Another school shooting (2 Viewers)

[ATC1]

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

Part of what people are saying is that the guns are already out there. Registered, unregistered, stolen, traded on the black market, etc.

Institute national registration with draconian teeth right now, and the situation is little changed. I do think that some effect on general gun violence can be had -- some "crime of passion" and "I'm PO'd right now!" deaths can be curtailed. But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

I believe legal age is 18 for shotgun ammo and 21 for handgun ammo.

 

[timschochet]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloy’s criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticut’s gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport — the state’s three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

That's excellent!

Well, Icon, isn't this evidence that registration should be nationwide?

 

[Doug B]

If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

Other countries got in on the ground floor -- they were never founded with the idea of an armed citizenry as a central tenet.

Not saying change can't or shouldn't be sought -- just pointing out the impediment. America cannot readily do what England, Japan, et al, do regarding guns ... not with all the guns already out there. It's a multi-generational change, at best.

 

[Doug B]

In China they use knives. If we're going to ban guns we should ban knives at the same time before they take over as the killing method of choice in the U.S.

Not a great comparison, because surviving a stabbing is a lot more likely than surviving a gunshot. You're greater point is valid (without guns, mass violence will be attempted), but the specific comparison to guns not all that valid.

 

[General Malaise]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

Yes. And if you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of notable school shootings there.

Can you just hit CTL-V and unload all that for me here?

 

[NCCommish]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

Yes. And if you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of notable school shootings there.

We kick Canada's ### in school shootings. By a large margin. In fact we kick the worlds ###. IIRC in 2012 there had been 31 school shootings in American since Columbine. There were 14 in the rest of the world in that same time frame. 300 million people versus over 5 billion and we won. We're number 1!

 

[[icon]]

But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

Exactly.

Everyone's up in arms about the guns, but these last few shootings were done by people who were LITERALLY ANNOUNCING to the world that they were going to do this.... in some cases the authorities were even called to inspect matters and yet they fall through the cracks and carry out their crimes.

Hrmmm....

1) Enact what is likely to be costly, highly ineffective legislation that potentially infringes upon constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens...

or

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Sweeping gun legislation in the face of glaring pre-crime announcements is just as stupid as wasting time frisking granny while a guy in a bomb belt is telling the guy next to him about how he's going to blow up the plane 3 people down the line. Let's dial down the stupid and open our eyes a bit, mmkay?

 

[General Malaise]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

Yes. And if you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of notable school shootings there.

We kick Canada's ### in school shootings. By a large margin. In fact we kick the worlds ###. IIRC in 2012 there had been 31 school shootings in American since Columbine. There were 14 in the rest of the world in that same time frame. 300 million people versus over 5 billion and we won. We're number 1!

Don't forget movie theaters, malls and idyllic Santa Barbara.

 

[Doug B]

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

I'd like to think they're not walking into the sporting-goods store and buying the ammunition in bulk, out in the open. But I don't know for sure.

 

[timschochet]

But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

Exactly.

Everyone's up in arms about the guns, but these last few shootings were done by people who were LITERALLY ANNOUNCING to the world that they were going to do this.... in some cases the authorities were even called to inspect matters and yet they fall through the cracks and carry out their crimes.

Hrmmm....

1) Enact what is likely to be costly, highly ineffective legislation that potentially infringes upon constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens...

or

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Sweeping gun legislation in the face of glaring pre-crime announcements is just as stupid as wasting time frisking granny while a guy in a bomb belt is telling the guy next to him about how he's going to blow up the plane 3 people down the line. Let's dial down the stupid and open our eyes a bit, mmkay?

Why can't we do both?

 

[timschochet]

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

You're kind of dancing around Courtjester's point ... but I think it's safe to assume you feel that the gun deaths are very much preventable.

Well, we have crazy people all over the world. What we don't have, however, is school shootings on a weekly basis all over the world. I don't expect many of the gun lovers here to give "Bowling for Columbine" a fair viewing, but it was an eye opening film regarding gun violence in America. If other countries are preventing atrocities at an alarming rate of frequency, why can't we?

This is the same point that NC Commish made, and that Obama made today. I believe it's disingenuous; here's why: because in most of those other countries you mentioned, the public is not allowed to own guns.

So you guys are correct: if we could somehow miraculously eliminate all guns from our society, we would all be a lot safer. There would be no school shootings. But that doesn't mean that more gun control will lead to less school shootings. And since nobody is proposing that we get rid of all our guns, it's disingenuous to imply that we can be like other countries that don't have this problem. We can't.

They have guns in Canada, right?

Yes. And if you go to Wikipedia, you can find a list of notable school shootings there.

We kick Canada's ### in school shootings. By a large margin. In fact we kick the worlds ###. IIRC in 2012 there had been 31 school shootings in American since Columbine. There were 14 in the rest of the world in that same time frame. 300 million people versus over 5 billion and we won. We're number 1!

Well, part of this is the culture. You can't change it with laws. Honestly, I don't see any way to reduce these school shootings.

 

[17seconds]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

When it comes to the Republican party, it's worse than nothing. They fight to reduce social programs like mental health care as much as possible.

The plan is basically "Do nothing about access to guns because crazy people are the problem. They're on their own to figure out how not to be crazy."

 

[[icon]]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

Why don't you stop rhetorically asking the question and let us know? We're curious.

Even when threatened with Class D Felonies, As low as 15% of firearms were registered by the deadline.

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Experiment failed.

 

[General Malaise]

Can we perhaps change the way we sell ammunition? Perhaps a high school kid looking to buy enough bullets to take down the French Army (17 bullets, precisely) should be stopped or questioned? I mean, a high school kid legally cannot buy cigarettes in this country. How are they obtaining ammunition to murder?

I'd like to think they're not walking into the sporting-goods store and buying the ammunition in bulk, out in the open. But I don't know for sure.

Yeah, I dunno either. I've never bought a bullet. Not sure how that works, really. Maybe that process should be more scrutinized and taken off the internet if available.

 

[NCCommish]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

When it comes to the Republican party, it's worse than nothing. They fight to reduce social programs like mental health care as much as possible.

The plan is basically "Do nothing about access to guns because crazy people are the problem. They're on their own to figure out how not to be crazy."

Kind of like their pro-life stance. Every fetus must be born but then screw them they are on their own.

 

[Doug B]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

 

[General Malaise]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

Why don't you stop rhetorically asking the question and let us know? We're curious.

Even when threatened with Class D Felonies, As low as 15% of firearms were registered by the deadline.

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Experiment failed.

How exactly has it failed completely? I don't get it. Seems like the statistics in gun violence are going down in CT.

 

[timschochet]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

Why don't you stop rhetorically asking the question and let us know? We're curious.

Even when threatened with Class D Felonies, As low as 15% of firearms were registered by the deadline.

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Experiment failed.

How exactly has it failed completely? I don't get it. Seems like the statistics in gun violence are going down in CT.

Exactly. Icon, please answer this: Isn't the fact that gun violence has gone down in CT evidence that the program works?

 

[17seconds]

But the Columbine-type events are very different, with long-developing plans and plenty of forethought. In a sense, guns are incidental to the damage done. Where guns cannot be gotten, the weapon of choice can morph into pipe bombs, or pressure-cooker bombs, or the like.

Exactly.

Everyone's up in arms about the guns, but these last few shootings were done by people who were LITERALLY ANNOUNCING to the world that they were going to do this.... in some cases the authorities were even called to inspect matters and yet they fall through the cracks and carry out their crimes.

Hrmmm....

1) Enact what is likely to be costly, highly ineffective legislation that potentially infringes upon constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens...

or

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Sweeping gun legislation in the face of glaring pre-crime announcements is just as stupid as wasting time frisking granny while a guy in a bomb belt is telling the guy next to him about how he's going to blow up the plane 3 people down the line. Let's dial down the stupid and open our eyes a bit, mmkay?

Your "or" should be an "and", and you are making quite a leap to say that #1 would be ineffective without knowing what it is yet.

And do you actually think the cost of #2 is any different than the cost of #1? "Pay closer attention" has an enormous cost behind it, much of which infringes upon law abiding citizens. The TSA "pays closer attention" now than it did 14 years ago....

 

[NCCommish]

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Let's look, again, at CT gun registration program. How's that beta running?

Why don't you stop rhetorically asking the question and let us know? We're curious.

Even when threatened with Class D Felonies, As low as 15% of firearms were registered by the deadline.

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Experiment failed.

Or:

So, since handguns make up about 60% of guns in Conn, and have been required to be 100% registered since 1994, the original version of assault rifles had to be registered since 1993, it seems logical that 30,000 new registrations is a sizable percentage of guns covered by the new assault rifle definitions.

It is true, we will never know how many unregistered assault rifles there are in Conn. Pro-gun types tried to argue that the law would cover up to 250,000 people (mostly by claiming things the law did not, such as an assault rifle would be any semi-automatic with a non-wood stock). The more rational supporters of the law said 50,000 to 70,000 since these guns are not your average hunting rifles and shotguns. Have limited use for plinking and out side of a few specialty shooting events are not used for competition.

 

[General Malaise]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

Would it be THAT difficult to sync prescription pill records or records of mental illness with the gun/ammunition purchase process? For example, the kid that shot up Santa Barbara was a mental mess and his parents knew it. I'd want anybody selling him guns or ammunition to know it too. And then stop him from the purchase. Will that prevent every disaster? No. Would it perhaps put people on notice that a person suffering from mental illness is on the quest for ammunition? It would.

And I'd say this....if a bartender serves me too many cocktails and I kill somebody driving home, that bartender is a heap of trouble. How about we consider a similar policy in place for guns/ammunition? Might make the seller a little more careful in who they sell too.

 

[[icon]]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.



The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

 

[NCCommish]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

That's a hilarious response based on your own baked numbers a few posts up.

 

[[icon]]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

Would it be THAT difficult to sync prescription pill records or records of mental illness with the gun/ammunition purchase process? For example, the kid that shot up Santa Barbara was a mental mess and his parents knew it. I'd want anybody selling him guns or ammunition to know it too. And then stop him from the purchase. Will that prevent every disaster? No. Would it perhaps put people on notice that a person suffering from mental illness is on the quest for ammunition? It would.

And I'd say this....if a bartender serves me too many cocktails and I kill somebody driving home, that bartender is a heap of trouble. How about we consider a similar policy in place for guns/ammunition? Might make the seller a little more careful in who they sell too.

While it has its own set of problems, I am not hundred percent cool with certain psychological diagnoses excluding individuals from gun ownership.

 

[Henry Ford]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

Would it be THAT difficult to sync prescription pill records or records of mental illness with the gun/ammunition purchase process? For example, the kid that shot up Santa Barbara was a mental mess and his parents knew it. I'd want anybody selling him guns or ammunition to know it too. And then stop him from the purchase. Will that prevent every disaster? No. Would it perhaps put people on notice that a person suffering from mental illness is on the quest for ammunition? It would.

And I'd say this....if a bartender serves me too many cocktails and I kill somebody driving home, that bartender is a heap of trouble. How about we consider a similar policy in place for guns/ammunition? Might make the seller a little more careful in who they sell too.

How would you feel about having your medical records available to employees of the DMV?

 

[timschochet]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

No. You don't get to have it both ways. You can't argue that CT is representative of what a national registry would be like and then attack the sample size of a study you don't like the results of. Sorry. You've been arguing all afternoon that we should look to CT to see whether or not registering guns would be successful. If we're going to do that, then we have to look at its success as well as its failures. You're the one who's cherry picking.

 

[[icon]]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

That's a hilarious response based on your own baked numbers a few posts up.

My numbers are based on universally excepted total ranges, and are tied directly to a deadline associated with Felony level punishment and hard total numbers. There is no projecting declines and factoring in potential outside influences, national trends, etc.

The gun registration act simply failed.

 

[timschochet]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

That's a hilarious response based on your own baked numbers a few posts up.

My numbers are based on universally excepted total ranges, and are tied directly to a deadline associated with Felony level punishment and hard total numbers. There is no projecting declines and factoring in potential outside influences, national trends, etc.

The gun registration act simply failed.

This appears to be a highly subjective conclusion, contradicted by facts on the ground.

 

[[icon]]

What are the NON gun related crime rates in those three cities over the same period? Did they declined by a comparable amount as well?

What about the gun crime rates for the entire state? Was this reflected across the entire state or more of a trend in those three cities causing them to get picked?

Let's look at data over the entire state

 

[General Malaise]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

Would it be THAT difficult to sync prescription pill records or records of mental illness with the gun/ammunition purchase process? For example, the kid that shot up Santa Barbara was a mental mess and his parents knew it. I'd want anybody selling him guns or ammunition to know it too. And then stop him from the purchase. Will that prevent every disaster? No. Would it perhaps put people on notice that a person suffering from mental illness is on the quest for ammunition? It would.

And I'd say this....if a bartender serves me too many cocktails and I kill somebody driving home, that bartender is a heap of trouble. How about we consider a similar policy in place for guns/ammunition? Might make the seller a little more careful in who they sell too.

How would you feel about having your medical records available to employees of the DMV?

I'm fine with it.

If I'm taking some sort of heavy drug that prevents me from driving, I think the DMV should know that and perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to drive.

How about this: You okay with the FAA forbidding pilots on certain medications from flying planes?

 

[timschochet]

In any case, as I pointed out earlier, I don't really think it matters whether or not what was attempted in CT was a success, as NC Commish's information claims, or a failure, as Icon's information claims. It's irrelevant to the question of a national registry. That's a whole different ball of wax.

Let's be pragmatic about this though: a national registry is going to be hard to enact. The NRA is violently opposed, and I don't see it happening. As I've pointed out time and again, though, a reasonable compromise would be universal background checks for all purchases. It would achieve most of the same law enforcement goals as a national registry. A majority of gun owners are in favor of it. It would be less inexpensive and easier to accomplish. And it might have a very real impact on gun crime; at least we can hope so. Why can't we all get behind this and get it done?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

You're totally entitled to your opinion. I haven't said differently have I? But some of us may not find the argument compelling without something to back it up. That's OUR option, just as yours is to keep spouting off opinions without backing them up. That's how this whole discussion thing works.

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Well, obviously I'm dealing with a superior intellect here. A real Rhodes scholar. Let me just see if I got this straight:

1) I'm only allowed to have an opinion on the subject, if I can prove that the legislation that I am in favor of, which is theoretical, would work.

2) Your right to not be bothered by paperwork trumps my right to live in a society where I don't have to see another school shooting every week

3) There's no sense in increasing gun legislation, because criminals won't abide by the laws

4) The situation will obviously get better if we do nothing, and you can prove that

Does that about sum up the arguments that you are making?

 

[StrikeS2k]

We live in a scary place, so why have any laws regulating anything? We can't control everything, so let's just say "#### it!" and let the chips fall where they may. Makes total sense.

Court Jester's point is not a silly one: are gun deaths truly preventable to any degree, or are they the "overhead" of living life (like car crashes, lightning, etc.)? Either side of that particular debate can be argued reasonably.

And yet we have legislation regulating cars. Why have that if they kill people? Does that legislation save lives? Have auto deaths been reduced since seatbelts became mandatory? Was that an inconvenience to people who didn't want to wear their seatbelt?

We have all sorts of gun laws. This is why these discussions are worthless. We have gun laws. You want MORE gun laws. At least with vehicle safety regulations they have an idea whether a new regulation will save lives. You haven't offered any proof that anything you're proposing will make a bit of difference.

You want me, someone who works in Higher Education and doesn't hold a public office, to prove that legislation that hasn't been enacted yet will work? Exactly how do you propose that I do that? So, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I can't prove that theoretical legislation would work? Is that what you're saying?

You're totally entitled to your opinion. I haven't said differently have I? But some of us may not find the argument compelling without something to back it up. That's OUR option, just as yours is to keep spouting off opinions without backing them up. That's how this whole discussion thing works.

Once again, how do I prove that theoretical legislation works exactly?

Usually we do studies. It's called science. If you're going to live in the developed world please familiarize yourself with it's methods.

Well, obviously I'm dealing with a superior intellect here. A real Rhodes scholar. Let me just see if I got this straight:

1) I'm only allowed to have an opinion on the subject, if I can prove that the legislation that I am in favor of, which is theoretical, would work.

2) Your right to not be bothered by paperwork trumps my right to live in a society where I don't have to see another school shooting every week

3) There's no sense in increasing gun legislation, because criminals won't abide by the laws

4) The situation will obviously get better if we do nothing, and you can prove that

Does that about sum up the arguments that you are making?

I never asserted 1,3, or 4. I have no idea what you're even saying in 2. Did you say you were a teacher?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When someone shoots up a public place it is because of the lack of mental health care in this nation and not guns.

When we are discussing essential benefits in the ACA thread it is ridiculous that the administration requires mental health coverage in ACA compliant health insurance policies.

Maybe we should treat gun ownership the same as we treat smoking when it comes to health insurance premuims....

I have not given that last sentence any thought so I have no idea if I'd want to support it or run away from it when I return from work this evening.

Haven''t read anyone else's thoughts yet, but lets walk away from this. The reason is that this in practice would only impact a small number of people and these are already those most likely paying more for insurance anyway. Basically about half the insured population are in larger group employer plans. I don't see how this would impact this group at all. About a third are insured by the government which again would not be impacted. So only those few in the individual market and working with small employers would be impacted - likely punished. That is a group that struggles enough already.

So this idea would punish those "already hurting" and otherwise would just be a symbolic gesture. A statement of beliefs. That is not a legitimate purpose for policy.

My initial thought this morning was that higher premiums for smokers whether directly or indirectly has caused employers to push smoking cessation programs among other things that has helped push already declining smoking levels lower. So if I thought that the same thing might happen with guns (I don't - see above) I also have issues as to whether this could be done without employers being uncomfortably involved in the private decisions of their employees.

Now to go back and read other reasons why I might want to run rather than walk away.

 

[PatsWillWin]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it, that every single time we have one of these tragedies, people fall all over themselves to make it out that it's not a problem?

"Oh, we're including suicides now?"

"Gun violence is actually going down"

"Which is worse, school shootings or gun violence in Chicago?"

Why? Just why? I mean, if you work for the NRA or Smith & Wesson or something like that, I can kinda understand it. A tiny bit. But no. You people just want to continue to say there's nothing to see here. There's no solution. And then next week, there will be another school shooting. Or another dickhole will decide to kill a bunch of cops to start a revolution. Or somebody will decide that they can't live without somebody, so the obvious solution is to go and shoot up their workplace. It just goes on and on and on, and until you people get your head out of the sand and come to the table, it will continue to.

If you want to live in a free society there are trade offs. If we get rid of cars and go back to horse and buggies people won't die in car accidents. I bet you're not in favor of that though are you? The fact is violent crime has been going down for decades. That's a fact. Our policy should be decided on rational discussion and facts, not knee jerk reactions to cases like this.

Wow, we must have way more freedom than all of the other "free", democratic countries in the world that don't have nearly the same amount of gun violence.

That Onion title, unfortunately, put it best after the California shooting. Something like "No Way to Prevent This, Says Only Country in the World With This Problem."

You're right. Generally speaking, we do.

Oh good. Please tell me the freedoms we get that people in Canada, UK, Australia, etc. don't have that we're trading for the thousands of murdered people. I'll hang up and listen.

We have significantly more freedom of speech protections.I don't believe Australia or Canada or good comparisons anyway. They are significantly more rural. Gun violence largely occurs in urban areas.

Please break this down for me. What limitations are there on speech in Australia and Canada? I'm sure you're not just saying this having no idea what you're talking about, so please show me some examples of people in Australia and Canada suffering/being imprisoned or otherwise punished for what you consider freedom of speech.

I'm quite certain you could compare gun violence to the major Australian or Canadian capital cities and find that it compares quite favorably to the American counterparts, so let's not move the goalpoasts and pretend that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem.

But the main point is please provide some actual examples of the lack of free speech in Australian/Canada. Shouldn't be too hard to find someone in jail for criticizing the prime minister or the queen or the stupid Canadian currency or something, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Our free speech protections are much more explicit than other democracies. I was pretty shocked when I read about free speech limitations in the UK. It's not something I was always aware of, but it is interesting. Both Australia and Canada have carve outs for what the deem "hate speech". Didn't Canada ban Fox News at some point?I'm not going to get into a political poo flinging contest over this though as it's off-topic. If you are truly interested you can read up.

I'm not saying we don't have a gun violence problem. I'm simply saying Australia and Canada aren't good comparisons. I think Europe is probably better as they are more population dense and diverse. Western Europe obviously has significantly less gun violence so I don't see what the big deal is by drawing comparisons there.

No, that's actually not what you said. I said responded to some bonehead comment about how gun violence is somehow an essential part of a "trade off" coming with living in a free society. You agree with this. My question is simply please show me the high level of freedoms that we get compared to other democratic companies that we exchange all of this gun violence for. So far, I've got limitations on "hate speech" in exchange for the tens of thousands of murders.

Utter non-sense, in other words. You living in the UK would be walking around just as "free" as you are today in the US. Same in Australia. And there would be a far, far less chance that you or someone you know is going to get killed by someone with a gun.

 

[PatsWillWin]

In any case, as I pointed out earlier, I don't really think it matters whether or not what was attempted in CT was a success, as NC Commish's information claims, or a failure, as Icon's information claims. It's irrelevant to the question of a national registry. That's a whole different ball of wax.

Let's be pragmatic about this though: a national registry is going to be hard to enact. The NRA is violently opposed, and I don't see it happening. As I've pointed out time and again, though, a reasonable compromise would be universal background checks for all purchases. It would achieve most of the same law enforcement goals as a national registry. A majority of gun owners are in favor of it. It would be less inexpensive and easier to accomplish. And it might have a very real impact on gun crime; at least we can hope so. Why can't we all get behind this and get it done?

It's absurd that we don't have this already.

 

[timschochet]

In any case, as I pointed out earlier, I don't really think it matters whether or not what was attempted in CT was a success, as NC Commish's information claims, or a failure, as Icon's information claims. It's irrelevant to the question of a national registry. That's a whole different ball of wax.

Let's be pragmatic about this though: a national registry is going to be hard to enact. The NRA is violently opposed, and I don't see it happening. As I've pointed out time and again, though, a reasonable compromise would be universal background checks for all purchases. It would achieve most of the same law enforcement goals as a national registry. A majority of gun owners are in favor of it. It would be less inexpensive and easier to accomplish. And it might have a very real impact on gun crime; at least we can hope so. Why can't we all get behind this and get it done?

It's absurd that we don't have this already.

We don't have it because it would hurt gun shows. So despite it's membership being for it, the NRA fights tooth and nail against it.

 

[Henry Ford]

2) Pay closer attention when people are screaming from the rooftops that they're about to kill a ton of people.

Well, that's a route fraught with thorns, as well. There are many Dylan-Klebold-looking (and acting, even) teens out there who won't come to be murderers.

Would it be THAT difficult to sync prescription pill records or records of mental illness with the gun/ammunition purchase process? For example, the kid that shot up Santa Barbara was a mental mess and his parents knew it. I'd want anybody selling him guns or ammunition to know it too. And then stop him from the purchase. Will that prevent every disaster? No. Would it perhaps put people on notice that a person suffering from mental illness is on the quest for ammunition? It would.

And I'd say this....if a bartender serves me too many cocktails and I kill somebody driving home, that bartender is a heap of trouble. How about we consider a similar policy in place for guns/ammunition? Might make the seller a little more careful in who they sell too.

How would you feel about having your medical records available to employees of the DMV?

I'm fine with it.

If I'm taking some sort of heavy drug that prevents me from driving, I think the DMV should know that and perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to drive.

How about this: You okay with the FAA forbidding pilots on certain medications from flying planes?

I think that's all self reporting, though.I don't want some random idiot who makes a living handing out license plates to have access to my medical records.

 

[jonessed]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is it, that every single time we have one of these tragedies, people fall all over themselves to make it out that it's not a problem?

"Oh, we're including suicides now?"

"Gun violence is actually going down"

"Which is worse, school shootings or gun violence in Chicago?"

Why? Just why? I mean, if you work for the NRA or Smith & Wesson or something like that, I can kinda understand it. A tiny bit. But no. You people just want to continue to say there's nothing to see here. There's no solution. And then next week, there will be another school shooting. Or another dickhole will decide to kill a bunch of cops to start a revolution. Or somebody will decide that they can't live without somebody, so the obvious solution is to go and shoot up their workplace. It just goes on and on and on, and until you people get your head out of the sand and come to the table, it will continue to.

If you want to live in a free society there are trade offs. If we get rid of cars and go back to horse and buggies people won't die in car accidents. I bet you're not in favor of that though are you? The fact is violent crime has been going down for decades. That's a fact. Our policy should be decided on rational discussion and facts, not knee jerk reactions to cases like this.

Wow, we must have way more freedom than all of the other "free", democratic countries in the world that don't have nearly the same amount of gun violence.

That Onion title, unfortunately, put it best after the California shooting. Something like "No Way to Prevent This, Says Only Country in the World With This Problem."

You're right. Generally speaking, we do.

Oh good. Please tell me the freedoms we get that people in Canada, UK, Australia, etc. don't have that we're trading for the thousands of murdered people. I'll hang up and listen.

We have significantly more freedom of speech protections.I don't believe Australia or Canada or good comparisons anyway. They are significantly more rural. Gun violence largely occurs in urban areas.

Please break this down for me. What limitations are there on speech in Australia and Canada? I'm sure you're not just saying this having no idea what you're talking about, so please show me some examples of people in Australia and Canada suffering/being imprisoned or otherwise punished for what you consider freedom of speech.

I'm quite certain you could compare gun violence to the major Australian or Canadian capital cities and find that it compares quite favorably to the American counterparts, so let's not move the goalpoasts and pretend that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem.

But the main point is please provide some actual examples of the lack of free speech in Australian/Canada. Shouldn't be too hard to find someone in jail for criticizing the prime minister or the queen or the stupid Canadian currency or something, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Our free speech protections are much more explicit than other democracies. I was pretty shocked when I read about free speech limitations in the UK. It's not something I was always aware of, but it is interesting. Both Australia and Canada have carve outs for what the deem "hate speech". Didn't Canada ban Fox News at some point?I'm not going to get into a political poo flinging contest over this though as it's off-topic. If you are truly interested you can read up.

I'm not saying we don't have a gun violence problem. I'm simply saying Australia and Canada aren't good comparisons. I think Europe is probably better as they are more population dense and diverse. Western Europe obviously has significantly less gun violence so I don't see what the big deal is by drawing comparisons there.

No, that's actually not what you said. I said responded to some bonehead comment about how gun violence is somehow an essential part of a "trade off" coming with living in a free society. You agree with this. My question is simply please show me the high level of freedoms that we get compared to other democratic companies that we exchange all of this gun violence for. So far, I've got limitations on "hate speech" in exchange for the tens of thousands of murders.

Utter non-sense, in other words. You living in the UK would be walking around just as "free" as you are today in the US. Same in Australia. And there would be a far, far less chance that you or someone you know is going to get killed by someone with a gun.

I completely disagree. I think free speech is our most sacred right and the ability to impune it legislatively is a big deal. We are far more protected in that sense. Nor do we have millions of CCTV cameras everywhere watching our every move.

Our latitude with freedoms is one aspect of the violence, but I also believe we have a very different culture than Britain. I don't agree that this is some kind of even swap (although it is part of it).

You are more than welcome to try and push gun bans. That's your right. People are going to fight you on it though and that's their right.

 

[[icon]]

Personal thoughts:

Universal background checks are all good.

Id even be cool with requiring a one time test for a license to be able to purchase firearms. Don't think it would do a TON of good but would be far less intrusive than other proposals.

Strengthen quality of mental/felon restricted database (shown to be poorly linked and under utilized currently)

Improve availability of firearm safety training.

Limiting open carry it populous places where it's poor form.

Deploying unmarked/trained "Marshall-style" concealed carry teachers/staff on school grounds to enable quicker response to spree shootings while minimizing visibility of firearms on premises.

Against:

Gun registry of any kind

Absurd magazine restrictions (fine with nixing 100rnd drums, against cutting down from standard magazine sizes (10-20 in pistols, 30-40 rounds in ar15 / ak47 style rifles.

Restricting semi automatic ar15/ak47 "assault style" rifles. Okay with continuing to tightly regulate full auto and silenced weapons.

Limiting concealed carry.

 

[Wrigley]

measured, well-thought out approach

Doing literally nothing.

False. CT enacted mandatory registration.

How's that working out?

Well since you asked:

Statistics revealed in a March 2014 report compiled by Mike Lawlor, Malloys criminal justice advisor, show a reduction in Connecticuts gun violence since 2011. Lawlor said that this drop would not have been nearly as significant without the reforms.

The report aggregates the number of shootings and homicides that took place in New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport the states three most violent cities. Both figures have dropped consistently from 2011 to 2013. In 2011, the cities saw 81 homicides and 317 shootings, falling to 61 and 256 in 2012 and 56 and 214 in 2013.

They seem to like the effect.

Forgive me if I'm less than convinced by a data set that shows declines in crime comparable to national averages once (standard deviation is factored in).... Particularly given the ridiculously small sample size and cherry picking of three cities. Absolutely reeks of data manipulation for political collateral sake.

CT Murder rates

1970: 106

1980: 106

1990: 166

2000: 98

2012: 146

 

[Ignoramus]

It's pretty clear what we are doing now is working well. If it ain't broke...

 

[eoMMan]

Where did this Oregon kid get his guns?

Maybe it's finally time we charge the parents....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But again, I really really hate discussing gun registration in this thread, because it implies that I believe it would have an impact on school shootings and it WILL NOT. And President Obama is being disingenuous by suggesting that it will.

If you believe that a gun registry will reduce gun violence, why wouldn't the reduced gun violence reduce the number of crazies that plan out mass shootings in public places? Gun violence doesn't have any role in seeding the idea?

 

[Otis]

There is no reason to own an assault rifle. None.

Define "assault rifle".

I enjoy sport shooting with my Colt LE 6900. Currently training at 200yds for recreational/competitive purposes.

EYYYEEEEROLLLLL

 

[Otis]

PEW PEW PEW

 

[wazoo11]

Driver's test does a good job of stopping people from drunk driving.

 

[Otis]

It's pretty clear what we are doing now is working well. If it ain't broke...

 

[Otis]

Driver's test does a good job of stopping people from drunk driving.

Yeah but if we give out more cars and booze, we can have the good drunk drivers knock the bad drunk drivers off the road and save lives!

 

[joffer]

Driver's test does a good job of stopping people from drunk driving.

WHAT ANOTHER AWESOME ANALOGY