Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[RetiredGySgt]

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

It means Midcan thinks the study is ignorant made up crap. From his previous postings I assume he thinks Big Brother is the only one that should ever be armed and we should all be taxed so much we won't have any money for shopping anyway.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It means Midcan thinks the study is ignorant made up crap.

Yes. That's what I read, too.
Of course, he doesnt offer anything to back up that opinion.

 

[midcan5]

Yes. That's what I read, too.
Of course, he doesnt offer anything to back up that opinion.

It doesn't need a study for proof; it only needs a tiny bit of thought. We are the most armed (guns) society probably in the history of the world and yet we have shooting upon shootings, do you need a study to see that? If I am going out in a blaze of glory (in the killer's mind) how rational am I to start with? Do any of these people consider that someone else may be armed and thus go home and become overnight sane, well meaning citizens? So long as guns are worshiped we will have these situations.

And if everyone were armed would that be a good thing? Ever been in a crowded traffic situation with everyone beeping, impatient and slightly nutty - now imagine them armed!

The study sets out to find something, it finds it, so what, sloppy ideas result in sloppy conclusions.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't need a study for proof; it only needs a tiny bit of thought. We are the most armed (guns) society probably in the history of the world and yet we have shooting upon shootings, do you need a study to see that? If I am going out in a blaze of glory (in the killer's mind) how rational am I to start with? Do any of these people consider that someone else may be armed and thus go home and become overnight sane, well meaning citizens? So long as guns are worshiped we will have these situations.

And if everyone were armed would that be a good thing? Ever been in a crowded traffic situation with everyone beeping, impatient and slightly nutty - now imagine them armed!

The study sets out to find something, it finds it, so what, sloppy ideas result in sloppy conclusions.

Yep, University of Chicago is famous for the slopping ideas out of there, as it Yale and Rutgers. As I posted, seems 3 studies did follow ups, hoping to find different conclusions, well they must not have been sloppy thinkers, but they still came to the same up with the same conclusions.

 

[midcan5]

The point is, arming people to prevent people from killing each other seems a wee bit absurd. If this theory had even a smidgen of truth, societies where citizens were less armed would need to be shown to be more dangerous. This is a classic horse and cart argument. Remains stupid - and if there are others that call it so glad to hear that.

CON 4.2

"When Black and Nagin compared crime rate trends two to three years after RTC laws were enacted with rates two to three years prior to enactment, they found no clear pattern in the results indicating that RTC laws reduced violent crime. In some states violent crime decreased after these laws were enacted, while in other states RTC laws were followed by increases in violent crime. When state RTC laws were examined separately, the laws had no consistent effect on any category of crime. In states which did experience reductions in violent crime, one cannot confidently attribute the reductions to RTC laws. For example, Oregon's RTC law was associated with lower violent crime, but the legislation which eased restrictions on concealed gun carrying also extended waiting periods and strengthened background checks for handgun purchases. The reduction in crime could be just as easily attributable to the new restrictions on handgun purchases as to the eased restrictions on carrying permits. As discussed above, there are several factors that could just as easily explain the declines in Florida's homicides during the early 1990's that Lott and Mustard attribute to the delayed effects of the 1987 RTC law." The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gun_right_to_carry.HTM

 

[Annie]

The point is, arming people to prevent people from killing each other seems a wee bit absurd. If this theory had even a smidgen of truth, societies where citizens were less armed would need to be shown to be more dangerous. This is a classic horse and cart argument. Remains stupid - and if there are others that call it so glad to hear that.

Only in your perception. You have bias, those attempting to replicate did too, difference was, they completed the study and reported the findings. No spin.

 

[midcan5]

See edit - proof the study found what it wanted to find as most pseudo intellectual studies do.

 

[Annie]

See edit - proof the study found what it wanted to find as most pseudo intellectual studies do.

Right, that is right up there with journals. Please. I know you think U of Chicago is a gutter university, but really.

 

[Diuretic]

Since the University of Chicago gave us the Chicago School of criminologists (they did some really good on the ecology of crime and I think it's still being pursued there), no-one can say it's crappy.

But I think Friedman was there, so maybe I'm wrong

 

[Meemer]

I'm relatively new here but I don't mind jumping into a fray now and then. It's my neck and I'll stick it out there along side Midcan5's.
I got his point the first time.
Me carrying a concealed? First lobo driver who pisses me off....bang! Not really a good scenario, is it?
As for shooters being on drugs, Cho at VaTech? Not on drugs; he was mental.
The boys at the middle school in Paducah, Kentucky? Drugs? Would it have mattered had some teachers been carrying? Those boys were hidden outside.
McVeigh on drugs when he drove the truck into the Murrah Bldg.? I didn't know that and would like some backup on that.
Man who shot up the Amish school in SE PA. Drugs? Do some of you expect the Amish to carry concealed weapons????????
Theproblem with some people who do these things goes much deeper into their psyches. And the publicity doesn't hurt either. The Mall shooter wanted the publicity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It doesn't need a study for proof; it only needs a tiny bit of thought. We are the most armed (guns) society probably in the history of the world and yet we have shooting upon shootings, do you need a study to see that? If I am going out in a blaze of glory (in the killer's mind) how rational am I to start with? Do any of these people consider that someone else may be armed and thus go home and become overnight sane, well meaning citizens? So long as guns are worshiped we will have these situations.

And if everyone were armed would that be a good thing? Ever been in a crowded traffic situation with everyone beeping, impatient and slightly nutty - now imagine them armed!

The study sets out to find something, it finds it, so what, sloppy ideas result in sloppy conclusions.

We do not have many actual shootings. We have over 300 million people and at least 200 million weapons in those peoples hands and yet less than 1000 people a year die due to accidental shootings and around 14000 die due to all other shootings. Go ahead brainiac do the math 15000 dead out of either 200 million or 300 million, your choice. THEN check out how many car acidents we have, and how many people DIE in them.

Check out crime rates and how often firearms are used in ALL crimes.

The numbers are insignificant.

 

[Larkinn]

We do not have many actual shootings. We have over 300 million people and at least 200 million weapons in those peoples hands and yet less than 1000 people a year die due to accidental shootings and around 14000 die due to all other shootings. Go ahead brainiac do the math 15000 dead out of either 200 million or 300 million, your choice. THEN check out how many car acidents we have, and how many people DIE in them.

Check out crime rates and how often firearms are used in ALL crimes.

The numbers are insignificant.

15,000 dead people per year and you think thats insignificant?

Well only 3,000 died in the WTC attacks...we probably should have just given OBL a pass, right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

15,000 dead people per year and you think thats insignificant?

Well only 3,000 died in the WTC attacks...we probably should have just given OBL a pass, right?

Your a retard, just admit it and we can move on.

 

[Larkinn]

Your a retard, just admit it and we can move on.

You just called 15,000 Americans dead per year "insignificant", and I'm the retard?

I'm curious RGS...why were the 3,000 dead in WTC significant and the 15,000 insignificant? That is, unless you thought the 3,000 who died were insignificant.

 

[Larkinn]

Your a retard, just admit it and we can move on.

By the way...nice job at responding to the issues. Remember this thread next time you want to accuse me of dodging issues and resorting to personal attacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dodge what? The fact you think 15000 deaths a year are reason to remove a Constitutional protection but that 50000 deaths a year are just the price of society?

Tell ya what MENSA reject, when you sponsor that bill to remove the right to private ownership and ability to drive I will listen to your claim that private ownership of weapons, a right we are granted in the Constitution, should be restricted as well.

Remind me again how a RIGHT protected in the Constitution should be restricted, should have waiting periods, should be at the whim of local Sheriffs and you need to be 18 or 21 to enjoy it, but any 16 year old can, with the money, go buy any car they want, no questions ask, no waiting period, no sheriffs permission slip.

Further remind me how a felon or a mentally impaired person can go buy a car anytime they want but those same people are denied the right to buy or own firearms, a gain a right protected by the Constitution. Remind how now a wife beater can freely buy own and operate any car he can afford, but if you ever were charged with a family disturbance of any kind your right to firearms is removed and if convicted permanently removed.

G ahead Mensa boy answer those questions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Also retard get back to me when we have a mall or school shooting where 3000 people are killed in a couple hours, billions of dollars of damage is sustained and we shut down Countrywide air traffic for 2 days cause of it.

 

[Larkinn]

Dodge what? The fact you think 15000 deaths a year are reason to remove a Constitutional protection but that 50000 deaths a year are just the price of society?

Tell ya what MENSA reject, when you sponsor that bill to remove the right to private ownership and ability to drive I will listen to your claim that private ownership of weapons, a right we are granted in the Constitution, should be restricted as well.

Remind me again how a RIGHT protected in the Constitution should be restricted, should have waiting periods, should be at the whim of local Sheriffs and you need to be 18 or 21 to enjoy it, but any 16 year old can, with the money, go buy any car they want, no questions ask, no waiting period, no sheriffs permission slip.

Further remind me how a felon or a mentally impaired person can go buy a car anytime they want but those same people are denied the right to buy or own firearms, a gain a right protected by the Constitution. Remind how now a wife beater can freely buy own and operate any car he can afford, but if you ever were charged with a family disturbance of any kind your right to firearms is removed and if convicted permanently removed.

G ahead Mensa boy answer those questions.

What does any of that have to do with you calling 15,000 American dead a year insignificant?

 

[Diuretic]

It's pretty bloody difficult to kill someone with a car, although lots of people do it, with the help of spectacular negligence. But it's bloody easy to kill someone with a firearm. The analogy is flawed.

Now, on numbers. We humans are pretty good at putting things in perspective. 3000 killed in a series of closely linked incidents which occur on the same day isn't the same thing as one or two a day over a year.

There should piss off everyone in this thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's pretty bloody difficult to kill someone with a car, although lots of people do it, with the help of spectacular negligence. But it's bloody easy to kill someone with a firearm. The analogy is flawed.

Now, on numbers. We humans are pretty good at putting things in perspective. 3000 killed in a series of closely linked incidents which occur on the same day isn't the same thing as one or two a day over a year.

There should piss off everyone in this thread.

Larkinn does not think so. He thinks that murder of 3000 people in a couple hours by 19 madmen is the same as a years worth of accidents and shootings.

As for your car claim, you are aware that with a car I can kill quickly a large number of people in a crowd and just leave the scene. No need to stop and reload, no need to worry about being tackled or attacked by my victims?