"Evidence collected over many years, obtained from many locations, indicates that the power of Prayer is insufficient to stop bullets from killing school children." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Yep

Metal detectors, security guards and prayer can't stop school shootings. Is Tyson inferring a faith without works is dead argument? We should stop praying and do something effective? That is what I get from that quote.

so somehow metal detectors and security guards stop shootings from happening at court houses around the country every day but they will not stop shootings from happening at schools for some reason. Is that what you are saying?

The Tyson quote is about school kids. At the Florida school there were supposedly 2 security guards. No metal detectors, but even if there were the perpetrator could just stay outside. The goal appeared to be number of casualties.

"Evidence collected over many years, obtained from many locations, indicates that virtually no person of faith believes prayers will stop bullets from killing school children. They do however recognize that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and some like him will gleefully wade into the blood and destruction of virtually any human tragedy to suggest absurd straw man attacks in their unquenchable thirst for ridiculing people of faith."
-Many of the Rest of Us

People of faith do not need Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be ridiculed. They ridicule themselves every time they open their mouths.

Really? Where is this evidence? Has it been scientifically tested? Where is a school wherein they beg God every day to keep them safe that has been shot up? If you can't think of one, how do you know it isn't because God is sending the protection they pray for? Just because people pray every day in churches and for some ungodly reason, godalmighty still allows them to be shot up, you can't extrapolate that to schools when the only thing they have in common are buildings with people in them.

We need to put God back in schools and require evangelical Christian prayer every day to see if it stops the bullets. If one of those schools gets shot up, we need to test another theory. Maybe it's because there are some Atheists in the school who aren't praying. So kick out the Atheists and see if that pleases God and the shooting stops. If not, maybe it's the Muslims or Jews or Hindus. Kick them out and the prayer vibes will for sure stop the bullets. If not, it's likely those un-saved Mormons. I mean it kind of seems that the percentage of shooting victims who were Mormon (2) must have been much higher than the percentage of mormon students in the school as a whole. So it must be them who are letting the bullets in. You know their prayers have to go through God, Jr. to get to God, Sr. whereas the Christian prayers go right to the all-in-one God.

If you do all that testing and evidence gathering and there are STILL schools getting shot up. We might have to come up with a more radical theory. Some have suggested things as radical as the notion of only allowing law enforcement and the military to have military weapons. They say that may be a start to seeing fewer children dying. But we certainly wouldn't want to do something that extreme before we've tested all the sensible reasons why bullets are raining down in our schools--the prayer stuff.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of a growing number of opportunistic atheists that will gleefully misrepresent the beliefs of religious people in his quest to ridicule them.

My point addresses his specific words: _no_ person of faith is likely to believe that a bullet striking a school child will somehow be prevented from harming that child via prayer. But read his words again. That's what he's saying,

It's a blatant straw man attack at a time when many people are hurting and finding comfort within the faith community. He's dancing on their grief to express his disdain for their faith. He's despicable.

It's perfectly fine to embrace atheism, but if your embrace somehow strips you of your basic humanity and respect for human suffering, you're doing it wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2018 04:49PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Thoughts and prayers are what is traditionally offered by the NRA Caucus after each school mass murder. So far, it has been breathtakingly ineffective. That was NDT's point.

That's where NDT went wrong. He left off the THOUGHTS! It's thoughts AND prayers that are supposed to work!

This speaks volumes to our education system's ability to indoctrinate their charges with a specific political point of view while simultaneously crippling their ability to actually interact with reality.

While airports, courthouses, stadiums and other public venues have measures that reliably keep people safe, these kids somehow feel that their only solution involves demanding something that has never been seen on our shores, ever.

We have one political party that has for decades insisted on passing gun control and move toward banning guns. Where these laws have been implemented there has been no discernible benefit realized. Some of the most dangerous places in America are those with the strictest gun control laws.

But the safest places on earth are behind security check points at airports, stadiums, and other public venues. The streets of Detroit are among some of the most violent in the country, but their schools are virtually free of gun violence. That's because many have installed simple security measures including metal detectors and on-site security.

Sadly, politics outweighs reality, and politicians seem to feel kids are useful fodder. While we're surrounded with many ways to provide security to our children, these are rejected for an agenda that has never had a single significant example of success. Sure, we can make kids safe, but why do that when their jeopardy helps fuel our narrative?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This speaks volumes to our education system's
> ability to indoctrinate their charges with a
> specific political point of view while
> simultaneously crippling their ability to actually
> interact with reality.

On the contrary, I think it speaks volumes to young people not accepting bullshit excuses offered by so many.

> While airports, courthouses, stadiums and other
> public venues have measures that reliably keep
> people safe, these kids somehow feel that their
> only solution involves demanding something that
> has never been seen on our shores, ever.

And "our shores" have an inordinate amount of gun violence compared to other countries where "something" has been done.
They're acting based on evidence, and not accepting the idea that "security" comes from metal detectors and armed guards.
I applaud them. They don't want to make the schools into places where there's a 3-hour line through metal detectors and strip searches to get in, when there are clearly better solutions.

You consider these kids "useful fodder."
Because they don't agree with you.
That's just sad.

Have you considered that their ideas are better than yours?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This speaks volumes to our education system's
> > ability to indoctrinate their charges with a
> > specific political point of view while
> > simultaneously crippling their ability to
> actually
> > interact with reality.
>
> On the contrary, I think it speaks volumes to
> young people not accepting bullshit excuses
> offered by so many.

"Bullshit excuses?" You mean an actual constitutional right?

In a world where we're constantly aware that perception is reality, you choose to enthusiastically depart from reality in favor of an agenda that has never once proven effective in the US. We're not a country with loose gun laws. We're a country with a codified right to bear arms.

And your departure from reality is glaring when you recognize the number one reason people own guns is for personal protection. So your "bullshit excuse" rings in the ears of most gun owners as a complete devaluation of their right to security.

And while you seem to feel air travelers, concert goers, and football fans are somehow worthy of the protections afforded by on-site security, you place this inconvenience as far more undesirable than actually saving children's lives. "Yes, son we have a cure that is virtually always effective, but we're going to let you and your friends die in the pursuit of this other remedy that has never once ever worked. Ever. It's a long term goal, and the more of you that die, the more forceful our emotional appeal becomes."

Sorry Hie, by every actual factual measure, yours is the bullshit excuse.




>
> > While airports, courthouses, stadiums and other
> > public venues have measures that reliably keep
> > people safe, these kids somehow feel that their
> > only solution involves demanding something that
> > has never been seen on our shores, ever.
>
> And "our shores" have an inordinate amount of gun
> violence compared to other countries where
> "something" has been done.

Fine. And lots of kids living in New York City apartments want a pony. Adults are faced with the sometimes difficult task of explaining we're simply not living in a place where this is possible.

Have you looked at gun sales during the Obama administration? Since people view guns as a form of security, they feel threatened when politicians threaten to take them away. It's another one of those inverse relationships. The more you try to take away people's guns, the more they push back and gather more guns.

In what imaginary planet do you imagine the millions of gun owners--who see their weapons as a form of personal security--will gladly hand them over to a government that most trust less than a used-car salesman? You're asking for civil war.

But again, your ideological embrace of a never-before seen solution is far more important than implementing measures that we all know work. And exactly how many complaints are you hearing from Detroit schools where these measures are already in place? There aren't many. The kids are safer inside their schools than they are on the streets.


> They're acting based on evidence, and not
> accepting the idea that "security" comes from
> metal detectors and armed guards.
> I applaud them. They don't want to make the
> schools into places where there's a 3-hour line
> through metal detectors and strip searches to get
> in, when there are clearly better solutions.
>

I mention Detroit schools above. They're actually taking this issue seriously. Here's a recent editorial in the Detroit News. Their solution? On-site security. We can get that implemented relatively quickly. Your unicorn carrying a world where there are no guns and bad guys have no other harmful resources seems to have come up lame.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/02/17/schools-must-boost-security/110543390/


Bullshit. Show me one time a gun control law has made people safer in our history. I know you likely love the Australian example, but will you listen to one of the lawmakers who implemented it? He says gun control advocates should stop using the Australian example. It would never work here. Australians never had a constitutional right to gun ownership, and they never had a culture that associated them so highly with personal security. That's part of our culture.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/australia-ambassador-on-why-gun-laws-cant-save-america/553655/

> You consider these kids "useful fodder."
> Because they don't agree with you.
> That's just sad.
>
> Have you considered that their ideas are better
> than yours?

I'm all for sane gun control laws. But this specific example is an insane foundation for a sweeping gun control argument. The FBI was notified twice, he had dozens of interactions with local law enforcement, he publicly announced a desire to become a school shooter, and his school banned him from carrying a backpack. Give me a law that keeps guns from this kid for one or any of these reasons, and I'll stand with you. But don't take your anti-gun ideology and point to the millions of law-abiding gun owners and say they must surrender their guns because of a complete breakdown of common sense security in this case.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 12:43PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

> Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of a growing number of opportunistic atheists that will gleefully misrepresent the beliefs of religious people in his quest to ridicule them.

Opportunistic atheists? Well, when religious folks leave the door wide open maybe....:)

I haven't seen him misrepresent religious belief. I think he states religious beliefs rather matter of factly.

Ridicule? No. Point out irony, absurdity, contradiction? Yes, as he should. We all should.

NormaRae, thanks for making me grin! Very well done!!!

Granted, my 5-round .38 would not have had a chance against an AR-15, but with any luck, it would have only taken one good shot. And thanks to fairly frequent practice at the range, I am a pretty good shot.

Yeah. That's why I own one. Because there are crazies out there who own more and bigger weapons than I have.

Dear Nepeta cataria,

You make an excellent point...surely, the murderer with the AR-15 had absolutely nothing to fear because he was in a "Gun-Free Zone." If someone like yourself, or some other person who was trained in how to use a firearm, had even something as small as a .38 revolver and was allowed to brandish that weapon LEGALLY at the school, THAT could have changed the course of events that transpired there at the school in FL: perhaps having the double benefit of saving innocent children while simultaneously sending the perpetrator to his eternal dirt nap. Win-win.

/sarc "on". But, by all means, since "gun-free zones" seem to be working so well to stop the senseless slaughter like what happened in FL and other places, let's now throw up sham "protests" to have ALL guns outlawed. Makes perfect sense. /sarc "off"

Thank you, Ed!!

If the shooter couldn't have purchased a gun because there were no guns for sale in the US, THAT could have changed the course of events that transpired there at the school in FL.

If you have a rat problem, nobody thinks the solution is more rats.
If you have an air pollution problem, nobody thinks the solution is more air pollution.

So why do some people, when we have a gun problem, think the solution is more guns?

"If you have a rat problem, nobody thinks the solution is more rats."

Guns don't reproduce, move on their own, or carry disease.

"If you have an air pollution problem, nobody thinks the solution is more air pollution."

Guns are not blown about the wind, aimlessly causing destruction without a controlling hand. They are tools that serve a useful purpose in responsible hands, or ill purpose in irresponsible hands.

"So why do some people, when we have a gun problem, think the solution is more guns?"

It's not a gun problem, but an evil-person-with-evil-intent problem. Take away the guns, and you still have evil people with evil intent; and you also have unarmed victims without the means of defending themselves.

"Pray" that the metal dectector is working today...

Why don't they pray that God will help them identify mentally ill people? I had a discussion yesterday with a detective about a mentally unstable person (my observation. All he could do was be apologetic). I asked him what you do about a person like that. He said, "all you can do is to not engage them. Can I tell her that you will never contact her again?" I was like "YEP. You got it!" She owns a gun and I realized yesterday how scary of a thought that was. There are just way too many loose cannons running around and they can't be forced to get treatment. So God needs to help us come up with a way to weed out the potentially deadly ones. But no, we'll just keep sending thoughts and prayers in the aftermath.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 09:18AM by NormaRae.

Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). Not available yet in most states; but where it is, family members and those close to the person may petition the court to take action (such as temporarily removing access to firearms) against somebody who is a potential threat.

From what I've read about the Florida shooting, Nikolas Cruz met all the criteria for a GVRO.

Did you see the interview with the people who had taken Cruz in? I had been defensive to people who had been criticizing them. They took in a troubled kid and were trying to give him some stability. I thought they had to be out of their minds with grief knowing they probably should have seen something and said something.

But my opinion changed when I saw that interview yesterday. They said they wouldn't have done anything different--he had a right to have 5+ guns. They had no hesitation in admitting they knew he was unstable. They never considered his not having guns to be a condition of him staying there.

But I do like the idea of the GVRO. When you have people like that to whom gun rights are more important than children's lives, it is worthless. However, if it saved even one life because there are still responsible people in this world, it would be worth it.

Outlaw everything but hunting rifles, NO civilian needs a collection of assault rifles. Other countries have done this. Make very strict standards for gun purchases and do not sell guns to anyone with any mental health issues.Weapons today are not the muzzle loaders that were around when the constitution was written. Some laws do need to be changed and updated. How many kids need to die before legislators refuse NRA money and vote in some sensible laws?

Something I have been thinking about lately is how this relates to the destruction of traditional western culture.

The same bunch that began destroying it 50 years or so ago are the ones now who jeer and claim there is no "American culture", "what culture?" they say, like it isn't their fault, after doing their best to kill it.

50 years ago, buildings were still adorned with art, outside buildings had ornate decoration in their construction, with columns and beautiful masonry, inside public buildings such as post offices, schools and courthouses murals, paintings and works of art were on display.

Today, everything is built to look like a big box. Even homes.

It is a symptom of a sickness.

There are more once you begin looking.

These school shootings are another.

Gun ownership per individual and per household has declined significantly in the last 50 years. More laws and background checks are on the books than ever before.

Hollywood violence has increased. Actually, compared to 50 years ago, movies and music are filled with base impulses of acting on emotion, rather than rational thought, careful planning, and compassionate thinking.

When I consider families in our local town, many of them have parents who do not seem to consider traditional American values like these important lessons for their children. Just last week one was not embarrassed to say of their child who did not (after being extended for months) yet again have their homework to turn in that "Sally just doesn't like school, it must be hereditary because I didn't like school either".

Sorry, but destroying a constitutional check and balance (guns are there for us to check government oppression- bullies always choose targets that can't defend themselves. They aren't there for hunting, they aren't there for sports events. They are there to be a potentially lethal response if the government should ever get up to the kinds of shennanagins that so many socialist governments got up to in the last century where the self-righteous start killing anyone in their country who doesn't share their political point of view about how to live their lives).

It isn't the guns. People in asian run into elementary schools with kitchen knives and start slashing and stabbing dozens of children. People drive through crowds with vans. People make bombs and blow up buildings.

It is the culture that has been destroyed. The cultural myth that gave people a sense of identity and morality that has been replaced by films and video games and music that condition young minds to act out on their emotion, that has removed compassion, empathy, and respect from the equation. I was sad even in the sports my kids grew up with changed over time from an emphasis on good sportsmanship and respect to an emphasis on "winning" and "aggression" or sometimes even worse "everyone's a winner, regardless of their effort and personal preparation before game time and outside of practice".

Right now, with some of the crap being uncovered in the government, and some of the rhetoric and terrible dehumanizing rhetoric on both political sides of the isle during the last election (but more from the left where people who disagree are demonized as "unredemable (meaning there is no hope for them to change, and therefore no way they will have a place with "us" in the future) deplorables" etc), pushing for limiting gun ownership is going to have a lot of push back because people are afraid of what the left will do once the guns they fear are gone and they are free to bully at will.

Just offering a different point of view.

Another thing to consider as that most of these shooters are on mind-altering drugs for things like depression. Many studies have shown other things are as effective or more effective for depression compared to these drugs. You don't hear about the drugs on the 6 o clock news because the drug companies are making the commmercials that sponser the news.

random guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gun ownership per individual and per household has
> declined significantly in the last 50 years.

False.
US citizens owned .35 guns per person in 1945.
In 2016 (the last year stats have been calculated), they owned 0.98 guns per person. That's a three-fold increase, not a decrease.

> (guns are there for us to check government
> oppression...)

That may have been the intent of the 2nd amendment. It's entirely unrealistic in the 21st century (and it was in the 18th century, too).

The fantasy of "patriots" with shotguns and AR-15s overthrowing a "tyrannical" US government with a standing army that has drones, stealth bombers, and sophisticated weapons is...well...a fantasy. The "Johnny get your musket and overthrow the government" nonsense didn't work in 1776 (Washington despaired the lousy and non-standard weapons his volunteers brought with them, and didn't make significant progress in the Revolutionary war until the Continental Congress spent money to equip the army with standardized, reliable weapons), and it certainly wouldn't work now.

> It isn't the guns.

You're right in that it's MORE than the guns. It's lots of things.

But it is, also, the guns.
About that there is no question.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The fantasy of "patriots" with shotguns and AR-15s
> overthrowing a "tyrannical" US government with a
> standing army that has drones, stealth bombers,
> and sophisticated weapons is...well...a fantasy.
> The "Johnny get your musket and overthrow the
> government" nonsense didn't work in 1776
> (Washington despaired the lousy and non-standard
> weapons his volunteers brought with them, and
> didn't make significant progress in the
> Revolutionary war until the Continental Congress
> spent money to equip the army with standardized,
> reliable weapons), and it certainly wouldn't work
> now.

Hie,

You and I tend to be on the same page for most topics, but I've got to disagree with you here. No matter where you stand on the gun debate, it's difficult to support the notion that an armed populace cannot resist -- and even defeat -- a large conventional force. History is full of examples of insurgencies, revolutions and uprisings where this has happened. Take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq for starters.

Unless the conventional army is willing to slaughter the entire population in the area, an insurgency will be able to hide among the civilians and operate against the occupying force. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to stamp out.

An armed populace doesn't have to hold out forever with just the weapons it starts with either. They will use what they have until they can capture more from the occupying force, or obtain them by other means, including from enemies of that force. But it helps greatly to start with something.

Your example of the U.S. revolutionary war is a good one. The colonials had their own personal weapons and were building up caches of weapons to be used by American militias. The revolution was sparked on April 19, 1775 when a column of British troops marched from Boston to Concord to capture or destroy a cache of weapons that the local militia had there. This wasn't the first time the British had done this (read up on the "Powder Alarm"), but this time the cache was significantly farther away from the safety of Boston.

The British soldiers traveled to Concord professionally and in formation, but after the battle, many of them broke ranks and fled. The local militias set up ambushes and inflicted significant casualties on the British while these were trying to return to Boston. The ragtag armed populace inflicted a nasty defeat on highly trained, professional forces.

Yes, the colonials organized a regular army of their own, and yes they got aid from outsiders (France and Spain). It also helped that the British were operating at the far end of long supply lines and that the empire was otherwise occupied with with international events on their side of the Atlantic (the Anglo-French War). But that's the way of these things. You use what you've got and hold out until you can organize with allies and work with the enemies of your enemy.

The United States, a superpower, lost a war with tiny Vietnam because armed locals fought back. Armed Afghans have held out against both Russia and the USA for decades. Armed Iraqis have been a thorn in the side of US and allied troops since George W. Bush declared victory in 2003.

Does it always work? No. In 70 A.D. a ruthless Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and slaughtered a large portion of the locals to break the Jewish insurgency that had plagued them for decades.

Does it work sometimes? Certainly. An armed populace can harass and delay conventional troops long enough for public opinion to change, for aid to come from outside or even for the insurgents to hide out in inaccessible locations (Afghan mountain ranges, the Scottish highlands, dense forests, urban neighborhoods) and pick off the occupying force as it tries to operate in the unfamiliar territory.

The insurgency will suffer losses and may lose in the end, but they stand a good chance of success. There's no denying that an armed populace represents an excellent insurance policy against certain kinds of repression.

I agree that it can also have its downsides, as can be seen by the epidemic of shootings that the U.S. has experienced in recent years. I'm not arguing the politics of the U.S. gun debate, just the factual matter of whether an armed populace can be effective against large, regular forces. The historical evidence shows that it can.

East Coast Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not
> arguing the politics of the U.S. gun debate, just
> the factual matter of whether an armed populace
> can be effective against large, regular forces.
> The historical evidence shows that it can.

True enough.
The historical evidence also shows that it often fails.

And the historical evidence doesn't involve a standing army with today's sophisticated, "smart" weapons.

I consider our strongest defense against "tyranny" to be our voices and our votes. If we lose those, no amount of citizen arms are going to do any good, IMHO.

Thanks for the reply.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> random guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gun ownership per individual and per household
> has
> > declined significantly in the last 50 years.
>
> False.
> US citizens owned .35 guns per person in 1945.
> In 2016 (the last year stats have been
> calculated), they owned 0.98 guns per person.
> That's a three-fold increase, not a decrease.
>

Percentage of households owning guns has declined significantly while the total number of guns in private hands has increased.

In 1978 51% of households owned guns. By 2016 that percentage fell to 36%.

The other unavoidable stat is that as the actual percentage of households owning guns has declined, the incidence of mass shootings has increased.

But the overall gun crime rate has been on a steady decline and actual gun violence has gone down as the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Parse these stats however you like, but let's not deny they're true. There is at present an inverse relationship between percentage of households owning guns and incidence of mass shootings. There is also an inverse relationship between number of guns in private hands and overall gun crime.

These stats make it difficult to suggest gun control will reduce gun violence. This is why most appeals are done on a purely emotional level. The NRA murders children and legal gun owners are evil, but please don't look at the actual stats. They prove the opposite to be true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Percentage of households owning guns has declined
> significantly while the total number of guns in
> private hands has increased.
>
> In 1978 51% of households owned guns. By 2016 that
> percentage fell to 36%.

I don't know where you're getting your stats from, but they're clearly not the only source.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

shows that although the % of households owning guns has gone up or down a bit since 1972, it's essentially the same today as it was then.

> The other unavoidable stat is that as the actual
> percentage of households owning guns has declined,
> the incidence of mass shootings has increased.

Since the % of households owning guns *hasn't* declined, there's no point there.

> But the overall gun crime rate has been on a
> steady decline and actual gun violence has gone
> down as the number of guns in private hands has
> increased.

The overall crime rate *has* been on a steady decline. I'm just not sure how that's relevant, since "overall crime rate" doesn't necessarily involve guns.
What *has* been on the increase is the number of mass shootings -- and that DOES involve guns. A far more relevant stat, IMHO.

> Parse these stats however you like, but let's not
> deny they're true.

Oh, yes, let's.
Since they're not.

> There is at present an inverse
> relationship between percentage of households
> owning guns and incidence of mass shootings.

As shown above...not so.

> There
> is also an inverse relationship between number of
> guns in private hands and overall gun crime.

Notice above you said "overall crime rate." Now you're saying "overall gun crime." Those two things aren't the same.
Oops.

Besides...

"In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015. The increase in gun-related deaths follows a nearly 15-year period of relative stasis." (Time Magazine article on CDC report, 2017)



> These stats make it difficult to suggest gun
> control will reduce gun violence.

Even if they were correct (and they're not)...no, it wouldn't.
This is really simple: remove every single gun from the US, and we wouldn't have any more gun violence (except that done by police).

The question isn't whether that would work or not to reduce gun violence -- it would. The question is whether or not doing that is acceptable to Americans.

It is to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 01:58PM by ificouldhietokolob.

As you know, Hie, that's how it works in European countries - and it does work.

Yes, that's how it works in Europe--and in Japan, and in South Korea.

It's funny. Everywhere guns are under strict control, gun violence is minimal and mass murders by gun are almost unheard of. What's equally remarkable is that the causality seems straightforward: very few guns means very few gun killings.

I acknowledge it would take a statistician like Hie to evaluate any leaps of logic in my description of causality, of course. But that should stand as a warning to those making claims about data, particularly those with established reputations of citing sources that contradict their arguments when taking Hie on.

Of course, it is tougher to control guns in the US than elsewhere for two reasons. First, there are now over 300 million guns in private hands in the United States (Congressional Research Service) and getting them out would be very difficult. Second, there is now a culture of guns and gun violence in the US that wold be exceedingly difficult to eradicate.

The key is TMSH's use of the term "on our shores." At this point there is something constitutional, something even sacred, about the right of innocent Americans to have their lives taken at will by others. You foreigners don't understand how great the value Americans put on that right to die needlessly.

It's sacred, really, far more so than the right to life.

Washington has a sure fire way to increase gun ownership: propose more gun control.

Socialist countries that started killing anyone who didn't agree with their political point of view...what? Where? Huh?

What exactly is a "socialist country" ?

This just in: Denmark, sick of assholes, starts shooting them on sight. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 12:52PM by Dorothy.

For the most recent U.S. mass killing I shift blame on a lazy FBI agency for being incompetent. The person that was supposed to take the two tips and follow up should be fired or disciplined and face the families with victims.

The school principal needs to shoulder some blame. Along with the facility manager for having an unsecured school.

They can look at the video footage to look at how a random Uber passenger, with AR-15 ( could just be a bat) was able to walk in the school, avoiding any gate keepers, hall monitors etc.

I would blame those three 1st for this school shooting. But the majority of the blame is on FBI for failing to notify FL schools to watch out for Psycho boy.

Post-massacre "thoughts and prayers" — for those who don't want to do jack shit, but still want credit for "helping."

Why does no one mention the media coverage as motive for mass shootings?

In ten minutes the shooter can gain the entire nation’s attention. Great for ratings.

Let’s admit it, we love this stuff.

This is an important point. The first amendment is probably more to blame than the second.

And that makes me very sad.

If that were true, gun violence would proliferate in Canada, Europe and East Asia because those places cover American gun violence quite closely.

But that does not happen. Why? Because for a culture of gun violence to emerge in a country, you need at least two things. You need wide publicity and you need guns. Since other countries don't have the guns, the news coverage doesn't make a difference.

So you agree the media coverage is a factor, but you only want to focus on guns? Which tells me there is a biased agenda. Look for any excuse to get rid of guns, and ignore any other issues.

Seems it would be easier to stop covering it, than to get rid of all the guns. Or maybe a war on guns would work better than a war on drugs?

If stopping the coverage worked, most people would be against it. After all, what would we talk about?

And again, big money to be made by the media off these shootings.

Just saw an ad for Inside Edition to do a story on the shooter - whether he would inherit a million dollars. Everybody loves this stuff!

Magazines, newspapers, TV, internet, and on and on.

Yep, we don't care.

Perhaps you should read my post again, for you clearly didn't understand it.

No. I think you missed the point. The point was that the shooter may have done it to become famous. If a mass shooter did a mass shooting in another country then there wouldnt be any media coverage of it so there wouldnt be the same motive.
For example:
1) Mass shooter in US is broadcast around the world by media outlets and becomes a house hold name. Media will not stop talking about the shooting because they want gun control.

2) Mass shooter in East Asia is executed without any publicity or sympathy. Their name is deliberately forgotten. People are ashamed to even mention them.

See the difference?

Yes, I see the difference between your two assertions. The problem is that both of those assertions are factually incorrect.

1) You assert that US massacres being broadcast around the world encourages copycat killers who want to become famous. If that were true, there would be copycats around the world. There are virtually no mass killings in Europe or Japan or South Korea. Obviously there is something besides the media that is driving the mass killings, something that exists only in the United States.

2) You state that in East Asia people are ashamed of mass murders and react by ignoring the events. That is true neither in East Asia nor in Europe. Anyone in Scotland in the 1990s or Japan during Aum Shinrikyo or China over the last few years knows that those events get even more coverage than in the US. Why? Because they are so much rarer.

All of those countries broadcast news of mass murders. The vast majority of such reports, though, are reports on events in the US. The broadcasts have virtually no effect on violence in Europe and East Asia because, where guns are illegal, mass murder is very difficult to enact.

Why is it so hard for people on this message board to do some research into the enormous amount of cases that people who were carrying a gun concealed stopped mass shooter, criminals, murders, etc...

Because those instances aren't reported by the NY Times, Huffington Post, or NPR. And even the ones that are reported by local news outlets are only the tip of the iceberg of unreported instances where a crime was deterred merely by the possibility of a potential victim being armed.

If it's an enormous amount then it must be a conspiracy that the major news outlets don't report on all these heroic stories.

Or it could be that there aren't that many of them.

You do the research and present it if it's not that hard.

John Lott, an economist who is an expert on gun crimes, addressed this very issue in an op-ed last November. It wasn't hard to find at all.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/12/good-guys-with-guns-saving-lives.html

Edit to add: Additionally, every month America's 1st Freedom (yes, an NRA publication) includes about a dozen stories from local newspapers across the country of instances where lawful gun owners stopped, or even prevented, crimes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 12:30PM by GregS.

Dorothy this Washington Post Article gives 9 examples https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.79f57739d4b8

This Washington Times article gives 11 examples https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

The Crime Prevention Research Center gives dozens of examples https://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

Its hard to understand why you think that only police can shoot a bad guy dead. Why is it that everyone else's bullets are of no effect.

If a teenager can walk into a school with no training and kill people then why cant a full grown adult with training stop him?

I can defend my home and children with a gun but I cant defend my school and students with a gun because I just have to wait for the government officials to arrive and do it for me.

So should we let the ammosexuals meet at burger king or starbucks for gun show and tell. ?

Open carry ?

I just read this article which provides another slant on the whole subject and notably pointed out that research into gun violence is officially discouraged in the US (by the 1996 Dickey Amendment).

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gun-violence-as-a-public-health-issue/

It's also worth looking at the figures:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/15/586014065/deaths-from-gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world

In particular, the graph on "How The U.S. Compares With The Highest Rates Of Violent Gun Deaths In North Africa And The Middle East" shows that the US is second only to... Iraq in that area.

Only in the US is this even considered a political issue. Everywhere else, it's simply common sense. All the arguing about media coverage, etc., is just a smokescreen to prevent debate.

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2018 10:28AM by Soft Machine.

Actual data and analysis. Thank you, Tom.

You are right. The US is a bizarre outlier, a rich and educated country that thinks the present level of violence is acceptable and that the guns are not the primary cause of the problem.

The notion that media coverage is driving mass murder in the United States is absolutely ridiculous, as anyone sitting in Paris watching media coverage of the American mass murders would know.

I wish Americans knew more about the rest of the world.

So we blame guns when someone shoots up a school but blame extremism and terrorism when someone blows up a building or blows themselves up? So called "gun control" IS NOT the answer people and will not stop this sort of thing. STOP the person before he commits the violence, they had a chance to stop this kid. Stop showing your ignorance shouting "gun control"

You still have not explained the paradox.

Why is it that countries with tight gun control have very low levels of gun violence and yet gun control is not the answer for countries with very high levels of gun violence?

Well, I guess the answer is that it is not a paradox but rather a simple contradiction.