smoke alarms and fire extinguishers to combat this. But most won't spend over $10,000 to install a sprinkler system in their home despite that risk. They don't install fire resistant doors.

Automobile deaths are around 37,000 I believe. A seat belt doesn't take much effort to put on and comes with the car. But most people don't install aftermarket cages and expensive harnesses for protection. They don't put on fire suits either.

But when we're talking statistics, less than 100 people in this country die from burglary related homicides. Even less from strangers. You're as likely to die from a bee sting as you are from a random home intruder. I don't think you leave the house in a beekeepers suit.

Perhaps you do go those extra lengths I mentioned to protect yourself and your family from more dangerous things in this world. But it feels more like an irrational fear of a home invasion or overcompensation for something else.

I object to the phrasing of "stashing guns". They are securely and covertly placed. They aren't accidentally falling out. I truly have no fear of a home invasion. Never think about it. But I prepare for it.

I think your examples are over the top in comparison. I dont have vault doors on my home, 8 position cameras or escape tunnels I simple have protection tools. Tools all total cost me ~2% of my annual income and have a life expectancy of multiples of my life expectancy and escalate in value. Its an inconsequential discussion.

Originally Posted by digamma

This is the second time in this thread you've tried to co-opt gun ownership as some sort of sign of something else, or lack of a gun as a veiled insult. The first was equating gun ownership to patriotism--insinuating that if you don't carry, you're not a real patriot. Now it's even worse, with an insinuation that if you don't carry, you're not a real man.

Stop.

Lets re-visit what I said:

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think it's the responsibility of husbands and fathers to protect their family. I believe in self accountability and personal responsibility. I take responsibility for my family's and my safety. I don't rely on others (police) or depend on them.

In everything I've ever set my mind to I've succeeded, and my mind is set on protecting mine. I don't do half ass.

Stated another way. I think it is the responsibility of myself and every husband and father to protect their family. I take that responsibility to mean I will do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure I accomplish that task. I respect that others are free to assess their personal risk tolerance, their means, their abilities and their environments and are free to reach their own conclusions. Even if they differ from mine. That said, if you dont feel the need to arm yourself and something happens to your family, however minuscule that chance may be, I personally will judge you as the failure. That doesnt have to mean a gun, maybe you are a trained fighter and can protect your family against any threat with your bare hands. Maybe you have carefully selected to live in an environment 100% free from any danger. All of those are "acceptable" defenses...or frankly maybe you are just very lucky. Your practices arent questioned until results dictate.

Now I dont expect you to give two shits about what I think of you, just like I dont give two shits what you think about me. But this is a discussion forum and I am discussing my beliefs.I have stated what I feel, for me, and explained WHY I take the actions that I take. My stance is that as the Father and Husband of my household that my family depends on me to defend them at all costs and that is how I choose to do so. If you choose to extrapolate that as a judgement on your (lack of) preparation and action then that is on you.

You have hurled insults at me in this thread. Not once have I directed any at you.

We are both strong and impassioned in our beliefs. We both know where each other stands. I continue to engage the discussion, despite being in the vast minority in this community, in hopes of hearing something that makes me stop and ponder and to hopefully offer the same occasionally.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Let me try and state it as clearly as possible: I don't believe that American gun owners are serving to actively prevent government oppression AT ALL.

FYI - I dont either.

I dont think anyone in Washington thinks, if it werent for those guns we would just swoop in and take XYZ away...but those darn pesky gun owners keep us at bay. That would be prevention and I agree that isnt happeneing.

I do however think that gun ownership is important to defend in the event that at some point in the future that does happen. Not to prevent, but to oppose.

[digamma]

You have hurled insults at me in this thread. Not once have I directed any at you.

I think you may have mistaken me for someone else in this thread.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That said, if you dont feel the need to arm yourself and something happens to your family, however minuscule that chance may be, I personally will judge you as the failure.

Edit: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't aware of my history on this very issue.

[PilotMan]

Random thought

Why can't we get the axiom of "It's the few who ruin it for the many" as the reason for needing change in this country? It applies pretty much everywhere else and in all phases of life. It results in more constrictions but also results in an overall improvement regarding whatever it is.

Yet here it never does.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Random thought

Why can't we get the axiom of "It's the few who ruin it for the many" as the reason for needing change in this country? It applies pretty much everywhere else and in all phases of life. It results in more constrictions but also results in an overall improvement regarding whatever it is.

Yet here it never does.

My company has a very liberal work from home policy. I WFH every Friday and have been able to also stay home so I can go to all of my daughter's regular checkups during the first year, be home for the cable guy showing up, getting my water heater replaced, etc. But I get my shit done both in the office and from home.

If there were people on my team who were WFH but slacking, you can be sure as shit that I'd be the one leading the charge to curb that abuse before the responsible telecommuter like myself loses that right.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

And again, just to put a fine point on it, I relayed that my dad shot & killed himself, my cousin was shot & killed by a co-worker, and my friend cleaned student brains off the wall of the Roseburg massacre, and your response is to go out of your way to repeatedly misunderstand me, question my intelligence, sincerity and understanding of the stakes, force me to fully qualify everything I say AND disbelieve me when I try to do so??

1. You mentioned the tragedies in your personal circle, and I left that alone. My reason for doing so is that I don't think there's anything useful I can say in that direction. You knew and cared about those people. What is there that I, a stranger on the internet that you only interact with through my postings here who never knew them, could say or write that would ever minimize or ease the pain of the losses you describe, for you or others who knew them? Nothing I can think of. I honestly thought and still do that for me, an opposer of your viewpoint in this debate, to comment on those event in any way would be far more likely to be taken as trying to capitalize or manipulate the emotions of personal tragedy. The phrase 'breathtakingly presumptous' comes to mind when I consider such an attempt. I hope I never become so arrogant or callous as to try to do such thing, and shame on me if I ever do so. Right or wrong, that was my approach to it.

2. I've now re-read all my responses to you to try to see things from your point of view. I have never once attacked your intelligence or gone out of my way to misunderstand you, etc. Nothing I've posted was a personal attack. I have aggressively criticized your arguments, but I've used language far more charitable than what you've used on those who disagree with you. The terms 'delusional', 'fucking loony', 'fever dream', making generalizations about all American gun owners(even though I'm not one), these things come from your posts, not from mine.

3. I operate under the assumption, which I don't apologize for, that everyone posting in here about these issues does so prepared for a rough-and-tumble dispassionate debate. Given the nature of this forum, that seems to me to be an essential basic.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think you may have mistaken me for someone else in this thread.

Edit: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't aware of my history on this very issue.

My apologies on both accounts. The first statement was directed at RainMaker.
On the second, I am not aware of any history.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Stated another way. I think it is the responsibility of myself and every husband and father to protect their family. I take that responsibility to mean I will do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure I accomplish that task. I respect that others are free to assess their personal risk tolerance, their means, their abilities and their environments and are free to reach their own conclusions. Even if they differ from mine. That said, if you dont feel the need to arm yourself and something happens to your family, however minuscule that chance may be, I personally will judge you as the failure. That doesnt have to mean a gun, maybe you are a trained fighter and can protect your family against any threat with your bare hands. Maybe you have carefully selected to live in an environment 100% free from any danger. All of those are "acceptable" defenses...or frankly maybe you are just very lucky. Your practices arent questioned until results dictate.

If statistically there is a higher likelihood of your family suffering an injury from your own guns than there is from an intruder, isn't it your responsibility as a husband and father to remove the guns from your home?

Good guy with a gun myth: Guns increase the risk of homicide, accidents, suicide.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Do you not think that this even being a consideration in any nation, let alone one that is otherwise considered one of the leading nations in the world, is indicative that there might just be a problem, and something needs to change?

I don’t see children needing armed guards in order to go to school in any other developed country.

Well, to be blunt, England has had a huge problem with massacres too. Public places, transportation and events instead of schools. For decades it has been an issue. Just last year there were 5 major attacks in UK, this is despite, as I understand it, basically eliminating the right to privacy in public places.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think it is the responsibility of myself and every husband and father to protect their family.

Just curious, why do you see the responsibility to protect a family a uniquely male responsibility?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

1. You mentioned the tragedies in your personal circle, and I left that alone. My reason for doing so is that I don't think there's anything useful I can say in that direction. You knew and cared about those people. What is there that I, a stranger on the internet that you only interact with through my postings here who never knew them, could say or write that would ever minimize or ease the pain of the losses you describe, for you or others who knew them? Nothing I can think of. I honestly thought and still do that for me, an opposer of your viewpoint in this debate, to comment on those event in any way would be far more likely to be taken as trying to capitalize or manipulate the emotions of personal tragedy. The phrase 'breathtakingly presumptous' comes to mind when I consider such an attempt. I hope I never become so arrogant or callous as to try to do such thing, and shame on me if I ever do so. Right or wrong, that was my approach to it.

2. I've now re-read all my responses to you to try to see things from your point of view. I have never once attacked your intelligence or gone out of my way to misunderstand you, etc. Nothing I've posted was a personal attack. I have aggressively criticized your arguments, but I've used language far more charitable than what you've used on those who disagree with you. The terms 'delusional', 'fucking loony', 'fever dream', making generalizations about all American gun owners(even though I'm not one), these things come from your posts, not from mine.

3. I operate under the assumption, which I don't apologize for, that everyone posting in here about these issues does so prepared for a rough-and-tumble dispassionate debate. Given the nature of this forum, that seems to me to be an essential basic.

*shrug* I don't know what to tell you man, you keep engaging with me, but you're actively avoiding any parts of my posts/replies that directly address the subject, asking for clarification, then ignoring those clarifications and the subject entirely in order to attack the qualifications or the quality of the argument instead. That's not dispassionate debate, it's trolling.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well, to be blunt, England has had a huge problem with massacres too. Public places, transportation and events instead of schools. For decades it has been an issue. Just last year there were 5 major attacks in UK, this is despite, as I understand it, basically eliminating the right to privacy in public places.

It’s not great to have five attacks in a year, although all of them were terror attacks rather, and not one of them was a gun attack which is the topic here. So a slight false equivalence there.

Back on topic, I believe, that there were at least (11 gun attacks) changed to 18 gun incidents in schools only in January alone in the US.
Kentucky shooting is 11th U.S. school attack of new year - CBC News | The National

So in a nation where guns are generally illegal other than for hunting/clay shooting, even the really bad guys don’t use them, and if they had have had guns, the tolls would undoubtedly have been much higher given the density of the public presence.

So thanks for pointing how effective gun control can be in eliminating mass shootings, and reducing fatalities in an attack in a public place (I accept it’s a very different beats in the US, but this was such a ridiculous false equivalence it deserved a slightly ridiculous reply)

Can we refocus on the topic now?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It’s not great to have five attacks in a year, although all of them were terror attacks rather, and not one of them was a gun attack which is the topic here. So a slight false equivalence there.

Back on topic, I believe, that there were at least 11 gun attacks in schools only in January alone in the US.
Kentucky shooting is 11th U.S. school attack of new year - CBC News | The National

So in a nation where guns are generally illegal other than for hunting/clay shooting, even the really bad guys don’t use them, and if they had have had guns, the tolls would undoubtedly have been much higher given the density of the public presence.

So thanks for pointing how effective gun control can be in eliminating mass shootings, and reducing fatalities in an attack in a public place (I accept it’s a very different beats in the US, but this was such a ridiculous false equivalence it deserved a slightly ridiculous reply)

Can we refocus on the topic now?

Opps, I took your comment on the need for armed people in schools as an attack on civil liberties. You are saying, why should there be armed people when just getting rid of guns is the solution?

If so, what I think is truly a false equivalence is saying what works in a nation of 53 million or 24 million in Australia is somehow directly related to a nation of 325 million. For example, the US has 737 people per 100,00 incarcerated, England: 148, Australia 125. So maybe there are a lot more things that need to be addressed before we can ever get to "just take the guns away and all will be good"

[whomario]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well, to be blunt, England has had a huge problem with massacres too. Public places, transportation and events instead of schools. For decades it has been an issue. Just last year there were 5 major attacks in UK, this is despite, as I understand it, basically eliminating the right to privacy in public places.

Yes, Europe is a favoured target for islamic extremists and has big issues keeping controll of this. But what exactly does that have to do with the price of butter with regard to the issue at hand ?

EDIT: I saw you responded while i was typing, so i cut come of my comments but left the above for context.

The issue here isn't the risk of being in public places or the ability (or inability) to protect them, no matter how desperately Trump and a portion of the american public (and people whose livelihood depends on people wanting guns) want exactly this to be the issue.

Heck: The issue shouldn't even have to be school shooting. As tragic as they are, they represent only a tiny percentage of Gun deaths. The issue ought to be that every year about 30000 people are killed or kill themselves with a Gun. Since 1968 more people have died on US soild due to Guns (homicide, accident or suicide) than US Soldiers have died fighting in all wars combined going back to the revolutionary war and including the Civil War and both WWs : More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writes | PunditFact

Within 2 years over this period more people will have died from guns in the US than did die in the entire Vietnam War.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Opps, I took your comment on the need for armed people in schools as an attack on civil liberties. You are saying, why should there be armed people when just getting rid of guns is the solution?

If so, what I think is truly a false equivalence is saying what works in a nation of 53 million or 24 million in Australia is somehow directly related to a nation of 325 million. For example, the US has 737 people per 100,00 incarcerated, England: 148, Australia 125. So maybe there are a lot more things that need to be addressed before we can ever get to "just take the guns away and all will be good"

Population numbers seem a weak argument when also accounting for the amount of "federalization" and considering that population density (much smaller in AUS, much bigger in UK/Europe as a whole) doesn't really seem to be the issue.

If you dig into it there isn't actually significantly more crime, violent or otherwise, in the US than in other developed countries (and why yes Donald, we get the same movies and Videogames, often with less restrictions even) and in many cases less crimes both violent and otherwise. The issue here might be that for some reason (paranoia seems a good bet) you have developed a culture/legal system resulting in a disproportionate number of both arrests and incarcerations relative to the number of crimes committed. Not that crime actually is a bigger problem.

In any case: Just because it wouldn't eliminate crime, wouldn't it be worthwhile to make sure that more crimes result in a headache or broken bone rather than landing the victim in a casket ? Or that more suicides fail rather than succeed, thus at least giving a chance of the person's environment (and of course the person itself) to react to this ?

I will link it again, since it pretty much lays the issue out perfectly: America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox



And yes, those numbers can be verified (with slight variations of course, as is the nature of these sort of overarching stats) elsewhere and per-capita stats show a similar picture.

Really the only difference is the homicide rate and it seems quite far-fetched to assume that americans are especially homicidal (yet not particularly more inclined to commit any other crime) or more deeply affected by all the same movies/video games and not that the convenient access to superior killing instruments plays the major role here. I mean, people have got to realize the connection eventually.

And again: The necessary goal isn't "No Guns" (Canada has a ton of Guns, as has Germany) the issue is the quantity, the easy access and the resulting attitude towards them being essentially nothing different than a fishing rod or a kitchen knive. Germany has a ton of guns, but you have to jump through a few hoops to get them and more importantly to sell them/manufacture them/trade with them.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Opps, I took your comment on the need for armed people in schools as an attack on civil liberties. You are saying, why should there be armed people when just getting rid of guns is the solution?

If so, what I think is truly a false equivalence is saying what works in a nation of 53 million or 24 million in Australia is somehow directly related to a nation of 325 million. For example, the US has 737 people per 100,00 incarcerated, England: 148, Australia 125. So maybe there are a lot more things that need to be addressed before we can ever get to "just take the guns away and all will be good"

You’re putting words into my mouth.

What I was responding to was the matter of factness of the statement that the most sensible solution was putting multiple armed guards in schools to protect children, and that this even being an option in other developed countries would be seen as a crazy idea.

It’s a sign that guns are a problem (not the only problem, but a problem) and form of gun control must be considered (control, not removal of all guns) as part of the solution (not the only part, but a part)

And I never brought UK/Australia into the argument, you did when you highlighted five terrorist attacks in the UK. UK isn’t that similar, I agree. Australia is more so having had gun control issues and measures in a frontier society, but I agree the scale is very different. However, even if you only had a percentage of the reduction in gun crime that Australia managed, that’s surely a good thing?

Some of the issues seem to be that while on defense (and I can see why a defensive position is being taken - the thread is in danger of becoming of what at primary school I would have called a pile-on), “gun control” seems to be being read as “remove all guns”, and that distorts a lot of the points that follow.

Hopefully my qualifiers will avoid any misunderstandings

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

you're actively avoiding any parts of my posts/replies that directly address the subject, asking for clarification, then ignoring those clarifications and the subject entirely in order to attack the qualifications or the quality of the argument instead.

I've directly addressed the subjects as best I know how, so I categorically deny this. I'll let others judge for themselves, and leave it here since it's obviously not productive to continue.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

If statistically there is a higher likelihood of your family suffering an injury from your own guns than there is from an intruder, isn't it your responsibility as a husband and father to remove the guns from your home?

Good guy with a gun myth: Guns increase the risk of homicide, accidents, suicide.

Because Im not a statistic. Im a living breathing human. My kids were taught about guns and how and when to access them from the time they could walk. They are never hidden in my house, they are never taboo. People who dont respect guns, and hie them from their kids account for 99% of all those stats.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Just curious, why do you see the responsibility to protect a family a uniquely male responsibility?

I feel like I am being baited here, but I'll take the bait and answer honestly.

Old fashioned. Biblical. Stronger Sex. Caveman. Call it what you will.
My wife hasnt worked since our kids were born. She has been a stay home mom. I work and financially provide for our family. She cleans and cooks. I do yard work. It works for us and why we are both breaking the cycle.

Bluntly I am 6'1 280lbs. My wife is 5'2 125lb. (Ok probably a few more as middle age has approached but I aint asking THAT question-lol) who is better equipped to protect?

I would rather die protecting her than see her get a bruise or a scratch.

For my way of belief that is the job of a male. Again, I dont ask you to feel that same, I am merely expressing what I feel and I believe.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by AlexB

It’s not great to have five attacks in a year, although all of them were terror attacks rather, and not one of them was a gun attack which is the topic here. So a slight false equivalence there.

Back on topic, I believe, that there were at least 11 gun attacks in schools only in January alone in the US.
Kentucky shooting is 11th U.S. school attack of new year - CBC News | The National

So in a nation where guns are generally illegal other than for hunting/clay shooting, even the really bad guys don’t use them, and if they had have had guns, the tolls would undoubtedly have been much higher given the density of the public presence.

So thanks for pointing how effective gun control can be in eliminating mass shootings, and reducing fatalities in an attack in a public place (I accept it’s a very different beats in the US, but this was such a ridiculous false equivalence it deserved a slightly ridiculous reply)

Can we refocus on the topic now?

Wrong

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Wrong

Amended 11 gun attacks to 18 gun incidents in the original post.

The rest of the post is unaffected as three gun attacks in schools in month is still more than zero gun attacks in a country in a year, but agree the facts should be described both correctly and with the additional 50% included

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I object to the phrasing of "stashing guns". They are securely and covertly placed. They aren't accidentally falling out. I truly have no fear of a home invasion. Never think about it. But I prepare for it.

I think your examples are over the top in comparison. I dont have vault doors on my home, 8 position cameras or escape tunnels I simple have protection tools. Tools all total cost me ~2% of my annual income and have a life expectancy of multiples of my life expectancy and escalate in value. Its an inconsequential discussion.

I didn't mean stashing in a negative manner. I'm sure they are secured properly.

Every safety measure is done out of fear. There is nothing wrong with that. We put our seat belts on because we fear being plastered across the pavement in an accident. I have a smoke alarm because I fear dying in a fire while I'm asleep. Pretending you are immune to fear is just silly.

As for the examples, they aren't over the top. You are thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident. You are hundreds of times more likely to die in a house fire. If safety is really the big motivation here, wouldn't it make sense to invest substantially more money into those areas where there is a higher risk of death?

[digamma]

Just to be clear here, tarcone's, ahem, Ben Shapiro's issue here is with what is being counted as a school shooting, not with the data collection. Everytown has been clear that their definition of a school shooting includes any time a firearm discharges a live round inside or into a school building or on a school grounds. They revised their initial account because of an erroneous press report regarding the status of the school (the school had been shuttered and wasn't going to re-open (so their count through February was 17 instead of 18 I believe).

A few points here:

-as Shapiro points out, one school shooting is too many. I'd argue we should be talking about how to prevent them rather than what counts as one.
-about 20% of school shootings/gun incidents are unintentional discharge of a weapon.
-school shootings and mass shootings in particular remain rare, and we obviously see them increase when there are more guns (i.e., teachers with guns) in a school setting.

[RainMaker]

And I'd add to CU Tiger that I don't care that he has guns. He isn't the kind of person who is going to use them in a negative manner (felon, disturbed teen/young adult). So I'm fine with him owning as many as he wants.

I am more talking about the perception that home invasions are common in this country or something we need to be really concerned about. There is the occasional story that grabs national headlines, but they're incredibly rare and I think if safety is really my concern there are so many other areas I'd want to address before I got to that.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by digamma

Just to be clear here, tarcone's, ahem, Ben Shapiro's issue here is with what is being counted as a school shooting, not with the data collection. Everytown has been clear that their definition of a school shooting includes any time a firearm discharges a live round inside or into a school building or on a school grounds. They revised their initial account because of an erroneous press report regarding the status of the school (the school had been shuttered and wasn't going to re-open (so their count through February was 17 instead of 18 I believe).

A few points here:

-as Shapiro points out, one school shooting is too many. I'd argue we should be talking about how to prevent them rather than what counts as one.
-about 20% of school shootings/gun incidents are unintentional discharge of a weapon.
-school shootings and mass shootings in particular remain rare, and we obviously see them increase when there are more guns (i.e., teachers with guns) in a school setting.

I don’t know who Ben Shapiro is, which side he leans, but it doesn’t matter to the context - it seems to me that there is not much addressing of the crucial parts of posts in this thread, just throwing up objections to avoid the crux of the debate.

So if the objection was the number of shootings I referred to, cool, let’s agree on their definition of that number, it’s not important to the essence of the post.

Now we’ve removed the objection, maybe we can address the rest of the issue, which is the meat and bones.

[AlexB]

Dola, I’m exempting CU Tiger specifically from the above - he very much addresses the essence of the debate.

I’m finding his posts genuinely interesting and educational in this thread (without any of the real aggression I remember from previous similar threads), but also slightly depressing at the same time that these are real fears/issues that people feel the need to consider in what is considered a free and developed civilisation.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I feel like I am being baited here, but I'll take the bait and answer honestly.

Old fashioned. Biblical. Stronger Sex. Caveman. Call it what you will.
My wife hasnt worked since our kids were born. She has been a stay home mom. I work and financially provide for our family. She cleans and cooks. I do yard work. It works for us and why we are both breaking the cycle.

Bluntly I am 6'1 280lbs. My wife is 5'2 125lb. (Ok probably a few more as middle age has approached but I aint asking THAT question-lol) who is better equipped to protect?

I would rather die protecting her than see her get a bruise or a scratch.

For my way of belief that is the job of a male. Again, I dont ask you to feel that same, I am merely expressing what I feel and I believe.

Ok, thanks. The word “protecting” got me. When I think of protecting the young I think of mama bears, etc.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by whomario

Heck: The issue shouldn't even have to be school shooting. As tragic as they are, they represent only a tiny percentage of Gun deaths. The issue ought to be that every year about 30000 people are killed or kill themselves with a Gun. Since 1968 more people have died on US soild due to Guns (homicide, accident or suicide) than US Soldiers have died fighting in all wars combined going back to the revolutionary war and including the Civil War and both WWs : More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writes | PunditFact

Within 2 years over this period more people will have died from guns in the US than did die in the entire Vietnam War.

Well this is where the population argument needs to give these stats some context. Many developed no-gun countries have higher suicide rate like Japan and Sweden.
I’m no fan of guns. However, we have very violent government. In order for the gun culture to change the fundamental being of US government needs to changed- through voting I guess.
The country with by far the largest military has a violence problem. The country who uses its military unilaterally has a violence problem. And the government the locks up more people than #2 Russia and #3 China combined has a violence problem.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Now we’ve removed the objection, maybe we can address the rest of the issue, which is the meat and bones.

Is the proposed debate whether we should have "armed guards for schools" or "more gun control (but not elimination)" or "statistically there is not that many violent home invasions and therefore having a weapons to protect a home is not a good reason".

The recent pages have talked about all 3 so want to be sure to know if I should agree or not.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well this is where the population argument needs to give these stats some context. Many developed no-gun countries have higher suicide rate like Japan and Sweden.
I’m no fan of guns. However, we have very violent government. In order for the gun culture to change the fundamental being of US government needs to changed- through voting I guess.
The country with by far the largest military has a violence problem. The country who uses its military unilaterally has a violence problem. And the government the locks up more people than #2 Russia and #3 China combined has a violence problem.

And somewhere down this rabbit hole is the nature vs nurture debate.

I find it interesting that America, as it is currently constructed, is one of (if not the) last nations organized of a new people. Of course the Native Americans were here for centuries, if not millennia, but the settlers who came from Europe were by nature a "different breed" who literally risked everything getting into a boat and heading to the great unknown in search of a better life. That takes a special make up. Not all have it. Thats neither good nor bad, just notably different. Then you have westward expansion and the law of the gun culture. Its undeniable that those willing to be aggressive survived far better than those who were not. It was Darwinism at play in the human game. The result is that those that survived were an aggressive breed of a select daring sub sample.

I'm not excusing the behavior or absolving the responsibility for the actions. But its a thought thats always intrigued me.

[muns]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Dola, I’m exempting CU Tiger specifically from the above - he very much addresses the essence of the debate.

I’m finding his posts genuinely interesting and educational in this thread (without any of the real aggression I remember from previous similar threads), but also slightly depressing at the same time that these are real fears/issues that people feel the need to consider in what is considered a free and developed civilisation.

Free and developed civilization here can be debated and can be subjective which in my mind is a shame

I live in Baltimore City- about a mile from the mall that was looted a few years ago and about 1.5-1.8 depending on the route you take to the CVS that burnt down.

While I wont get into that whole debacle, I will say that I live in a nice neighborhood, but we are too close to main access roads. I routinely have drug deals on the side of my house, had to call the cops to take possession of crack rocks that they were hiding in my bushes this past summer, and the amount of prostitution that goes on is mind blowing. I have literally walked out to someone giving a blowjob on the hood of a car on the side of my house.

While I don't have any children, I do feel the need to have a shotgun in the house because I have no idea who is on the side of my house on the regular, and constantly wonder if someone is going to try to come in. It takes the police 30-55 mins to show up when you call for anything in my city. The gun makes me feel better about what might happen if someone would try to come into the house when me or my fiancé are there. We cant count on anything but ourselves, our big dog, and our neighbors so the gun for us is necessary even though we would much rather be without it.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is the proposed debate whether we should have "armed guards for schools" or "more gun control (but not elimination)" or "statistically there is not that many violent home invasions and therefore having a weapons to protect a home is not a good reason".

The recent pages have talked about all 3 so want to be sure to know if I should agree or not.

Somewhere between between the first two. My question boils down to:

Is the US OK with considering having to protect children with more armed guards so that they can get to school safely, rather than stop and think that maybe this is is a sign that things are getting out of hand, and some form of restricting access to weaponry would benefit the country as a whole.

From your post a few pages ago I think you might be in agreement with the latter (not necessarily taking guns away, but taking more steps to ensure that they are used safely - my own personal opinion is that in an ideal world there would be no guns outside of people in the wilderness and for hunting/rifle ranges, but I’m fully aware that possibility is long gone) as that was the most encouraging post of the thread for me

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Somewhere between between the first two. My question boils down to:

Is the US OK with considering having to protect children with more armed guards so that they can get to school safely, rather than stop and think that maybe this is is a sign that things are getting out of hand, and some form of restricting access to weaponry would benefit the country as a whole.

I think it is a mistake to frame this as an either/or decision. Just look at state and local guns laws.

Sorry, but I gotta ask: when dealing with the IRA bombings wasn't the UK approach both repressive and harsh while also trying to achieve lasting stability?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think it is a mistake to frame this as an either/or decision. Just look at state and local guns laws.

Sorry, but I gotta ask: when dealing with the IRA bombings wasn't the UK approach both repressive and harsh while also trying to achieve lasting stability?

Agree short term measures may have to be taken that are unpalatable, and a multi pronged approached is needed to work - the difference is that there seems to be no intention or will to address the control side, only arm more people, so nothing will change, and things will get worse.

The founding fathers didn’t have problems with kids shooting up schools when they wrote the 2A - times, society, technology and the situation have changed.

Again, I find the comparison to a the IRA a bit of a false equivalence - they were either terrorists or freedom fighters depending on your viewpoint. But regardless, bombs and guns were very much illegal for everybody.

[whomario]

Laws are subject to change, there really is no reason why ammendments can't be adjusted to the realities of modern lives just the same.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think it is a mistake to frame this as an either/or decision. Just look at state and local guns laws.

Sorry, but I gotta ask: when dealing with the IRA bombings wasn't the UK approach both repressive and harsh while also trying to achieve lasting stability?

No offense, but this just isn't a sensible comparison.

That whole situation not only was a territorial conflict with religious overtones, it also lasted at least 30 years, maybe 40 (pending how you count) with lulls and high activity times, constituting a sort of guerilla war between 3 major factions. Or 2 opposed paramilitary and then Government forces with a whole lot of gray areas and different organisations leading the charge at different times. I really haven't studied the conflict much, but from what little i know i think you'd be hard pressed to find a coherent response to it.
To call it "the IRA bombings" is extremely simplifying the matter as well. It's like calling WW2 "that war where the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and then we kicked their ass for it".

And even if you'd do that and make it into a "Government vs Bombers" discussion with regard to the response: It is apples and oranges again, comparing policy against a politically motivated terrorist organisation versus "random" acts of violence aided by the USs specifics with regards to weapons availability.

And at the risk of sounding harsh: I am not so sure a lot of people aren't secretly "happy" to have the discussion now revolve pretty much entirely around schools as targets. It just dumbs down the situation to a graspable level and seemingly gives an "out" without having to stepping on the toes of the people that matter to the current administration: Fight fire with fire.

It's the same psychology leading to attacks on video games or movies/TV as the reason behind violence. Every developed country has schools, pissed off and bulied students (and former students, or co-workers or crime) and every developed country has pretty much the same video games and movies/TV.

And the schools in most countries (i know of) aren't nearly as well guarded/controlled as the USs already were and most countries i know of have more lenient rules with regards to violence in media and access to it than the US.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by muns

Free and developed civilization here can be debated and can be subjective which in my mind is a shame

I live in Baltimore City- about a mile from the mall that was looted a few years ago and about 1.5-1.8 depending on the route you take to the CVS that burnt down.

While I wont get into that whole debacle, I will say that I live in a nice neighborhood, but we are too close to main access roads. I routinely have drug deals on the side of my house, had to call the cops to take possession of crack rocks that they were hiding in my bushes this past summer, and the amount of prostitution that goes on is mind blowing. I have literally walked out to someone giving a blowjob on the hood of a car on the side of my house.

While I don't have any children, I do feel the need to have a shotgun in the house because I have no idea who is on the side of my house on the regular, and constantly wonder if someone is going to try to come in. It takes the police 30-55 mins to show up when you call for anything in my city. The gun makes me feel better about what might happen if someone would try to come into the house when me or my fiancé are there. We cant count on anything but ourselves, our big dog, and our neighbors so the gun for us is necessary even though we would much rather be without it.

I have been to Baltimore, about 20 years ago now so I’m sure its changed, but I was basically forced by the hotel to take a taxi from my hotel to the Memorial Stadium rather than walk, which was my plan. Best advice I think I ever had!

In situations like this I can 100% see the need for a weapon as protection. However, and this is not a criticism of you, it’s another example of more guns to counter violence and gun issues.

There appears to be no strategy, or even will, to address the bigger issues and at least try to change society so that you don’t feel the need to arm yourself to protect your family.

That surely has to be a better aim for everybody - improve the lives and prospects of the poorest and improve the safety of the community in doing so.

As alluded to above, guns are not the only problem, but they are a symptom and part of the issues, and it seems to me that this cannot or will not be accepted by many even as a possibility

[whomario]

Originally Posted by AlexB

As alluded to above, guns are not the only problem, but they are a symptom and part of the issues, and it seems to me that this cannot or will not be accepted by many even as a possibility

I mean, it is the same on a macro level: With the US it's always an arms race and no coincidence that the US is as much an outlier when it comes to military spending or the amount of nuclear weapons. There is no situation conceivable where you'd ever need 7000 of them, but since Russia has about that many ... And the response du jour is trying to bully other countries into spending more on weaponry and "defense" as if that would solve anything.

The difference here is that Guns don't really serve the same purpose of being in support of the fight against an(y) enemy, so you make a mental leap well documented in here.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And somewhere down this rabbit hole is the nature vs nurture debate.

I find it interesting that America, as it is currently constructed, is one of (if not the) last nations organized of a new people. Of course the Native Americans were here for centuries, if not millennia, but the settlers who came from Europe were by nature a "different breed" who literally risked everything getting into a boat and heading to the great unknown in search of a better life. That takes a special make up. Not all have it. Thats neither good nor bad, just notably different. Then you have westward expansion and the law of the gun culture. Its undeniable that those willing to be aggressive survived far better than those who were not. It was Darwinism at play in the human game. The result is that those that survived were an aggressive breed of a select daring sub sample.

I'm not excusing the behavior or absolving the responsibility for the actions. But its a thought thats always intrigued me.

That sort of ignores that Canada has a very similar history, has a harsher climate and geography, but nowhere near as aggressive a culture (guns or otherwise).

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

That sort of ignores that Canada has a very similar history, has a harsher climate and geography, but nowhere near as aggressive a culture (guns or otherwise).

Also NZ and Australia are even lower than Canada, the homicide rate there is just about 20-25% of the US. And like half the animals in Australia can kill you and both not only started off with violent encounters with the native inhabitants but had their own frontier in terms of expanding settlement into remote areas.

(yes, yes, Australia started off at the very start with a bunch of people sent their against their will. But since they were criminals, i am calling this even in terms of "likelihood to result in violent offspring").

You can literally play a "3 degrees of" type game with all these arguments and in the end the only tangible difference between the US and whatever country also fits that argument still is the number of Guns and the lack of regulation for selling and owning (and the resulting nonchalance in their classification as utterly normal every-day tools for everybody).

And i'll say it again: By any statistic available there isn't noticeably more crime, violent or otherwise, in the US than other developed countries. Just more people murdered by Guns.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Somewhere between between the first two. My question boils down to:

Is the US OK with considering having to protect children with more armed guards so that they can get to school safely, rather than stop and think that maybe this is is a sign that things are getting out of hand, and some form of restricting access to weaponry would benefit the country as a whole.

From your post a few pages ago I think you might be in agreement with the latter (not necessarily taking guns away, but taking more steps to ensure that they are used safely - my own personal opinion is that in an ideal world there would be no guns outside of people in the wilderness and for hunting/rifle ranges, but I’m fully aware that possibility is long gone) as that was the most encouraging post of the thread for me

I am for more reasonable gun control, devil is in the details but in concept, absolutely.

On guards for schools ... I'm okay with a police officer patrolling school grounds. In my area, the elementary and middle school are literally side by side and there is one guard that patrols both.

Do we need multiple guards? Not sure but if the school district can afford it, why not?

Do we want select teachers trained to carry weapons? After speaking with my wife who is a teacher, I don't think its in many teacher's DNA to do this and definitely not packing all the time (e.g. concealed carry).

However, if there are school administrators or teachers who are so inclined to be the last line of defense, and the weapons are securely locked somewhere (e.g. principal's office) to be used in an incident, I would support it.

On the broader question as to whether this is a sign of our messed up society, absolutely.

There was a post earlier on what other developed countries have guards at schools and found this link.

Global school security measures vary, but no arming teachers - ABC News

[whomario]

So everybody, instead of locking the doors and staying with the terrified kids now runs like hell to the principals office, loads their gun and then runs back ? All the while not having a real clue where the perpetrator is (many schools are big enough for that) ? Stop with these weird supposed safety measures for an inherently unsafe idea.

Meanwhile:

Seaside teacher, councilman and reserve officer accidentally discharges weapon in gun safety demonstration. | News | montereycountyweekly.com

Yeah, no pitfalls with this idea.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

So everybody, instead of locking the doors and staying with the terrified kids now runs like hell to the principals office, loads their gun and then runs back ? All the while not having a real clue where the perpetrator is (many schools are big enough for that) ? Stop with these weird supposed safety measures for an inherently unsafe idea.

Meanwhile:

Seaside teacher, councilman and reserve officer accidentally discharges weapon in gun safety demonstration. | News | montereycountyweekly.com

Yeah, no pitfalls with this idea.

Yup, I like your most likely scenario ...

But no. I'm sure procedures can be put in place and training to coordinate with law enforcement.

I would like to think teachers know to lock their doors and protect kids first vs running into principals office. They have already been trained to do that.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I am for more reasonable gun control, devil is in the details but in concept, absolutely.

On guards for schools ... I'm okay with a police officer patrolling school grounds. In my area, the elementary and middle school are literally side by side and there is one guard that patrols both.

Local police forces are already paying out overtime to deal with simply patrolling and responding. Putting the burden to patrol schools frequently enough to make a visible difference will significantly increase costs for them, and remove them as resources from other areas in local neighborhoods. Funding would be needed and a lot of it, for it to make a legit difference.

Do we need multiple guards? Not sure but if the school district can afford it, why not?

I don't know about how many actually can. In the Cincinnati/NKY area our public school district budgets are continually shrinking despite a wider and wider tax base in NKY. So much that the kids only have 6 classes now, and 1 of them is basically study hall. 25 years ago, it was 7 or 8. Teachers haven't had a raise in 10 years and the governor it looking to shut down pensions for the teachers. New teachers aren't coming into the area and the ones that are here deal with more and more. I can only assume that this is similar across the country. Average class size is approaching and in many cases over 30 per teacher. The West Virginia teachers got a 5% raise, and the governor said that this would result in steep cuts to other social services. School districts cannot afford it, where I can see at least.

Do we want select teachers trained to carry weapons? After speaking with my wife who is a teacher, I don't think its in many teacher's DNA to do this and definitely not packing all the time (e.g. concealed carry).

However, if there are school administrators or teachers who are so inclined to be the last line of defense, and the weapons are securely locked somewhere (e.g. principal's office) to be used in an incident, I would support it.

You just can't allow teachers who are qualified to C&C to carry in schools. That's the absolute lowest bar, and it's a terrible concept. For pilots who are allowed to carry, they have to travel to another state, be trained by Federal officers, undergo repeat training yearly, and be subjected to very strict rules about where it is, where you are, and how and when you handle it. Pilots who are so inclined can choose this path, and if you create a similar program for teachers it might work, but simply turning on a switch that all legal to C&C teachers can now carry is ludicrous.

All this would be at teachers expense too. If you think that the government should pay for it, then you're looking at another massive government agency, or add on to another agency, that would be responsible for a few hundred thousand armed teachers.

On the broader question as to whether this is a sign of our messed up society, absolutely.

There was a post earlier on what other developed countries have guards at schools and found this link.

Global school security measures vary, but no arming teachers - ABC News

My Fox News buddies have trotted out the meme about Israeli teachers being armed and the result is all the kids are safe forever. I found this interesting from that article.

"He said the small number of teachers who have a legal gun license and usually carry a weapon can do so as well in school, but that this is not policy or encouraged. "Teachers here aren't supposed to be carrying weapons in classrooms, teachers are supposed to teach," he said."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You just can't allow teachers who are qualified to C&C to carry in schools. That's the absolute lowest bar, and it's a terrible concept. For pilots who are allowed to carry, they have to travel to another state, be trained by Federal officers, undergo repeat training yearly, and be subjected to very strict rules about where it is, where you are, and how and when you handle it. Pilots who are so inclined can choose this path, and if you create a similar program for teachers it might work, but simply turning on a switch that all legal to C&C teachers can now carry is ludicrous.

I wasn't implying teachers/admin who are C&C carry in school.

I was saying no one should be "carrying" in school, the weapons should be locked up and used as a last line of defense by trained admin/teachers (who are so inclined) if there is an incident.

[whomario]

A Last line of defense is not effective if it is stored on the other side of campus.

“hey orcs, could you wait while we leave the castle to get our arrows ? Love, elves.“

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

A Last line of defense is not effective if it is stored on the other side of campus.

“hey orcs, could you wait while we leave the castle to get our arrows ? Love, elves.“

I guess its a possibility that there are no trained admin/teachers close by the secured storage. But if there were, I think better than nothing.