Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

I mentioned it because it was gun-free. It was chosen as a gay bar, though, not because it was gun-free. What I am saying is the idea that shootings happen at gun free zones is not statistically significant. Furthermore, any causal relationships is dubious.

Are you a mind reader, or speculating?

The correlation is strong that these people choose gun free zones.

That’s like saying people choose to die in hospitals. The correlation may be strong, but the cause and effect most likely goes the other way around. People who are sick and likely to die go to hospitals to try to get well. And sites that are good targets for mass shootings in their own right are then designated as gun free zones as the effect, not the cause. There is no evidence of shooters taking into account the fact an area is a gun free zone in order to specially target it.

 

[pnewton]

Are you a mind reader, or speculating?

Neither.

There sure seems stronger correlation between the importance of the target to the person than the “softness”, or whether it is gun-free, military property, or neither.

The only correlation I see is between people that think “gun-free zones” are picked targets, and those that want to carry a gun. I see confirmation bias.

 

[Theo520]

That’s like saying people choose to die in hospitals. The correlation may be strong, but the cause and effect most likely goes the other way. Sites that are good targets for mass shootings in their own right are then designated as gun free zones. There is no evidence of shooters taking into account the fact an area is a gun free zone in order to specially target it.

No it’s not. People are dying and chose to try live by visiting hospitals. It has no comparison with selecting a location for a mass shooting.

But you are right that good targets are designated gun free, in the misguided belief it will help. But that decision ignores the fact that the shooter ignores the designation. These mass shooting aren’t reactive, impromptu actions caused by someone who just happened to be armed.

 

[Theo520]

Neither. And there sure seems stronger correlation between the importance of the target to the person than the “softness”, or whether it is gun-free, military property, or neither.

Yes, being ‘gun free’ is not the prime factor but it does appear to be a factor. It’s natural for someone select the softest target that meets their other criteria. Even if schools were not gun free zones I expect there would be shootings there, but the argument is that a quicker response would limit casualties, or the shooter might pick another location (not a net win, but good for the kiddies).

 

[exnihilo]

My problem with the statement is that it suggests ‘reasonable policies to help curb gun violence’ have not already been implemented. It also suggests, wrongly, that assault weapons aren’t already currently heavily restricted and banned. The worst might be

Some weapons are increasingly capable of easily causing mass murder when used with an evil purpose

The weapons are unchanged. They are not increasingly capable of anything. This suggests a serious lack of understanding of the issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s like saying people choose to die in hospitals. The correlation may be strong, but the cause and effect most likely goes the other way. Sites that are good targets for mass shootings in their own right are then designated as gun free zones. There is no evidence of shooters taking into account the fact an area is a gun free zone in order to specially target it.

No it’s not. People are dying and chose to try live by visiting hospitals. It has no comparison with selecting a location for a mass shooting.

But you are right that good targets are designated gun free, in the misguided belief it will help. But that decision ignores the fact that the shooter ignores the designation. These mass shooting aren’t reactive, impromptu actions caused by someone who just happened to be armed.

The argument that gun-free zones are ineffective at preventing mass shootings is a totally separate argument from the one that says gun-free zones encourage mass shootings. I can agree with the first one, but not the second one.

 

[Ender]

The argument that gun-free zones are ineffective at preventing mass shootings is a totally separate argument from the one that says gun-free zones encourage mass shootings. I can agree with the first one, but not the second one.

But this goes to your earlier statement that nothing has been done on this issue, suggesting that it’s because people have failed the moral obligation to try to resolve this problem, when in fact the differences of opinion about what is or is not a good idea are so entrenched that progress is extremely difficult.

 

[pnewton]

But you are right that good targets are designated gun free, in the misguided belief it will help.

A gun free zone has nothing to do with being a good or bad target of a mass shooting. Bars are gun free because alcohol impairment makes having a fire arm more dangerous. Schools are gun free because teenagers do not need guns, and school administrators need to have control of security. Business are gun-free because owners have the right to make that determination based on their private property rights.

The reason guns are kept out of these locations is because of danger of accidental killing or crimes of opportunity or passion, not any sort of pre-meditated shooting.

The issue the USCCB is addressing in regards to these shootings is gun control, not whether some areas need to be exempted from the legal carrying of firearms.

 

[Ender]

The issue the USCCB is addressing in regards to these shootings is gun control, not whether some areas need to be exempted from the legal carrying of firearms.

I would have thought the issue was reducing the number of mass shootings. Your statement makes it appear that the USCCB is using the shootings not to press for methods to reduce them but simply as a means to the end of reducing gun ownership. The question of the effectiveness of gun free zones is quite valid if the concern is with controlling gun violence rather than controlling gun ownership.

 

[pnewton]

I would have thought the issue was reducing the number of mass shootings. Y

People being murdered one at a time is a life issue. People being murdered in groups like sheep is a life issue. The two are related, but that which reduces one may have zero impact on another.

 

[Ender]

People being murdered one at a time is a life issue. People being murdered in groups like sheep is a life issue. The two are related, but that which reduces one may have zero impact on another.

You are conflating the problem - people being murdered - with the choices involved in resolving it. The problem may be caused by people making immoral choices, but the choices facing those trying to resolve the problem are not moral, they are entirely prudential.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

The issue the USCCB is addressing in regards to these shootings is gun control, not whether some areas need to be exempted from the legal carrying of firearms.

I would have thought the issue was reducing the number of mass shootings. Your statement makes it appear that the USCCB is using the shootings not to press for methods to reduce them but simply as a means to the end of reducing gun ownership. The question of the effectiveness of gun free zones is quite valid if the concern is with controlling gun violence rather than controlling gun ownership.

The statement cited does not mention reducing gun ownership as a primary goal. There is mention of “gun control” which can mean many things besides gun ownership. For example, it could include regulations about gun safes in homes, or restrictions on certain types of guns. It is a straw man argument to say that pnewton is saying the bishops were just advocating as a primary goal the reduction in ownership of guns.

 

[o_mlly]

… murdered in groups like sheep …

What? Sheep are being murdered in groups! That’s outrageous. Everyone knows only lambs can be murdered in groups.

 

[Theo520]

A gun free zone has nothing to do with being a good or bad target of a mass shooting. Bars are gun free because alcohol impairment makes having a fire arm more dangerous. Schools are gun free because teenagers do not need guns, and school administrators need to have control of security. Business are gun-free because owners have the right to make that determination based on their private property rights.

The reason guns are kept out of these locations is because of danger of accidental killing or crimes of opportunity or passion, not any sort of pre-meditated shooting.

The issue the USCCB is addressing in regards to these shootings is gun control, not whether some areas need to be exempted from the legal carrying of firearms.

It’s crazy that you think risk of opposition doesn’t affect target selection. The fiew times people have targeted the police, like in Dallas, they did so from a distance to reduce their risk.

Yes, there is some reason behind why people establish gun free zones, but it is faulty. Take schools, pro-gun people don’t want to make them ‘open carry’ locations where anybody is allowed to go armed. They would like trained staff to have the option to conceal carry, which would increase the risk to an attacker and reduce armed response time. It would mitigate the need to have armed guards at every school.

I’m not really sure what the USCCB is trying to accomplish since they’ve provided little specifics on what they are proposing that is different, and why it would work. Separately I’ve shown there is no correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership.

 

[pnewton]

A lot of stuff there I don’t agree with, but since you consider other opinions “crazy”, I will address my concerns while voting.

My posts are still here. I do not believe the “last word wins,” nor will I bandy useless rhetoric.

 

[Theo520]

A lot of stuff there I don’t agree with, but since you consider other opinions “crazy”, I will address my concerns while voting.

I supported my reasoning, and you ran. I think you can’t respond to my logic. Perhaps you are reasoning from emotion. Try applying some logic.

 

[Theo520]

from the article, they support the following

Dewane mentioned that the USCCB has suggested policies for better background checks, limitations to high-powered weapons, more laws criminalizing gun traffic, improved access to mental health care, and increased safety measures on guns.

• nobody is fighting against a better background check database, but the devil is in the detail. What specifically needs to change (beyond people just entering missing data)
• No idea why they suggest limiting high power weapons. Your basic hunting rifle is a high power weapon. The AR 15 is on the low side, and your standard 22lr is shown to be the most lethal caliber from FBI records.
• gun trafficking is already very illegal. We probably just need to start enforcing our existing laws.
• improved access to mental health care sounds good but need details. I think we need more research so we can better flag these people. I don’t think we can yet.
• increased safety measures on guns sounds like a feel good platitude. Guns are actually quite safe and don’t go off by accident.

I wish they had recommended broad gun safety training in our schools, I think that would really help, but not for mass shootings.

 

[StarMapp]

Flagrant disrespect for life and killing doesn’t qualify, but diocese and parish screening for crime warrants a real serious action?

 

[JHC]

There was gun control in place. IT FAILED.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s crazy that you think risk of opposition doesn’t affect target selection. The fiew times people have targeted the police, like in Dallas, they did so from a distance to reduce their risk.

There is a big difference between a group of armed police officers and an area that simply not designated as a gun free zone. Unless there is a high likelihood (not just a distant possibility) of meeting an armed defender, a mass shooter would not think twice about the absence of a gun-free zone sign at a school. Even a gun-free zone may have official armed guards present. I would fear that much more than the remote chance that there is going to be some CCW citizen who just happened to be passing by. Gun-free zones, at the very worst, are a waste of a sign-maker’s time. That is all. They are not more dangerous because of the sign, if you compare comparable targets - not police vs. school kids.

But let’s look at the other side of the coin. The gun-free zone designation was not designed to discourage an irrational mass shooter who does not mind killing himself in the process. The problem it was meant to solve was to provide a legal tool to prosecute those who bring a gun with the intention of settling a score or showing off. They are not mass shooters. They are not heedless of their own lives. If they are caught before they do the deed and have a gun, without the designation, the authorities will have to just let him go until he does succeed in harming someone. Then they can take him in and charge him with a crime. But by then the harm has already been done. Violating a gun free zone allows the authorities to prosecute those intent on doing harm before they do it.

Yes, there is some reason behind why people establish gun free zones, but it is faulty. Take schools, pro-gun people don’t want to make them ‘open carry’ locations where anybody is allowed to go armed. They would like trained staff to have the option to conceal carry, which would increase the risk to an attacker and reduce armed response time. It would mitigate the need to have armed guards at every school.

Are you sure that the “gun free” designation applies to trained authorities? It sounds like what you say pro-gun people would like is something that could already be provided within the existing “gun free zone” framework, or by a slight modification of it. How much difference is there between “armed guards” and “properly trained staff?” If what you say is true about what pro-gun people want, I could go along with that - as long as we didn’t have to relax the restrictions on those other than properly trained staff.

I’m not really sure what the USCCB is trying to accomplish since they’ve provided little specifics on what they are proposing that is different, and why it would work.

Yes, they are trying to avoid providing specifics in order to stay within their field of expertise. You will notice that the USCCB is also roundly criticized by many posters here for being too specific. I guess they are going to be criticized no matter what they say.