Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[Annie]

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

and the Chicago school of demographics. Hey, I'm biased it's one of my schools. It's also one the the few elite schools off either coast, along with Northwestern.

 

[midcan5]

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?

What a genuinely ridiculous comment, 'prohibition' or 'separate but equal' or ...

You are dodging the hard facts of Larkinn's question.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

I'm sorry, when did I say that? Don't blame me because you made an incredibly stupid statement. 15,000 deaths are not insignificant. Admit it and move on.

 

[Dr Grump]

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



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

Not at all. As I said before, been through this before on a couple of other boards. The end result being that even the most rabid or pro gunnies agreed his methodology had more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. To be fair, the studies the anti gunnies pulled out did, too.

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

Other first world countries seem to get on without it just fine...

 

[Gunny]

Not at all. As I said before, been through this before on a couple of other boards. The end result being that even the most rabid or pro gunnies agreed his methodology had more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. To be fair, the studies the anti gunnies pulled out did, too.

I don't see what the point to all these "studies" is except to confuse a pretty common sense issue. The pro-gun argument is based on logic and common sense. The anti-gun argument is based on neither.

 

[Diuretic]

and the Chicago school of demographics. Hey, I'm biased it's one of my schools. It's also one the the few elite schools off either coast, along with Northwestern.

That's interesting and Northwestern's in Evanston from memory (we send our vehicle accident reconstruction people there for training). But what about UT, that's not on the coast

 

[Annie]

That's interesting and Northwestern's in Evanston from memory (we send our vehicle accident reconstruction people there for training). But what about UT, that's not on the coast

UT is 'elite'? Good school for sure, but in the ivy league?

 

[Larkinn]

I don't see what the point to all these "studies" is except to confuse a pretty common sense issue. The pro-gun argument is based on logic and common sense. The anti-gun argument is based on neither.

Its not common sense to say that removing something that kills people means that less people will be killed by that thing?

Disagree with it all you want on one side or the other, but the issue is anything but "common sense". Ignore the nuances of it at your own risk.

 

[Lookout]

The paper was twenty pages of explanation, results, and conclusion with twenty six or so pages of mind numbing statistical tables which I would not be able to begin to explain.

The conclusion, which I find hard if not impossible to disagree with, essentially says that, even though the perpetrators of such crimes intend to die, the idea that they may not get to inflict as much carnage as they hope due to citizens with concealed weapons, makes some, not all, decide not to carry out their plans. It also says that when the mass public shootings do occur in shall issue states, the number of victims is significantly reduced.

The study is eight years old but I can't imagine the the conclusions have changed since it's initial relase.

I will say that carry laws are a factor I consider when looking at places I want to live. In the next two or three years I hope to be out of California and my intention is to live somewhere with more liberal gun laws.

c-mon over here to Texas. We got some fine liberal gun laws. Just got me a ap4 lr 308 and 2 20 round clips also a glock .45 and 2 13 round clips...no wait, just walked right in and bought em and walked out 20 minutes later. The law has changed here on concealed weapons as well. Now you can carry a gun in your vehicle as long as it IS concealed. It has to be hidden out of plain sight. It is ok to carry it concealed to and from your vehicle as well. Can't do that in California!!! YEp. We be might proud of our guns in texas...!

 

[eots]

these shooters may be deranged but they still operate under a certain logic and i really believe if these shooter attempts where ended before multiple deaths occurred the chances of copy cats motivated by the prospect of mass killing may indeed be less motivated

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its not common sense to say that removing something that kills people means that less people will be killed by that thing?

Disagree with it all you want on one side or the other, but the issue is anything but "common sense". Ignore the nuances of it at your own risk.

Except you can NOT remove them from criminals hands, all you can do is disarm law abiding citizens MAKING it easier for criminals to murder them.

Unless you have a magic wand that can make all firearms and the ability to produce them vanish from the world your claim is ignorant.

 

[Larkinn]

Except you can NOT remove them from criminals hands, all you can do is disarm law abiding citizens MAKING it easier for criminals to murder them.

Unless you have a magic wand that can make all firearms and the ability to produce them vanish from the world your claim is ignorant.

Wait, you mean the issue might be nuanced and require more than a simple, bullshit "common sense" solution?

 

[Gunny]

Its not common sense to say that removing something that kills people means that less people will be killed by that thing?

Disagree with it all you want on one side or the other, but the issue is anything but "common sense". Ignore the nuances of it at your own risk.

There is no "removing something" going to happen. There is no common sense to that expectation at all.

Criminals by definition do not abide the law. It is illogical to assume that a law making firearms illegal is in any way going to affect criminals. It will do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, and ensure criminals know they have absolutely nothing to fear while preying upon the law-abiding citizenry.

Nothing BUT logic and common sense to that argument. Your argument, on the other hand, relies on an ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait, you mean the issue might be nuanced and require more than a simple, bullshit "common sense" solution?

Play your games, Gunny already told you off Mensa boy.

 

[Larkinn]

There is no "removing something" going to happen. There is no common sense to that expectation at all.

Criminals by definition do not abide the law. It is illogical to assume that a law making firearms illegal is in any way going to affect criminals. It will do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, and ensure criminals know they have absolutely nothing to fear while preying upon the law-abiding citizenry.

Nothing BUT logic and common sense to that argument. Your argument, on the other hand, relies on an ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal.

Right, because guns just sort of...appear from the wilderness, right? By the way there is an easy way of getting many of the guns...its called a buyback system. Its expensive, but doable. Nothing to fear?...really? Compare the number of people who are injured by guns while committing a crime with the number of people who are arrested by the cops. We have a lot of cops in this country, they don't all sit around eating donuts all day.

High rate of guns in the US...high rate of gun crimes in the US. Connection? Naah its just...its just...we are naturally violent or something, right?

As I said, come out one way or the other, but there isnt a "common sense" solution.

 

[Larkinn]

Play your games, Gunny already told you off Mensa boy.

What a useful comment.

 

[Larkinn]

By the way...Gunny, do you think its "common sense" to believe that two objects with different masses fall at the same rate? (barring air friction and such). I ask because it was treated as a reality for thousands of years before anyone thought to test it. Why? Because it was "common sense" and "obvious".

Science is important and helpful. Dismissing it just so you can believe your preconceived notions based on an idiotic concept like "common sense" is ignorant.

 

[Larkinn]

There is no "removing something" going to happen. There is no common sense to that expectation at all.

Criminals by definition do not abide the law. It is illogical to assume that a law making firearms illegal is in any way going to affect criminals. It will do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, and ensure criminals know they have absolutely nothing to fear while preying upon the law-abiding citizenry.

Nothing BUT logic and common sense to that argument. Your argument, on the other hand, relies on an ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal.

And a bit of tit for tat...what is my argument exactly that relies on "ineffective method attempting to achieve an unrealistic goal"? Have I argued that guns should be taken away from everyone? No...I am arguing that the other viewpoint should not be dismissed casually. But you knew that right?...after all with all your huffing and puffing about my assumptions, you surely would be careful not to assume, right?

 

[Annie]

Larkinn, 3 posts in a row shows a certain desperation, sort of 'if I'd only thought of this then...'