Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
thumper 24-Dec-12, 20:31	We know how to stop school shootings (...while not violating anyones rights) In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre. Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll. Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun. None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.) Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws. Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on. The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally. Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun. You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago. Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid. If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.) In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun." This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject. The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped. If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds? It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died. In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology: -- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. -- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.) -- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three. -- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two. -- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two. -- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls). All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study. If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies. www.anncoulter.com
softaire 24-Dec-12, 20:45	That is a "common-sense" article. I wait to see wait the "progressives" reply.
dmaestro 24-Dec-12, 20:49	You can't expect much credibility if you cite Ann coulter. This study is flawed and dubious. Besides being very dated. And it does not explain the lower homicide rates in other countries.
dmaestro 24-Dec-12, 20:50	Deleted by dmaestro on 24-Dec-12, 20:51.
thumper 24-Dec-12, 21:27	Do you believe I have the slightest interest or concern whether or not I have 'credibility' with the far left? As for Coulter. She may be abrasive, insensitive and insulting to leftwingtards but she is rarely far wrong. You just don't like the way she gores your ox. She's far more mild by comparison than her vulgar, profane, vein popping, spittle spewing counterparts on the left. She's more accurate and a lot smarter too. But hey what do you care? You have your agenda to push.
dmaestro 24-Dec-12, 21:37	For one thing, you assume the goal is to ban guns. Actually, my primary concern is to ensure that it is known who has guns and that they should have them first. Then we can talk about concealed carry, etc.
thumper 24-Dec-12, 22:29	Deleted by thumper on 24-Dec-12, 22:30.
thumper 24-Dec-12, 22:34	Your statement makes it clear that you assume that I assume, further that you know what that mythical assumption is. From your statements so far, I know that you want whole classes of firearms banned. You have said as much, no need to assume. Not only do you want whole classes of weapons banned, you want government oversight and micromanaged control of each and every remaining firearm in civilian hands. You have said as much. You want to talk about who will be allowed concealed carry based on the new rules that government will devise after the bans and tightly controlled and micromanaged oversight is solidified. You have said as much. No need to assume. Here's where we're at. We already have what guns we want (or can afford) now. (Many of them would be banned according to you) Some the government knows about, some they don't. Most of us carry concealed now. Some the government knows about, some they don't. Now, what could you possibly offer that would entice us to give up what we already have? I can only see this as a one sided 'compromise'. What are you putting in the pot?
dmaestro 24-Dec-12, 23:01	A compromise would be that stricter rules and permits would be in effect for who had so called assault weapons but no ban. And that we are much more careful in who is permitted to keep guns. In return for gun owner support I would expect the law to protect the rights of properly qualified people with permits to own guns of various types including automatics as long as they meet the basic requirements. For new permits I would want to see longer waiting periods and the prescreening I mentioned earlier. We all benefit by making it harder for people to qualify to keep guns because we can weed out more bad guys while still giving others guns they have now.
thumper 24-Dec-12, 23:49	Let me get this straight: You want stricter rules...and permits now...in order to allow 'some' (most?) semi-auto rifle owners the ability to keep most of what they already have. In return for gun owner support of this plan, you would allow some people to keep some selected firearms that they already have. Are you serious? Man that sounds tempting. For new firearms owners or new firearms purchased, people who make it past an even more restrictive screening would have to wait even longer before they could take possession of the approved firearm. You say the 'benefit' it to make it much harder to get only the limited types of firearm that the government allows thereby weeding out more bad guys. And this will give 'approved' firearms owners the guns they have now? What, no restrictions on the number of guns a person can have or the amount or type of ammo? How generous. Seriously though, the only thing you kind of bring to the table is allowing the 'possibility' for 'qualified' people to own full-auto weapons. But, in some States that's already an option so no great shakes. All I see is takeaways in that proposal. For us to allow that, you need to come up with a way better package.
tennesseehiker 29-Dec-12, 11:21	I propose that two trained individuals including a police officer have a gun in their possession in every school in the United States. I think churches should also consider having armed guards. I am not in favor of allowing mass carrying permits to the public. I believe a ban on all assault rifles should be put in place immediately, and that those who currently have a registered assault rifle either turn it over to the police or face a minimum of a $1000 penalty. Furthermore, anyone caught using an assault rifle for any purpose excluding the military or police should face felony charges. Gun shows should be outlawed, and the waiting period for purchasing guns should be increased to reduce the likelihood of felons or the mentally ill from purchasing a gun. The penalty for selling a gun on the black market should be 10 years without the possibility of parole. The ACLU has effectively managed to stamp out God from public venues excepting churches. As a result, America has become an immoral nation. If we do not return to the godly principles upon which this country was founded, we will continue to experience mass murders, general chaos, and unusual natural disasters.
thumper 29-Dec-12, 12:24	Hiker In your travels, I would guarantee that many of the good people you've encountered on the trail and broke bread with, shared a story with over a hot cider, were armed at the time and you had no clue. You were safer while you were with them but didn't know it.
softaire 29-Dec-12, 14:21	dm "A compromise would be that stricter rules and permits would be in effect for who had so called assault weapons but no ban. And that we are much more careful in who is permitted to keep guns. In return for gun owner support I would expect the law to protect the rights of properly qualified people with permits to own guns of various types including automatics as long as they meet the basic requirements. For new permits I would want to see longer waiting periods and the prescreening I mentioned earlier. We all benefit by making it harder for people to qualify to keep guns because we can weed out more bad guys while still giving others guns they have now. " Gun permits are unconstitutional as they give the government the right to "permit" somebody to own a firearm. But, the Constitution already gives everyone that right. In fact it says that that right may not be infringed. Therefore nobody needs a "permission" from any government to own a handgun. "We all" do not benefit by making it harder for people to "qualify" to keep guns. We give more power to the government by doing that. We give more ability to the government to take all the guns and to become a dictatorship.
musket33r 30-Dec-12, 06:16	softy Then the constitution needs to be reviewed or the 2nd Amendment discarded. You need a permit to work with children, you need a permit to drive a car or operate any motor vehicle, you even need a permit to skydive by yourself. Why do you need the right to be armed? Why should the right to be armed be extended to everybody? If everybody has the right to a firearm, do you agree that ex convicts should be allowed to own firearms? Do you agree that all firearms of any calibre should be legal? Why are you happy to draw the line at certain limits, but appear to say there should be no line when somebody attempts to shift it?
musket33r 30-Dec-12, 06:23	My approach to gun laws is thus: - All owners of firearms must be licenced. All must have a clear history of mental illness, addiction and criminal conviction. - Weapons such as semi-automatics and fully automatics require separate licences and a genuine reason for purchase (collecter, sporting shooter, prof. hunter) - All gun owners must own a gun safe and all weapons must be stored in this gun safe. This is to prevent the flow of illegal weapons as no longer will opportunist theives be able to steal firearms. - No private sales of firearms, sales must be through a dealer where a check for a licence can be performed. These are the gun laws I already live by, and they work perfectly. I, as somebody who respects guns, has complete access to them. Others who live in fear and paranoia, or those who only want a gun for kicks, cannot access them. The thing I can't get my head around is the whole guns for protection craze in the states. I don't get it. Never have I ever felt so unsafe in public or my own home that I wished I had quick access to a gun. Never has there been a violent break in within my neighbourhood, certainly no crime that a gun could have possibly resolved. I'm just thankful my society is still relatively in tact.
thumper 30-Dec-12, 09:41	Musket >Why do you need the right to be armed?< Are you dense? Do you think asking this question yet again will cause 'us' to answer it the way you 'want' it answered... this time? >Why should the right to be armed be extended to everybody?< I'm not sure what this question means, 'extended to everybody'? >If everybody has the right to a firearm, do you agree that ex convicts should be allowed to own firearms?< I'm an anomaly among most in this country in that I believe once you've paid your debt (incarceration, parole, etc.) for your crime, all rights are restored; voting, gun rights, everything. >Do you agree that all firearms of any calibre should be legal?< Sure, why? >Why are you happy to draw the line at certain limits, but appear to say there should be no line when somebody attempts to shift it?< To what limits do you refer?
chaz5 30-Dec-12, 10:53	... extremist views, whether legal or not, are extremist views.
softaire 30-Dec-12, 11:26	Mustket Thanks for the good post and questions. To determine why we are "enthusiastic" about our gun rights, please read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You folks are not concerned about being able to defend yourself from a tyrannical government because you have never had to dissolve your relationship with one by force or violence. I have never said there should be no controls, limitations, or constraints on gun ownership. I have said, several times, that I am open to "reasonable" constraints, limitations, and controls. But, my interpretation of "reasonable" may be different than yours, Chaz, or DM's. But, that is what the Supreme Court is for and their rulings have already been well documented thoroughly by Thumper... so please review those. (It's all here).
musket33r 30-Dec-12, 18:06	>>Why do you need the right to be armed?< Are you dense? Do you think asking this question yet again will cause 'us' to answer it the way you 'want' it answered... this time? < I don't know thumper, I don't personally recall ever asking this question before and no, I'm not trying to provoke a certain response from you. >>Why should the right to be armed be extended to everybody?< I'm not sure what this question means, 'extended to everybody'?< That would be everybody including those who do not have the mental capacity nor desire to safely use firerams. >>If everybody has the right to a firearm, do you agree that ex convicts should be allowed to own firearms?< I'm an anomaly among most in this country in that I believe once you've paid your debt (incarceration, parole, etc.) for your crime, all rights are restored; voting, gun rights, everything. < I didn't expect that but okay. >>Do you agree that all firearms of any calibre should be legal?< Sure, why? < No reason. I've always wanted a 220mm myself. >>Why are you happy to draw the line at certain limits, but appear to say there should be no line when somebody attempts to shift it?< To what limits do you refer?< Softy, for one, has said he is open to constraints. If your belief is that there shouldn't be constraints then I suppose that makes you a minority.
musket33r 30-Dec-12, 18:13	Softy Then pray tell, what is your interpretation of reasonable? The rate of accidental shootings and guns being used to threaten in domestic disputetes in America does not happen anywhere else. Would you support regulations that reduce the risk of these things happening? I mean, that's all most of the liberals want. If guns were stored in safes and weren't easy to access by young kids, petty criminals or one partner in a domestic then you could probably cut half the gun crime rate. These regulations could be put in place with no impact to sensible gun owners. I know this because I am a gun owner and live by far stricter gun control laws every day.
thumper 30-Dec-12, 18:42	Musket Sorry for coming off a bit aggressively with that first comment. You didn't deserve that. The right is everyones, if someone does something illegal or unduly dangerous, there are already laws for that. About the felon comment... I'm all about forgive and forget. But if there's a recurrence... anvil time... 220mm? Is that a cannon? I know several people who own them and also know that if you get sloppy or lazy you could easily remove yourself from the gene pool. We have constraints, restraints, limitations and restrictions now. Most of which are unconstitutional. Again, to what 'limits' do you refer? You indicate 'shifting them' further left. How much weight can a beast of burden bare? When the maximum load has already been exceeded, can you put more bricks on?

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.