Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

[rcwitness]

I found this article from the Washington Post, you should read it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.8a2b8140bfdf

And just recently, there was a shooting in a Tennessee church wherein the armed perpetrator could have killed many more individuals had the usher in the Church not rushed to his car to retrieve his gun:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/24/22-year-old-with-concealed-carry-stops-tennessee-church-shooter/

Do you see that the argument can be made, that the attacker (Samson) should not have had a gun (or even multiple guns)?

What is his story? Did he legally possess these guns? Did he have criminal history? Was he a legal citizen? Did he have mental illness?

Do you not see that we should find ways to keep guns out of these people’s hands, even if it means out of some innocent hands?

What if Samson never was able to aquire his guns? Did he have more at home?

Are there things about him that could have raised red flags?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

And I think you will find, as you are probably aware, that the primary driver of suicide is depression and/or feeling that there is no way out. The method of suicide has no bearing on the cause. The only point you can argue is that some methods of suicide are more immediate and deadly than others. However, the fact that some people decide to shoot themselves is a poor argument for banning firearms from the 99% of firearms owners who do not shoot themselves. It is universally bad policy to make rules based on exceptions. Using a side issue to forward your agenda against something you personally dislike and have no desire to own is disingenuous and still does not address the actual root of the problem.

 

[josie_L]

I believe his motivation was revenge for what Dylan Roof did at a Black Baptist Church. I do not believe he had any prior mental health issues or a criminal record, so I’m not sure what gun restrictions would have prevented this.

I have noticed, however, that many of the mass shootings have happened in gun free zones.

 

[Jig_Saw]

The 2nd amendment was specifically included in the Constitution to allow you to defend your life and property. And you still haven’t explained why I, as a law abiding gun owner, should bear a financial liability for what happened in Las Vegas, or for that matter, what happens in Chicago where 59 people shot to death is called a “normal month”.

And, yet, it seems that the second amendment is costing me my property and potentially my life because I will have to pay for the costs of the actions of gun owners. It is reasonable that those that own the weapons pay the insurance similar to what we expect for car owners, who pay for car insurance, not those without cars.

 

[dvdjs]

It may have come up in the thread, but is there a reference to a peer reviewed journal account of this survey?
In this interview, I don’t see mention of the MOE. Even assuming that assessments and recollections of the respondents are perfect - far from obvious - he still has a major small number statistics problem, when only 1% of those surveyed respond affirmatively.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And I think you will find, as you are probably aware, that the primary driver of suicide is depression and/or feeling that there is no way out. The method of suicide has no bearing on the cause. The only point you can argue is that some methods of suicide are more immediate and deadly than others.

Interviews with those who have survived suicide attempts proves that the feelings that lead someone to suicide are sometimes very temporary. The more time passes without being able to perform the act during a bout of depression the more likely it is that the victim will pass through that dark valley and be open to getting help. Lives will definitely be saved if the means to suicide are not quickly available.

However, the fact that some people decide to shoot themselves is a poor argument for banning firearms from the 99% of firearms owners who do not shoot themselves. It is universally bad policy to make rules based on exceptions.

I can think of a lot of instances where we set policy based on the exceptions. One guy tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoe. Now 99.9999% of people who do not have explosives in their shoes have to take off their shoes at the airport. Seatbelts in cars are needed only rarely, yet having them in the car and wearing them while driving is the law in most states.

 

[dvdjs]

The authors repeat, item for item, speculative criticisms floated by a man named David Hemenway in 1997 and repeated endlessly since

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

When Gary Kleck can’t defend, he attacks. Instead of offering new insight, Kleck instead baselessly speculates on our motives, suggesting we “hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable.” To be clear: prohibition is not something we have ever suggested in any of our writing, all of which can found at armedwithreason.com. Not that it should matter, but neither of us are merely “investment counselors” either, as Kleck suggests. In fact, DeFilippis spent most of last year helping design and analyze surveys much larger than Kleck’s.

The Florida State professor even goes so far as to describe Dr. David Hemenway, director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center and author of more than 130 articles and five books in Economics and Public Health (a total that includes two decisive rebuttals to Kleck and several surveys), as “a man named David Hemenway… who is also untrained in survey methods.”

Rather than confront the significant, multidisciplinary research showing that the false-positive problem is ubiquitous when measuring rare events, Kleck pretends the problem is negligible, and links us to a 1998 “rebuttal” where he references surveys that have nothing to do with rare events. As Dr. Hemenway has extensively detailed, suggesting that false negatives could somehow outweigh false positives is indulging in fantasy.

 

[pnewton]

No, I am saying that people should value their cars and frying pans more than they value their guns.

Most of us actually make use of them a lot more, which is why I think the car comparison is lacking in substance.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If gun killings are reduced but killings are increased by other means, nothing is accomplished…

True. But now you are assuming that when guns are unavailable, those who would have killed will always find another means. That is a stretch. Sure, some will. But not all. Many killings are domestic disputes that if left to cool off for a few minutes will not take place. Certainly that is the case for suicides. Suicide delayed is often suicide prevented.

I do not pretend to any expertise in the subject matter. But as I mentioned before, gun killings in Mexico are less, per capita, than in the U.S. But murders in Mexico are three times as numerous proportionate to the population. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that high rate, and people probably debate it somewhere. But it certainly would be terrible if it’s even partially due to the generally unarmed population being unable to defend itself.

Another speculation.

Of course mine is a speculation, as is yours. Truth is, neither of us knows. Some, of course, are willing to change the constitution and disarm the law-abiding to implement a speculation. I’m not. When you get right down to it, that’s the essence of this debate.

 

[dvdjs]

Some, of course, are willing to change the constitution and disarm the law-abiding to implement a speculation.

Who is willing to disarm the law-abiding?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can think of a lot of instances where we set policy based on the exceptions. One guy tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoe. Now 99.9999% of people who do not have explosives in their shoes have to take off their shoes at the airport.

I don’t think this works very well. If a person has explosives in his shoe, it is a virtual certainty that he means to kill people with it. If a person in the U.S. owns a gun, it is a virtual certainty that he does not intend to kill anyone with it.

As to auto accidents, it is estimated by at least the following source that there are some 16 million annually in the U.S. Some were fatal, most were not. The hazard from an auto accident is far greater than the hazard from gun owners.

I understand the argument, and it has a certain logic, but I do not think the comparisons are apt at all because of the huge risk disparity in the things compared.

https://www.millerandzois.com/car-accident-statistics.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who is willing to disarm the law-abiding?

I take it you aren’t. If you expressed your proposition for limiting gun ownership (if any) I missed it in the welter of other posts. You can do it now if you wish.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course mine is a speculation, as is yours. Truth is, neither of us knows. Some, of course, are willing to change the constitution and disarm the law-abiding to implement a speculation.

The reasonableness of that course of action depends on the the degree of uncertainty of the speculation involved. When you come right down to it, every decision to take an action in the hopes of achieving an outcome is based on a speculation, since the future is never identical with some event or events in the past. For example, the speculation that if taxes are lowered the economy will certainly improve to the point of producing the same or more tax revenue.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And, yet, it seems that the second amendment is costing me my property and potentially my life because I will have to pay for the costs of the actions of gun owners. It is reasonable that those that own the weapons pay the insurance similar to what we expect for car owners, who pay for car insurance, not those without cars.

I don’t see this as an effective argument.
If I can’t defend myself or my family, who is going to reimburse me for the consequences if a criminal has a gun or other weapon or is just more powerful physically? Nobody, of course.

Besides, if I have insurance because I’m forced to, and don’t shoot anybody, my insurer is not going to pay the victim of some criminal who has a gun but no insurance or is simply never identified. So it’s ineffective in achieving its ostensible purpose.
It might, however, be effective in simply dissuading the law-abiding from having the means of self-defense against a stronger attacker.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I can think of a lot of instances where we set policy based on the exceptions. One guy tried to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoe. Now 99.9999% of people who do not have explosives in their shoes have to take off their shoes at the airport.

I don’t think this works very well. If a person has explosives in his shoe, it is a virtual certainty that he means to kill people with it. If a person in the U.S. owns a gun, it is a virtual certainty that he does not intend to kill anyone with it.

But the point was that even people without explosives in their shoes have to take them off. Just like people who are not going to hurt anyone with their guns have to be restricted. In both cases the policy is based on the exception, but affects everyone.

As to auto accidents, it is estimated by at least the following source that there are some 16 million annually in the U.S. Some were fatal, most were not. The hazard from an auto accident is far greater than the hazard from gun owners.

Yes, and I even admitted that fact in my post if you go and look again. But even with that fact, it is the ratio; (benefit/cost) that I was considering. And even though the benefit in terms of saving lives by banning cars would be huge, the cost of banning cars in terms of its effect on the whole economy would be even huger. (I know, that’s not a real word!)

I understand the argument, and it has a certain logic, but I do not think the comparisons are apt at all because of the huge risk disparity in the things compared.

Car Accident Statistics | Baltimore, Maryland Car Accident Lawyers

Yes, it is very hard to intuitively grasp comparisons with such disparate risks and rewards. But remember, it was the opponents of gun control in this thread who have been consistently raising the question of cars and frying pans.

By the way, I agree that the idea of requiring gun insurance is just not practical or workable, also based on cost-effectiveness considerations.

 

[josie_L]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

When Gary Kleck can’t defend, he attacks. Instead of offering new insight, Kleck instead baselessly speculates on our motives, suggesting we “hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable.” To be clear: prohibition is not something we have ever suggested in any of our writing, all of which can found at armedwithreason.com. Not that it should matter, but neither of us are merely “investment counselors” either, as Kleck suggests. In fact, DeFilippis spent most of last year helping design and analyze surveys much larger than Kleck’s.

The Florida State professor even goes so far as to describe Dr. David Hemenway, director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center and author of more than 130 articles and five books in Economics and Public Health (a total that includes two decisive rebuttals to Kleck and several surveys), as “a man named David Hemenway… who is also untrained in survey methods.”

Rather than confront the significant, multidisciplinary research showing that the false-positive problem is ubiquitous when measuring rare events, Kleck pretends the problem is negligible, and links us to a 1998 “rebuttal” where he references surveys that have nothing to do with rare events. As Dr. Hemenway has extensively detailed, suggesting that false negatives could somehow outweigh false positives is indulging in fantasy.

Kleck speaks of the very issues brought up in this article in the interview I posted. Please read it.

Here is another website detailing crimes, which have been prevented by gun owners:

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

This would corroborate what we know already about gun ownership and gun crime, i.e., that gun crime has gone down while gun ownership has gone up simultaneously during the same period.

 

[marybobo]

And just what do you propose to do with all the guns that are already in the hands of responsible citizens? None of our anti-gun people have answered that although many of us have asked the question.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The reasonableness of that course of action depends on the the degree of uncertainty of the speculation involved. When you come right down to it, every decision to take an action in the hopes of achieving an outcome is based on a speculation, since the future is never identical with some event or events in the past.

That would be true except at the extremes. If, say, most medical expenses are incurred by people over the age of 65 (which is true) we could, with certainty, greatly decrease the national expenditure for medical services by simply killing all people over the age of 65. But that’s something this society is not (yet?) willing to do.

With guns, we simply have a debate, in which both sides have plausible arguments. On the one hand, some argue that getting rid of guns will reduce the murder rate by some unknown factor. There is a certain plausibility to that, since guns are pretty effective instruments. On the other hand, we have the fact that some number of potentially deadly or injurious criminal acts are prevented by citizens who have guns. And we have no idea whatever of the number of lives saved or serious injuries prevented by, say, my enhanced ability with an AR-15 to prevent armadillos from digging holes in a pasture that I or someone else might drop a tractor tire into. We do have some idea of the economic loss due to feral hogs, by way of example. A quick search shows that it was $74 million in Louisiana alone in 2013. Semi-automatic rifles are extremely useful in killing them. So, do we make exceptions for semi-automatic rifle suppression, but only in areas where they’re common, or do we also allow enhanced access as well in places where they’re present but not yet well established?

Nobody knows the balance of all those things, and nobody knows what the net change would be from any of the various proposals whose effect would be to suppress gun ownership.

We ought, as well, to at least recognize that for many, opposition to gun ownership is ideological or even aesthetic, which clouds the debate considerably.

 

[dvdjs]

Disarm. Limiting gun ownership.
You slip from one concept to another far removed from it such nonchalance.
Of course the question was not about me, but about who, as you implied, is working to disarm law-abiding citizens. Who?

 

[dvdjs]

Kleck speaks of the very issues brought up in this article in the interview I posted. Please read it.

He speaks, but he is caught speaking disingenuously. Now what.
And what about the small number statsitics problem?