posted by superman

Obviously Alaska is the highest.  However, 80% are suicide. 

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

posted by Spock

The one thing thAt is pretty much the same with every school shooting is that it ends when another gun arrives.  And if it doesnt end....at least the gun isnt being pointed at the kids anymore.

What if we can have a greater police presence in schools while also trying other things? The father in this case was grossly negligent. Adam Lanza's mother was grossly negligent. T.J. Lane's father or grandfather (can't remember which one) was grossly negligent. The father of the Tennessee shooter was grossly negligent. There should be a standard of behavior that constitutes reasonable, prudent stewardship of firearms. 

Such standards would let the free market solve the problem. Currently all actors within the firearm market get to pass on all the negative and harmful costs of production and risks to all the rest of us.

posted by Spock

1.  Hawaii and its statistics reside in a vacuum.  1000 miles from nowhere.  Not a good comparison

2.  Chicago and DC have gun violence problems because you can go next door and get them.  Jesus that is a fucking stupid argument..  I live by a grocery store.....i should weigh 500 pounds.

3.  People that shoot people don't care about the laws.  More laws arent doing shit.

4.  These shootings are about mental health and the access to devient cultural behaviors that kids have access to.  Their social media is more to blame then the gun they use.

1. Because Hawaii is in a vacuum is precisely why it is a good test of its firearm regulations. The cost of flying to Texas to get an unlicensed hand gun is too high so motivated criminals have less opportunity to commit crimes with firearms and turn to less tools to execute criminal mischief. 

2. Not surprising the example fails to resonate with the gym teacher. The point CC is that you probably go get groceries that you desire at the grocery store right next to you don't you? If your city council decided to ban said grocery store you would travel to the grocery store outside of the city limits if you costs of doing so did not outweigh your demand for groceries. The cost of traveling to Gary, Indiana to obtain a firearm is low and so the firearm bans are ineffective. The cost of driving from Toledo to Chicago to get an abortion is low and so the abortion relative to the demand for abortion and so the restrictions passed by the Ohio legislature are ineffective. Do you see how this works yet? You wouldn't get abortions if you had an abortion clinic right next to you because you have no demand for abortions. You're not 500 pounds despite a grocery being next to you because you don't have a demand for that many calories. The point is that our federal system does and disparate state laws do not put enough barriers to suppress the demand for firearms in most of our states because our Constitutional Right to travel freely interstate makes state by state firearm regulation largely ineffective relative. 

3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place. And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it. There has not been a St. Valentine's Day massacre with Tommy Guns since they were made illegal. Laws work because the free market works and motivated criminals are not totally free from rationality. If the costs are high and there are barriers to opportunity they'll try to use vans instead of guns and you can't drive a van into a school full of children. 

posted by BoatShoes

What if we can have a greater police presence in schools while also trying other things? The father in this case was grossly negligent. Adam Lanza's mother was grossly negligent. T.J. Lane's father or grandfather (can't remember which one) was grossly negligent. The father of the Tennessee shooter was grossly negligent. There should be a standard of behavior that constitutes reasonable, prudent stewardship of firearms. 

Such standards would let the free market solve the problem. Currently all actors within the firearm market get to pass on all the negative and harmful costs of production and risks to all the rest of us.

I'm not uninterested in hearing this teased out.

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

posted by QuakerOats

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

263 officers killed in the line of duty between 2016 and 2017.

Over the same time frame, 2093 people were killed by officers.

Why would there be media outrage?

posted by BoatShoes

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

LOL this might be your most ridiculous post, but I will give you credit for managing to "sound" intelligent.   In a nutshell you are trying to say because people are killing themselves, it delegitimizes the purpose of the 2A.  That's like saying the 1A should be repealed, because lately it has done more harm (in the eyes of radicals) than good.

Also, you are assuming these people are killing themselves because they have guns.  Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and they aren't allowed to have guns.  Banning guns from the mass millions of law abiding citizens is not the best approach to stopping suicide, but I think you know that.

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

posted by like_that

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

agreed......when I taught on 5th st in Dayton everyone walked through a metal detector and doors were chained shut at the start of the day......this was 20+ years ago (pre Columbine)

posted by Spock

agreed......when I taught on 5th st in Dayton everyone walked through a metal detector and doors were chained shut at the start of the day......this was 20+ years ago (pre Columbine)

Which school?

I am still laughing at the fact that BS posted an article from theonion and then agreed with it...

posted by like_that

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

That is a really good point, IMO. 

Food for thought. 

posted by QuakerOats

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

Nice off-topic apples-to-oranges comparison!!!

I'd guess any outrage would be blunted by the simple truth that, while it's obviously not a desired result, when a person makes law enforcement their occupation, it's basically understood that there is a chance that on a given day or night, you'll be in a situation where your safety and even your life may be at risk and there also is a chance that you won't survive that situation. It's the reality of a profession where one is expected to confront and apprehend criminals who may be violent.

Which is a bit different than groups of young people being shot down in their schools by deranged classmates and the like. Neither are good, but there's always going to be less outrage for the death of a professional in a job that has moments of high risk than there will be for young people getting killed in their school, or worshipers getting killed in their church, or concert-goers getting killed at a venue. That's the sort of common sense thing that anyone with enough brain cells to handle basic motor functions should be able to reason their way through.

Hope this helps.

posted by like_that

Which school?

Stivers

posted by BoatShoes

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

Suicide sucks, I don't disagree. But, as the US is very different than other countries, and Alaska is very different than Hawaii, suicide is very different than murder. 

posted by justincredible

Suicide sucks, I don't disagree. But, as the US is very different than other countries, and Alaska is very different than Hawaii, suicide is very different than murder. 

Taking away guns or adding laws for the millions of people who actually follow the law isn't going to prevent suicide either.

posted by like_that

Taking away guns or adding laws for the millions of people who actually follow the law isn't going to prevent suicide either.

I agree it's a poor argument. Rights are not dependent on the actions of other people.

posted by Heretic

Nice off-topic apples-to-oranges comparison!!!

I'd guess any outrage would be blunted by the simple truth that, while it's obviously not a desired result, when a person makes law enforcement their occupation, it's basically understood that there is a chance that on a given day or night, you'll be in a situation where your safety and even your life may be at risk and there also is a chance that you won't survive that situation. It's the reality of a profession where one is expected to confront and apprehend criminals who may be violent.

Which is a bit different than groups of young people being shot down in their schools by deranged classmates and the like. Neither are good, but there's always going to be less outrage for the death of a professional in a job that has moments of high risk than there will be for young people getting killed in their school, or worshipers getting killed in their church, or concert-goers getting killed at a venue. That's the sort of common sense thing that anyone with enough brain cells to handle basic motor functions should be able to reason their way through.

Hope this helps.

Oh, I well understand your statements.  My post had to do with the media-driven scenario that when police are killed, well it can be sort of ok, since many of them deserve it ......    Just a little more warpage from the failing journalism field. 

posted by BoatShoes

3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place.

My issue with more laws is when the new laws would not have prevented the crime. In the case of the Connecticut shooter his mother passed every background check and lived in a very restrictive state. He killed her and took her ar-15. So the solution some come up with is that I need a background check? That wouldn't have prevented the crime. The Texas shooter used his father's shotgun and pistol. He was not old enough to buy a gun. What new law would have stopped that. 

Another issue I have with background checks is that the there is currently no gun registration. Even if the govt wants to ban them, they don't know where they are. If Donald Trump decides tomorrow that he wants to collect all the ar-15s I'm happy he doesn't have a list and I'm not about to provide one for him. 

And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.

This argument goes both ways. People on both sides use the same arguments when arguing for something they want

posted by BoatShoes

3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place.

Not really.  It's an argument against redundant laws or unrelated laws.  Not necessarily against laws themselves.

Though I'd say it's worth asking: Are laws the only way in which we attempt to change our society for the better, real or perceived?  Should they be?
 

posted by BoatShoes

And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.

This is fair.  The hypocrisy of a man crying over extra regulations on firearms when he would turn around and bitch about two men who touch peckers wanting to be married is ... well ... palpable.
 

posted by BoatShoes

There has not been a St. Valentine's Day massacre with Tommy Guns since they were made illegal. Laws work because the free market works and motivated criminals are not totally free from rationality. If the costs are high and there are barriers to opportunity they'll try to use vans instead of guns and you can't drive a van into a school full of children. 

San Bernadino in 2015.  That shooting had double the casualties of the St. Valentine's Day massacre, and it was with fully automatic weapons.

If someone wants one, they can find one, make one, or convert one.

posted by O-Trap

If someone wants one, they can find one, make one, or convert one.

I mentioned this months ago, but 3D printers will change the game on this.  Good  luck regulating that.

posted by justincredible

I agree it's a poor argument. Rights are not dependent on the actions of other people.

The end.

posted by like_that

I mentioned this months ago, but 3D printers will change the game on this.  Good  luck regulating that.

I don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.

And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.

posted by gut

I don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.

And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.

https://ghostgunner.net/

posted by gut

I don't know....seems like they'll flag those people just like they do people searching for how to make bombs and sarin gas on the internet.

And I haven't looked in a while, but a lot of those 3D printed guns didn't appear to be capable of firing more than a few rounds before failing.

The technology is going to get better is my point.  I'm interested in how they will flag these people down, when all they have to say is they have a 3D printer.  It's much easier to connect the dots on bomb making vs how a 3D printer is going to be used.