Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[hjmick]

I suggest this one. Almost every story hit like a wave of profoundness.
http://www.amazon.com/Philip-K-Dick-Reader/dp/0806518561/?tag=usmb-20


yea, the movie totally sucked. Even Blade Runner, as great as it was, hardly reflected "do androids dream of electric sheep?" You'll especially enjoy "The Chromium Fence". I've posted that short story on here before but the link was to the free republic so I doubt if too many from my side of the spectrum read it.

anyway, enjoy. Let me know what you think after you wrangle some PKD.

Thanks for the tip. I'm heading out this weekend to do some shopping, I'll see if I can't slip past the Mrs. at the checkout. LOL

Sorry K, didn't mean to derail your thread.

 

[eots]

Certainly, but the topic in this thread is CCW laws and how they may or may not have an effect on MVPS. Not to mention that this most recent example was not a school shooting but a shopping mall shooting.

school /mall it is the same thing in essence and a thread can has room for a broader perspective than just one take and the topic was school and mall shootings with a attached article on gun control and how it relates ,so i discussed the topic and attached a link on drugs and how it also relates certainly a concealed weapon in the hands of a teacher .student if of age or mall patron could of saved lives in that moment

 

[Abelian Sea]

I printed this paper out and have started to read the study and must say that so far it is fascinating.

So far, it seems to indicate that states without "shall issue laws" account for the "overwhelming majority of deaths and injuries" multpile victim public shootings.

It sure does. Heh; somehow from the quoted abstract I had assumed it was the other way around. I guess that's what I get for making unresearched assumptions.

It doesn't quite make sense to me; I wouldn't think the possibility of civilian return fire would deter someone in that state of mind. Goes to show how well I understand that state of mind...

 

[William Joyce]

This tragedy was caused by a fucked-up white person. Most similar incidents, i.e., mass shootings, are caused by fucked-up whites. Whites need to own up to this and figure out ways to stop it.

 

[Working Man]

as justification for 'it's all about guns'...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

A Chinese SKS56 rifle is about 3ft long. +/-.... It holds 10 rounds in fixed magazine. It as to be loaded from stripper clips from the top of the rifle. It wasn't a handgun.

The people who were shot evidently didn't know that they had the right to carry a weapon to defend themselves, or chose not too. Bad choice in today's environment.. One doesn't have too carry a gun. But then, why bother carrying a spare tire?

There are many people out there who don't take their meds on a regular basis. We have people walking around that have not been diagnosed yet at all, and who are potentialy as dangerous to society. Again, people in this country have themselves to blame for not protecting themselves, and for not demanding tougher laws to regulate those who can't regulate themselves.

The police took six minutes to arrive. In a mall,, around the holidays, with all the people effected by emotional turmoil during this holiday season,,,they (the cops) might have well showed up the next day. Honestly, a Six minute response time in a public venue like that is too long. If I had to bet, the "security" staff that was on duty, probably only have handcuffs, and MAYBE pepperspray, in addition to radios that can call who?? Some other private security dispatch person?? Too long, too little, too late.

For the victims and the families of those effected, I offer my prayers. For those who stood around and did nothing to help this kid, and who knew he had issues,,,, rot in hell.

 

[eots]

It sure does. Heh; somehow from the quoted abstract I had assumed it was the other way around. I guess that's what I get for making unresearched assumptions.

It doesn't quite make sense to me; I wouldn't think the possibility of civilian return fire would deter someone in that state of mind. Goes to show how well I understand that state of mind...

might not deter but at least someone could take the poor bastard out after killing one or two victims instead

 

[Psychoblues]

He had a problem with the religious organization that abandoned him and threw him out. That fact is abundantly clear. Why do you want to avoid that fact?

 

[midcan5]

There must be something in the water at the university of Chicago, what a bunch of wacko social darwinists economists it turns out. There must be a degree named after this idiocy: 'dog eat dog made easy' or 'I got mine F the rest of you.'

Let's see, I am a robber, I think I will consult Lott's statistics before attempting to rob this empty house as the dog may be armed?

I am nuts so when I go on my killing rampage I will consider the least likely place to face concealed weapons, hmm, got it, death valley.

What a bunch of BS, perfect example of the Sokal hoax theory of science, or as they used to say, 'there is one born every minute.'

 

[M14 Shooter]

There must be something in the water at the university of Chicago, what a bunch of wacko social darwinists economists it turns out. There must be a degree named after this idiocy: 'dog eat dog made easy' or 'I got mine F the rest of you.'

Let's see, I am a robber, I think I will consult Lott's statistics before attempting to rob this empty house as the dog may be armed?

I am nuts so when I go on my killing rampage I will consider the least likely place to face concealed weapons, hmm, got it, death valley.

What a bunch of BS, perfect example of the Sokal hoax theory of science, or as they used to say, 'there is one born every minute.'

Does anyone have any idea what this refers to or what it is supposed to mean?

 

[ReillyT]

Does anyone have any idea what this refers to or what it is supposed to mean?

He is referring to the study cited in the initial post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He is referring to the study cited in the initial post.

That's kinda what I thought.
And that's where the 'what is this supposed to mean' part comes in.

 

[midcan5]

Sorry, I have a bad habit of assuming people read the article and have a little knowledge of author and context.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.

The AEI more BS piled even higher.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, I have a bad habit of assuming people read the article and have a little knowledge of author and context.

I did, and I do.
Which is why I was/am confused.

The AEI more BS piled even higher.

Do you have an actual, supportable critisim of the study or are you simply going to sling personal attacks at it and the authors?

 

[midcan5]

If I feel that AEI is a bullshit organization I can say so. Do I need to prove that, no. Can I, yes. Do I feel like doing that, no. My point is the argument that carrying concealed weapons deters crime is asinine. Criminals, be they white or blue collar or whatever would simply change their approach. Mass murder is more likely the province of the wacko and rationalizing whether mall/church/commons folk are armed is a doubtful consideration given the act.

PS this sort of article or work is really propaganda imho.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I feel that AEI is a bullshit organization I can say so. Do I need to prove that, no. Can I, yes. Do I feel like doing that, no.

Of course you can

My point is the argument that carrying concealed weapons deters crime is asinine

Do you have an actual, supportable evidence to support this assertion?

 

[AllieBaba]

Gosh, that's not what the evidence points to.

 

[Dr Grump]

God, the number of messageboards I've been on over the past 6 years where Lott has been totally trashed - his methodology, his results, himself even - just boggles the mind. Doesn't help the anti-gunnies also bring out their own biased "evidence", too...

M14

Do you have an actual, supportable evidence to support this assertion?


What I have discovered over the years is that there is no supportable evidence either way..

 

[Annie]

God, the number of messageboards I've been on over the past 6 years where Lott has been totally trashed - his methodology, his results, himself even - just boggles the mind. Doesn't help the anti-gunnies also bring out their own biased "evidence", too...

M14

Do you have an actual, supportable evidence to support this assertion?


What I have discovered over the years is that there is no supportable evidence either way..

As for Lott being 'debunked', that seems so far to be wishful thinking and spin by the Brady backers:

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/guncontrol.htm

On Friday, John Lott was at it again, taking aim at another gun control proposal.

This time the target was trigger locks, which, Lott argued, on the basis of crime statistics from the 15
states that have enacted laws requiring them, would have a very small benefit and significant costs in
terms of increased levels of violent crime.

Remember, a trigger-lock requirement is one of the principal provisions in the gun control legislation
Gov. Ridge is expected to sign into law later this week, and it has been much debated in Congress.

Lott, of course, has gone much further than bashing trigger locks. He was speaking at the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington as part of a two-day conference dealing with his earlier research
indicating that the only gun-related laws that reduce crime are those making it easier for citizens to carry
concealed weapons. His thesis is neatly summarized in the title of his 1998 book, More Guns, Less
Crime.

Lott hasn't won everyone over to his point of view. His views on gun control, as well as his adamant
conservative stances on other issues, have helped get him hounded out of Penn's Wharton School and the
University of Chicago in this decade. (Lott is currently teaching at Yale law school.)

Moreover, there are few people occupying the middle ground to whom a journalist can go in search of a
balanced appraisal. "Everyone is one side or the other," says Larry Sherman, the newly elected
president of the International Society of Criminologists and director of the Fels Center of Government at
Penn. Sherman, for his part, thinks Lott's large-scale, long-term study of crime trends doesn't take into
account smaller gun confiscation programs that have been followed by sharp declines in violent crime.
Lott says he is doing further research in this area, but that so far he has found no long-term effect from
strategies like gun confiscation.

But trying to sort out the academic arguments is almost a fool's errand. You can drown in disputes over
t-statistics, dummy variables and "Poisson" vs. "least squares" data analysis methods. Lott himself sums
up the current status of the dispute over his findings as follows:

"I have made all my data available to researchers at 42 universities," he says. "There have been three
studies that have come out that were critical of my book, but none of them have disagreed with my basic
finding that concealed carry laws reduce crime and have no costs" in terms of increasing gun violence.

He specifically invited his critics to the conference in Washington, and while some attended and
presented papers, Lott believes that his findings remained unscathed.

The one thing Lott's opponents cannot do is accuse him of being a gun nut. He is not now, nor has he ever
been, a member of the National Rifle Association. Before more or less stumbling into gun control
research in 1993, he had never owned a gun, and his two sons were not allowed to play with toy guns -
even squirt guns - at the Lotts' home in Swarthmore, where he and his family still live. (He has since
bought a small handgun.)

Lott's findings and arguments have undoubtedly had an important, if difficult to quantify, effect on
political debates over gun control. When the Brady Bill, with its requirements for background checks
and waiting periods, was passed in 1993, it seemed that the dam had broken. Many observers predicted
a flood of additional controls on gun ownership, but no such flood has occurred. The latest attempt at
federal gun control legislation was defeated by a large bipartisan majority in the House.

Lott himself says he has "no idea" what effect his research may be having on the gun control debate, but
there is no question that his findings have been widely read. The book has become the University of
Chicago's all-time best-seller for a volume about academic research. The scholarly paper on which it is
based was downloaded from the University of Chicago Web site a stunning 45,000 times.

State Rep. Dwight Evans, a gun control advocate, says that when he tried to argue that the recent murder
of Daily News columnist Russell Byers underlined the need for gun control, many legislators responded
that if Byers had been carrying a gun he might be alive today, which is in essence Lott's argument.
(Byers himself never took a public stance on gun control.)

I, for the record, have often been inclined to come out for some gun restrictions, but I've never been able
to find a way past John Lott's evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the debate outside of journals, writing books, blogs, and having debates on the subject.

The effect of various concealed carry laws are the subject of past and present research. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown some statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[12]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[13] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law.[14]

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[15][12]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[16] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[17]

 

[eots]

in the church shooting there was a person with a handgun and the carnage ended before multiple people where murdered .at the mall there was not,at the university and school shootings there was not and the difference is clear

 

[Waterrescuedude]

Thats why I have a concealed weapons permit and carry with me everyday.
I don't leave home without my trusty Glock unless I am gonna go have a beer at a bar. I think more people ought to get their permits and carry for self defense.
I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.