Classy Jack thompson strikes again.

It's interesting that no one mentiones the mall shooting that took place in Salt Lake City 2 months ago where an off duty cop shot the would-be mass murderer before he had the chance to off 33 people.

If anything, this tradgedy should remind everyone that the police cannot protect you. Their job is basically to clean up and investigate a crime after it has already happened.

Unless there is an armed police guard in every room and building you enter in daily life, you are at the mery of some nut case with a weapon. Until right to carry laws are enacted in every state, this will continue to happen.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's interesting that no one mentiones the mall shooting that took place in Salt Lake City 2 months ago where an off duty cop shot the would-be mass murderer before he had the chance to off 33 people.

If anything, this tradgedy should remind everyone that the police cannot protect you. Their job is basically to clean up and investigate a crime after it has already happened.

Unless there is an armed police guard in every room and building you enter in daily life, you are at the mery of some nut case with a weapon. Until right to carry laws are enacted in every state, this will continue to happen.[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, of course, right to carry laws will carry alongside it a remarkable increase in accidental shootings. Will the increased loss of innocent life by accident be smaller or larger than the decreased loss of innocent life on purpose?

I'm waiting to hear about the methods he used to fire over one hundred rounds - reloading two weapons, and one, a Glock 19, only features a 15-round clip. It's purely speculation, but it's entirely possible that he was able to buy a larger than usual clip in order to reload fewer times. The same extended clips that were illegal until the time expiration of Clinton's assault weapons ban. It's merely a theory, and I'll withhold judgment, but it's certainly a possibility.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']On the other hand, of course, right to carry laws will carry alongside it a remarkable increase in accidental shootings. Will the increased loss of innocent life by accident be smaller or larger than the decreased loss of innocent life on purpose?[/quote]

Really, you'd think we were a nation of Three (Hundred Million) Stooges. :p

We license folks to purchase and carry weapons. Concealed Carriers will have undergone a great deal of responsibility training. In that same vein, we license most everyone to drive cars, in their own ways much more complicated pieces of equipment and much more deadly. I don't think blood will run in the streets.

I'm waiting to hear about the methods he used to fire over one hundred rounds - reloading two weapons, and one, a Glock 19, only features a 15-round clip. It's purely speculation, but it's entirely possible that he was able to buy a larger than usual clip in order to reload fewer times. The same extended clips that were illegal until the time expiration of Clinton's assault weapons ban. It's merely a theory, and I'll withhold judgment, but it's certainly a possibility.
Click to expand...

He didn't. I cannot find the links, but police reports show he didn't use extended magazines.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Really, you'd think we were a nation of Three (Hundred Million) Stooges. :p

We license folks to purchase and carry weapons. Concealed Carriers will have undergone a great deal of responsibility training. In that same vein, we license most everyone to drive cars, in their own ways much more complicated pieces of equipment and much more deadly. I don't think blood will run in the streets.[/quote]

I didn't say blood would run in the streets. I would say that conceal and carry laws would increase the number of guns owned and the number of guns in certain public locations. Naturally, the number of shooting deaths, both intentional and accidental, would increase. My question is merely would the inevitable increase in accidental deaths outweigh the number of lives saved by conceal and carry laws?

Besides, licensing doesn't make for mature or responsible drivers. Go get in your car for ten minutes in order to verify that claim. Nevertheless, I appreciate the analogy, but that doesn't change that (1) accidental shooting deaths occur each and every year, and (2) surely those people who purchased the guns in those households where those shootings happen did (and perhaps still do) consider themselves responsible gun owners.

You're taking a reasonable question of mine and blowing it out of proportion to make it seem like I'm predicting rampant bloodshed. I'm not saying that.

He didn't. I cannot find the links, but police reports show he didn't use extended magazines.
Click to expand...

I see. If you can find any links, please provide them. I find it surprising that he was able to reload so many times without being encountered - reloading takes time, particularly with the Glock 19, and that made him rather vulnerable. Would it not?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I didn't say blood would run in the streets. I would say that conceal and carry laws would increase the number of guns owned and the number of guns in certain public locations. Naturally, the number of shooting deaths, both intentional and accidental, would increase. My question is merely would the inevitable increase in accidental deaths outweigh the number of lives saved by conceal and carry laws?[/quote]
If that's the sole measure of effectiveness, though, then we'd need to ban a whole lot of stuff people can accidently off themselves with that wouldn't save many lives. One would have to factor in the number of crimes averted without force by a firearm's presence, just for starters...

Besides, licensing doesn't make for mature or responsible drivers. Go get in your car for ten minutes in order to verify that claim. Nevertheless, I appreciate the analogy, but that doesn't change that (1) accidental shooting deaths occur each and every year, and (2) surely those people who purchased the guns in those households where those shootings happen did (and perhaps still do) consider themselves responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...
I think the analogy stands at least in that we cannot base policy around accidents, or we'd be pulling drivers licenses right and left. Furthermore, properly trained individuals should be able to produce fewer accidents per capita than similarly trained motorists.

You're taking a reasonable question of mine and blowing it out of proportion to make it seem like I'm predicting rampant bloodshed. I'm not saying that.
Click to expand...
You mentioned a 'remarkable' increase in firearms related accidents; that sounds like a dire prediction to me.



I see. If you can find any links, please provide them. I find it surprising that he was able to reload so many times without being encountered - reloading takes time, particularly with the Glock 19, and that made him rather vulnerable. Would it not?
Click to expand...
I can find blogs citing police reports to which I cannot find direct links. I'll keep my eyes out.

Really though, he was able to order people to line up to be shot execution style. Many classrooms did not go through what would have been the relatively easy task of barricading their doors with desks. The students were paralyzed with fear. I'd say he had all the time he needed, especially if he was shooting into rooms and reloading while in the halls.
 
I'm suprised that Myke would make such a bold assumption of increased handgun deaths in areas with right to carry laws. I would have thought he would be prone to look at, at least, some data before making such a statement.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not necessarily mean that more people are going to die. If you made the same assumption of more guns in the hands of crazy mindfucks and criminals, I would wholeheartedly agree without actually having to find the evidence.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned or even if it's the right place (maybe it needs its own thread?) but the search warrant turned up ZERO video games in the shooter's possession. Not even an NES in the closet or something. They did find a computer so maybe he had stuff on there but it's not clear yet. This would be very interesting if it ends up being true because even I would have bet that they'd find something... not many 23 year old males don't have at least something...

http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Trying to tell us something Mr. Hutz?

:lol:[/quote]

yeah, I know... it was on Digg - not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Not sure if this has been mentioned or even if it's the right place (maybe it needs its own thread?) but the search warrant turned up ZERO video games in the shooter's possession. Not even an NES in the closet or something. They did find a computer so maybe he had stuff on there but it's not clear yet. This would be very interesting if it ends up being true because even I would have bet that they'd find something... not many 23 year old males don't have at least something...

http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html[/quote]
Awesome. Take that Jack.

Yeah it'll be interesting to see what the computer turns up. It'd be hilarious if there was not one game on it. I wonder if we'll see some backpeddling from all the anti-gaming "experts".

I really hope they are unable to legitimately make any ties to video games. Not that it would change general opinion or anything... Eh, people would probably just say he was an "exception" or something.
 
i just saw on the news that they are saying that a bunch of the pictures that the shooter took were very similar to the Korean movie "Oldboy" and that he was watching it over and over again in the days before the massacre.

I wonder how JT is gonna spin it now.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm suprised that Myke would make such a bold assumption of increased handgun deaths in areas with right to carry laws. I would have thought he would be prone to look at, at least, some data before making such a statement.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not necessarily mean that more people are going to die. If you made the same assumption of more guns in the hands of crazy mindfucks and criminals, I would wholeheartedly agree without actually having to find the evidence.[/QUOTE]

20 years ago, the American Journal of Public Health featured a study that documented four-year trends in accidental shootings. I've copied the abstract below.

Morrow, Paul L., and Page Hinson. 1986. "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in North Carolina, 1976-80." American Journal of Public Health 76(9), 1120-1123.

All accidental gunshot fatalities in North Carolina were reviewed for the years 1976-80. There were 210 cases, of which 94 were self-inflicted and 116 were inflicted by others. Young white males predominated as victims, 31 per ¢ under the age of 15. Sixty-five per ¢ of the accidents occurred in the home and 18 per ¢ occurred in rural, "hunting" locations. Forty-one per ¢ of the cases involved shotguns, 39 per ¢ involved handguns, and 16 per ¢, rifles. Sixteen per ¢ of the accidents involved children playing with guns and 14 per ¢ involved dropped or mishandled weapons. During the same period, there were 2,553 suicides and 2,509 homicides by firearm. Gunshot fatalities are an important American public health problem.
Click to expand...

This is not statistical evidence of trends over time, per se, and at first glance seems unrelated to my claim. However, let's take a moment to consider this:
65% of accidents occur in the home.
18% occur in "hunting" environments.
(the remaining 17% were small % among motels, bars, firing ranges, police stations, and in motor vehicles).

How is this relevant to my claim? It's a simple matter of exposure. On a college campus, in an ideal world, I am not surrounded by people with firearms (so, keep in mind, in order to have prevented VT, you would not only need conceal/carry laws, but also to rescind firearms bans on campuses). Looking at the above locations where accidental shootings happen, they happen simply where the guns are. Guns are kept in the home, guns are used in hunting environments. Guns are surely around police stations (it wasn't said if those shootings were officers or civilians). I've heard that guns are even in firing ranges.

In short, accidental shootings happen where firearms are, whereas accidental shootings don't appear to be happening where firearms are prohibited.

Guns are not allowed on college campuses. If they were, could VT have been prevented (or its impact diminished)? Surely. However, the greater proliferation of guns in an environment is related to accidental shootings. If it were not related to the presence of weapons, then we would expect a more random scattering of the locations where accidental shootings occur.

It's simply absurd to think that conceal/carry laws would *not* be related to an increase in accidental shootings. That's what an accident is! If there were no automobiles, there would be no automobile accidents. I bet I can pinpoint a plot of land where cars don't drive in this country, and I'm willing to bet that there are no car accidents there. Put a highway through there, and guess what? An accident will happen inevitably.

I can't quite figure out this denial that accidents won't happen if conceal/carry laws allow guns to be carried on campus. I'm not even talking about the potential for inappropriate use of a firearm, I'm talking *accidents*. Those arguing against my point are making the foolhardy assertion that in 100% of all cases, there will be *NO* chance for any accident to occur. Think about how absurd that is.

I'm not saying conceal/carry laws are good or bad. Reread my posts. I'm merely positing the question that wonders if the loss of life via accidental shooting would be larger or smaller than the lives saved due to a prevented deliberate shooting. It's not that hard a question to deal with, yet some of you prefer dancing around the matter. I'm let down.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']But the "We must protect the children!" motif usually comes more from blowhard populism than conservatism. Only the most stringent social con would seriously want to regulate video games, as such a thing simply does not square with any sensible definition of conservative legal principles.

Unfortunately, as any good conservative will tell you, GOP legislators are dimwits.

Still, the impulse is the same, be it video games, guns, trans fats, what have you.[/QUOTE]

A further reminder that both sides have some unfortunate common ground. Personally, that's why I'm consistently pro-pornography. It pisses EVERYBODY off.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not saying conceal/carry laws are good or bad. Reread my posts. I'm merely positing the question that wonders if the loss of life via accidental shooting would be larger or smaller than the lives saved due to a prevented deliberate shooting. It's not that hard a question to deal with, yet some of you prefer dancing around the matter. I'm let down.[/quote]
Okay then, smaller.

But I still think your premise is faulty simply because it is ridiculous to ban things on the basis that they might accidently kill people. I'm willing to bet that cars kill more than they 'save.'
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Okay then, smaller.

But I still think your premise is faulty simply because it is ridiculous to ban things on the basis that they might accidently kill people. I'm willing to bet that cars kill more than they 'save.'[/QUOTE]

Smaller? How do you figure?

As for your car analogy, yes, you're correct. It is not faulty logic, however, in that the function automobiles serve has nothing to do with "saving lives" (except in romantic comedy "car chase to the hospital to deliver the baby" scenes). The purpose of conceal/carry is to protect would-be crimes, whether shootings or merely robbery. If the lives lost due to conceal/carry are greater than those saved (or your overall savings, counting theft prevention), well, then the entire equation and argument for conceal/carry falls apart. You then move from claiming that accidental deaths are an acceptable side effect of conceal carry laws, even if it is greater than the side-effect losses from not having those laws in the first place.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Smaller? How do you figure?[/quote]

Conceal-carry licenses aren't exactly given out like candy. And the people who demonstrate the discipline to get one will be less likely to bandy about their weaponry like buffoons.

As for your car analogy, yes, you're correct. It is not faulty logic, however, in that the function automobiles serve has nothing to do with "saving lives" (except in romantic comedy "car chase to the hospital to deliver the baby" scenes). The purpose of conceal/carry is to protect would-be crimes, whether shootings or merely robbery. If the lives lost due to conceal/carry are greater than those saved (or your overall savings, counting theft prevention), well, then the entire equation and argument for conceal/carry falls apart. You then move from claiming that accidental deaths are an acceptable side effect of conceal carry laws, even if it is greater than the side-effect losses from not having those laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think reducing 'lives lost/gained' to some sort of zero-sum game is still faulty analysis. I should think that most citizens would rather take the increased likelihood of a fatal gun accident if it gave them a chance to fight back against those who would victimize them. The person who gets killed because they didn't have a gun was victimized, likely robbed, and under certain circumstances, possibly raped. The person who dies in a gun-related accident, at the very least, understood the risks involved and had a good degree of control over the situation (Provided they had the decency to not let the gun fall into hands of those not competent to play with it.). A gun is more than the sum total of the lives it saves (much like with the tortured car analogy, a car is worth more to someone than just the miles they have driven in it.). It provides self-reliance that the police and the government do not.
 
Okay, just found out. WaPo implied Cho didn't use high-capacity magazines. NBC on the other hand, says he did, but that 'some' of his clips* were high-capacity.

Wapo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800162_4.html

NBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18209746/

I believe the Assault Weapons Ban, though, prevented only the manufacture of high-capacity magazines. Not the sale. (Yes, that means I am saying that most media outlets are flat out wrong on that.)

Plus, I am still fairly sure that a competent gunman can reload a Glock in about 2-3 seconds easy. It would take a hell of a prepared student to be aware enough and not afraid enough to rush Cho in that window.

EDIT: Apparently, they're magazines, not clips. So I phail on that level.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The purpose of conceal/carry is to protect would-be crimes, whether shootings or merely robbery. If the lives lost due to conceal/carry are greater than those saved (or your overall savings, counting theft prevention), well, then the entire equation and argument for conceal/carry falls apart. You then move from claiming that accidental deaths are an acceptable side effect of conceal carry laws, even if it is greater than the side-effect losses from not having those laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Now you're asking that we prove a negative to invalidate your assumption. There's no way to measure the impact of right to carry laws and their impact on preventing a madman from opening up a can of ammo on a crowded room. It's a random occurrence, or "accident" if you prefer.

How would you get data on all those would-be muggers who decided not to rob someone at knifepoint for fear that that person might be armed? Should we take a survey of all the criminals in the area and find out how many crimes they decided not to commit ? You know full well that other side of your equation is impossible to calculate with any accuracy compared to empirical accidental death data.

I guess the only way you'll ever accept our rights to protect ourselves will be when we're walking to class together and some madman comes at us with a rifle and I unharness my 9mm Luger to prevent him from killing you, me and 20-30 of our classmates. Nothing more empirical than that. Gun bans don't affect criminals intent on killing people, they only prevent law abiding people from protecting themselves in the event of an emergency.
 
It's not necessarily that complex. Trends do happen. Say you invent a new, sturdier kind of bumper (to continue the automobile analogy that's pervaded this thread) and want to assess its impact on auto fatalities. States have data available on auto fatalities, and it's a fairly stable number from year to year. Oversimplifying things, you can look at how the introduction of this impacts the number of auto fatalities.

I think you're the second person this week who's suggested something is impossible to prove b/c it's seeking "to prove a negative." In reality, both are merely hard to prove because of isolating a region where laws exist that they can be evaluated. Trust me, since my area of research interest is corrections, I continually lament that policies tend to reflect some unproven idea that a legislator thinks is a good idea but is not proven in empirical reality. Well, if it is empirically proven, it's not a new policy - after all, we can't exactly measure this kind of stuff using lab animals.

So, in short, crime trends, while they increase or decrease over time, are amazingly stable. Changes in those trends would be pretty good indicators of the "would-be muggers who decided not to rob someone." Somewhere, data do exist (I believe) supporting an indirect effect of conceal/carry laws in Austin, TX, and how they helped anonymous rape (a small portion of overall rapes, sure, but still substantial) rates drop to the floor. Don't want to abduct an armed woman, do you?

Of course, since that data supports your philosophy, I don't expect you to challenge me on actually citing that source. ;)
 
I should also mention that 30+ round magazines are TWICE the length of the gun handle. That the news media cannot come to consensus on whether Cho had them or not lends credence to the 'not' side of the board. Cho also, apparently, didn't have them shown in his displaying of his weaponry in the media package he sent to NBC.

Plus, the ghastly and ignorant reporting scare-mongering on "hollow-point" rounds, I really wouldn't trust anything from the mouths of news media sources on Cho's choice of firearms.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']
Plus, the ghastly and ignorant reporting scare-mongering on "hollow-point" rounds, I really wouldn't trust anything from the mouths of news media sources on Cho's choice of firearms.[/QUOTE]

HOLLOW POINTS ARE DEADLIES, UNLIKE REGLAR BULLITS. I wonder if most people know that a lot of jurisdictions have laws AGAINST FMJ rounds due to their tendency to overpenetrate and hit something behind the target? I'm just glad he didn't have any Ranger SXT rounds, we know how the media reacted to their earlier iteration.
 
Reality's Fringe;2852114 said:
HOLLOW POINTS ARE DEADLIES, UNLIKE REGLAR BULLITS. I wonder if most people know that a lot of jurisdictions have laws AGAINST FMJ rounds due to their tendency to overpenetrate and hit something behind the target? I'm just glad he didn't have any Ranger SXT rounds, we know how the media reacted to their earlier iteration.
Click to expand...

Hollow points aren't FMJ. They're used in hunting because they expand for increased lethality, they are more accurate, and they don't overpenetrate. Armies can't use them, but civilians and police usually do.
 
[quote name='trq']A further reminder that both sides have some unfortunate common ground. Personally, that's why I'm consistently pro-pornography. It pisses EVERYBODY off.[/quote]

The porn industry creates more revenue then Hollywood. Trust me, you're only really pissing off a very vocal (and frighteningly powerful) minority.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Hollow points aren't FMJ. They're used in hunting because they expand for increased lethality, they are more accurate, and they don't overpenetrate. Armies can't use them, but civilians and police usually do.[/QUOTE]

I know, that's what's behind my point. Hollow Points are villified. It's basically anything the media can use to target the ignorant.

MSNBC: "Thanks Cho, you made us MILLIONS!"
 
I woke up this morning and saw Jack on news.

If we go by his "using-Counter-Strike-as-practice" thought, then theoretically I could play Madden to get better at football.

Which is, of course, absurd.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
So, in short, crime trends, while they increase or decrease over time, are amazingly stable. Changes in those trends would be pretty good indicators of the "would-be muggers who decided not to rob someone." Somewhere, data do exist (I believe) supporting an indirect effect of conceal/carry laws in Austin, TX, and how they helped anonymous rape (a small portion of overall rapes, sure, but still substantial) rates drop to the floor. Don't want to abduct an armed woman, do you?[/QUOTE]

So, how stable is the rate of whackos slaughtering multiple, defenseless sheep trapped in close quarter buildings and lecture halls over the last 50 years?
Lets say 3 or more defines 'multiple'.

And then, according to your arithmetical theory of gun control, can we subtract the deaths saved by incidents like the one in Virginia a few years ago:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html

from your equation on accidental deaths versus saved lives? How exactly do we measure saved lives again? I know, it must have something to do with counting the leftover ammo from a rampage minus some standard deviation of the shooters accuracy and reliability of the weapon used, and also the range and number of potential targets in the immediate area.

I'm sure there's some sort of equation to determine whether or not we should be allowed to carry a weapon for our own protection. I just hope the calculations have been completed before some asshole comes at me with a loaded barrel.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']So, how stable is the rate of whackos slaughtering multiple, defenseless sheep trapped in close quarter buildings and lecture halls over the last 50 years?
Lets say 3 or more defines 'multiple'.

And then, according to your arithmetical theory of gun control, can we subtract the deaths saved by incidents like the one in Virginia a few years ago:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html

from your equation on accidental deaths versus saved lives? How exactly do we measure saved lives again? I know, it must have something to do with counting the leftover ammo from a rampage minus some standard deviation of the shooters accuracy and reliability of the weapon used, and also the range and number of potential targets in the immediate area.

I'm sure there's some sort of equation to determine whether or not we should be allowed to carry a weapon for our own protection. I just hope the calculations have been completed before some asshole comes at me with a loaded barrel.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, "incidents." The singular form of "data."

Well, although I'm citing from an op-ed in today's "New York Slimes" (HAW-HAW!), the point here is quantitative analysis from the Harvard School of Public Health.

A study released a few years ago by the Harvard School of Public Health compared firearm mortality rates among youngsters 5 to 14 years old in the five states with the highest rates of gun ownership with those in the five states with the lowest rates.

The results were chilling. Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.
Click to expand...

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp

So, while people such as BMulligan want to use individual scenarios, cherry-picked to support their cause, when we look at the accumulation of individual scenarios into data, without looking to see if certain situations fit our political agenda, the picture changes from one of heroic individualism and the nobility of increased firearm ownership to crystal clear evidence of the violence that correlates with increased firearm ownership.

Let me repeat the Harvard School's findings: In the 5 states with the highest rates of gun ownership, children (5-14) are:
16 times more likely to be shot accidentally
7 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun
3 times are likely to be murdered with a firearm
than children in the 5 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.

The evidence is clear. Now, if you could just learn to speak in the aggregate language of data, instead of the individual language of anecdote, we'd be able to debate more fruitfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top