Open Carry sighting

[silverscreenselect]

Why"?are gun crimes going up or down as more citizens are armed?

If you'll look at the report I posted yesterday from a security company, it indicated that workplaces with a no guns policy had substantially fewer deaths that workplaces without such a policy. I'll post it again for those who prefer Wyatt Earp fantasy to reality:

Compared to workplaces that prohibited all kinds of weapons, workplaces that allowed guns were 6.8 times as likely to have had a worker killed on the job; this increase in risk was statistically significant (95% confidence interval of 3.5 to 13).

In contrast, workplaces that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons were only 1.4 times as likely to experience an increase in the risk of having a homicide, which was statistically insignificant. The risk of workplace homicide was still 4.8 times higher and statistically significant (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14) in workplaces that allowed guns. The authors concluded that, regardless of their intent, employer policies allowing guns on the job seem to increase the risk of fatal violence in the workplace.

Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective [anti-violence] countermeasures. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.

Establishing a gun-free workplace policy for clients and visitors as allowed by law is another positive step. In states that permit concealed weapons, setting such a policy may require posting specific notices to inform the public that weapons are prohibited.

[Bob Juch]

Why"?are gun crimes going up or down as more citizens are armed?

If you'll look at the report I posted yesterday from a security company, it indicated that workplaces with a no guns policy had substantially fewer deaths that workplaces without such a policy. I'll post it again for those who prefer Wyatt Earp fantasy to reality:

Compared to workplaces that prohibited all kinds of weapons, workplaces that allowed guns were 6.8 times as likely to have had a worker killed on the job; this increase in risk was statistically significant (95% confidence interval of 3.5 to 13).

In contrast, workplaces that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons were only 1.4 times as likely to experience an increase in the risk of having a homicide, which was statistically insignificant. The risk of workplace homicide was still 4.8 times higher and statistically significant (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 14) in workplaces that allowed guns. The authors concluded that, regardless of their intent, employer policies allowing guns on the job seem to increase the risk of fatal violence in the workplace.

Enforcing a no-weapons policy for employees as allowed by law is a fundamental component of establishing effective [anti-violence] countermeasures. Weapons policies should be written, made known to all employees, and consistently enforced. Employer policies prohibiting firearms have been shown to reduce the incidence of homicide in the workplace, and they demonstrate a commitment to safety.

Establishing a gun-free workplace policy for clients and visitors as allowed by law is another positive step. In states that permit concealed weapons, setting such a policy may require posting specific notices to inform the public that weapons are prohibited.

What was the studied period? How many total workplace shootings were there?

[Beebs52]

How many workplace gun deaths are there compared to other gun deaths? What does that have to do with a crazy evil person driving around Santa Barbara?

[Beebs52]

And, while some peeps don't believe there are evil people out there, absent ostensible mental illness, there are. And, they will kill people without guns. Ted Bunchesu Ed Gein, Green River killer, Zodiac, yada yada. Creeps can fool the system easily. Get guns because they're not on the radar.

[silverscreenselect]

What was the studied period? How many total workplace shootings were there?

I posted the report yesterday in this very same thread. I quoted from it in a post yesterday. People who don't feel this fits into their agenda chose to ignore it and trot out the same tired one-liners the gun lobby always trots out. That's fine.

But I'm not going to keep posting this over and over and over again so that you and BiT and TMITSS can continue to ignore it and go on repeating asinine comments about gun free zones.

And it's not the only report out there. I'd read the same thing in a number of places before. But it's the first one I found fairly quickly from what I consider a reputable source.

[silverscreenselect]

How many workplace gun deaths are there compared to other gun deaths? What does that have to do with a crazy evil person driving around Santa Barbara?

There's obviously less workplace gun deaths than other gun deaths because there are fewer guns in the workplace than at home.

Most gun deaths are not caused by crazy evil people like the Columbine and Newtown shooters or Son of Sam. They are caused by more or less ordinary people who are depressed or snap or do something careless or stupid when there's a gun. Take the guns out of the workplace and out of the school (where the dynamics are similar) and the moment passes. Both of the Waffle House shootings I've mentioned were the result of ordinary arguments that got out of hand. Without guns, there might be some fisticuffs but everyone is still alive. With guns, two people are dead (one a cop) and four more people are in jail. And it's also fortunate that the only people hit were the people the shooter was aiming at. A lot of times in a crowded restaurant or office or school room that won't be the case.

[Bob Juch]

What was the studied period? How many total workplace shootings were there?

I posted the report yesterday in this very same thread. I quoted from it in a post yesterday. People who don't feel this fits into their agenda chose to ignore it and trot out the same tired one-liners the gun lobby always trots out. That's fine.

But I'm not going to keep posting this over and over and over again so that you and BiT and TMITSS can continue to ignore it and go on repeating asinine comments about gun free zones.

And it's not the only report out there. I'd read the same thing in a number of places before. But it's the first one I found fairly quickly from what I consider a reputable source.

You have quoted twice the same statistics but did not answer either of my questions.

[silverscreenselect]

You have quoted twice the same statistics but did not answer either of my questions.

I posted the link to the report. The report has all that information and plenty more. (There's other reports out there that come to the same conclusion).

[Bob Juch]

You have quoted twice the same statistics but did not answer either of my questions.

I posted the link to the report. The report has all that information and plenty more. (There's other reports out there that come to the same conclusion).

Your quote was from page 18. I have better things to do.

[silverscreenselect]

You have quoted twice the same statistics but did not answer either of my questions.

I posted the link to the report. The report has all that information and plenty more. (There's other reports out there that come to the same conclusion).

Your quote was from page 18. I have better things to do.

So do I.

[jarnon]

This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.

D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy

Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!

On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?

[BackInTex]

This story will interest both BiT and SSS. It happened a few miles from my home.

D.A.: Gunman was offended by hospital's 'gun-free' policy

Despite the hospital's gun-free policy, the police and Dr. Silverman's bosses were grateful that he had a gun and used it. Imagine the outrage if he had been fired!

On the other hand, how did Plotts, with a 20-year history of mental treatment and felonies, get a gun?

Yes, interesting. Thanks for posting. I'm glad Dr. Silverman used his 2nd Amendment right. I'm sure he and his family is, too. He obviously had a dangerous job dealing with nuts like that.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm glad Dr. Silverman used his 2nd Amendment right. I'm sure he and his family is, too.

Doctors in hospitals have a lot of experience dealing with the results of ordinary citizens using their 2nd Amendment rights.

[tlynn78]

I'm glad Dr. Silverman used his 2nd Amendment right. I'm sure he and his family is, too.

Doctors in hospitals have a lot of experience dealing with the results of ordinary citizens using their 2nd Amendment rights.

Indeed. And this particular one chose to arm himself because of? despite? his experiences, and I'd bet he's very happy with his decision today.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm glad Dr. Silverman used his 2nd Amendment right. I'm sure he and his family is, too.

Doctors in hospitals have a lot of experience dealing with the results of ordinary citizens using their 2nd Amendment rights.

Indeed. And this particular one chose to arm himself because of? despite? his experiences, and I'd bet he's very happy with his decision today.

I guess he and all the other doctors who work in emergency rooms across the country must be thrilled by all the money they make as a result of treating other law abiding citizens who made the decision to arm themselves and then accidentally or deliberately shot themselves or each other.

How about the friends and family of this young man? Are they happy with his decision to use his 2nd amendment rights?

This 12-year-old was probably too young to buy a gun himself, so his parents probably made that decision. I'd bet they'll sleep a lot better at nights from now on knowing that, if a crazed mental patient or desperate armed robber winds up in their home some day, they'll be better able to defend themselves since they've used their 2nd Amendment rights.

[BackInTex]

I guess he and all the other doctors who work in emergency rooms across the country must be thrilled by all the money they make as a result of treating other law abiding citizens who made the decision to arm themselves and then accidentally or deliberately shot themselves or each other.

How about the friends and family of this young man? Are they happy with his decision to use his 2nd amendment rights?

This 12-year-old was probably too young to buy a gun himself, so his parents probably made that decision. I'd bet they'll sleep a lot better at nights from now on knowing that, if a crazed mental patient or desperate armed robber winds up in their home some day, they'll be better able to defend themselves since they've used their 2nd Amendment rights.

So you are in favor of denying everyone's right to drive because some people have accidents and die? That's the logic you use here.

[silverscreenselect]

So you are in favor of denying everyone's right to drive because some people have accidents and die? That's the logic you use here.

And the logic you use is that because some people will speed or drive drunk no matter what laws we have, we shouldn't place any meaningful restrictions on the right to drive.

Actually, my argument was intended to point out that using a highly reported anecdote of a situation that turns out well from the standpoint of non-criminals to support having guns in as many places as possible overlooks a lot of easily preventable deaths and injuries. It's ironic that this situation occurred in a hospital, a location which has a much lower incidence of gun violence as opposed to dealing with the results of gun violence.

[BackInTex]

And the logic you use is that because some people will speed or drive drunk no matter what laws we have, we shouldn't place any meaningful restrictions on the right to drive.

I dont believe I've ever said or hinted as such nonsense. We do have meaningful restrictions on both he right to drive and gun ownership.

Actually, my argument was intended to point out that using a highly reported anecdote of a situation that turns out well from the standpoint of non-criminals to support having guns in as many places as possible overlooks a lot of easily preventable deaths and injuries. It's ironic that this situation occurred in a hospital, a location which has a much lower incidence of gun violence as opposed to dealing with the results of gun violence.

I'd wager they dont' have too many auto accidents in the hospital as well, and I'd also wager they get more auto accident victims than gunshot victims.

[silverscreenselect]

And the logic you use is that because some people will speed or drive drunk no matter what laws we have, we shouldn't place any meaningful restrictions on the right to drive.

I dont believe I've ever said or hinted as such nonsense. We do have meaningful restrictions on both he right to drive and gun ownership.

Your definition of meaningful and mine differ. I do know that every time someone proposes adding restrictions on gun sales or ownership, the NRA crowd points out that criminals will ignore those restrictions anyway so what's the use.

Every house, school, bar, hospital, or workplace that has a gun in it poses more danger to the innocent people in that place than those that don't.

[BackInTex]

Every house, school, bar, hospital, or workplace that has a gun in it poses more danger to the innocent people in that place than those that don't.

Nope. Not an absolute. Some are for sure. Some are actually safer for the residents, not for any intruders, though.

However, every automobile driving on the road poses more danger to the innocent people in the car AND not in the car but near it than if that car were not moving. That IS an absolute.

SSS, guns are dangerous. I'll agree. Cars are dangerous. Skateboards are dangerous. ATVs are dangerous. Downhill skiing is dangerous. So is sky diving.

Deal with it.

[silverscreenselect]

SSS, guns are dangerous. I'll agree. Cars are dangerous. Skateboards are dangerous. ATVs are dangerous. Downhill skiing is dangerous. So is sky diving.

Skateboards may be dangerous, but they pose a danger almost exclusively to those who use them. I have no worries about being injured by a skateboard.

Cars are dangerous, and I'm concerned about being injured in a car accident. However, the utility that cars provide significantly to me personally and to society as a whole outweigh the danger. Further, I make the decision to drive and subject myself to that risk.

However, guns pose a danger to anyone within shooting distance of the gun, so there's nothing I can do, other than barricade myself in my home and hope for the best, to avoid that risk. If the idiots who misused guns only put themselves at risk, as do skateboarders and skydivers, I could accept that. However, the parents of that 12-year-old boy in my earlier post didn't just put themselves at risk, they caused the death of an innocent child. And, since that child might well have been playing with someone else's child when the gun went off, they could have caused the death of a complete stranger.

We're increasingly making a decision in our society to prevent smokers from putting others at risk by indulging their habit in public places. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction with gun owners, allowing them to put more people at risk in more situations in the name of the Second Amendment.

[flockofseagulls104]

If we could just ban stupid, ignorant and evil people, all would be right in the world. They're the ones making all the problems.

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS, guns are dangerous. I'll agree. Cars are dangerous. Skateboards are dangerous. ATVs are dangerous. Downhill skiing is dangerous. So is sky diving.

Skateboards may be dangerous, but they pose a danger almost exclusively to those who use them. I have no worries about being injured by a skateboard.

Cars are dangerous, and I'm concerned about being injured in a car accident. However, the utility that cars provide significantly to me personally and to society as a whole outweigh the danger. Further, I make the decision to drive and subject myself to that risk.

However, guns pose a danger to anyone within shooting distance of the gun, so there's nothing I can do, other than barricade myself in my home and hope for the best, to avoid that risk. If the idiots who misused guns only put themselves at risk, as do skateboarders and skydivers, I could accept that. However, the parents of that 12-year-old boy in my earlier post didn't just put themselves at risk, they caused the death of an innocent child. And, since that child might well have been playing with someone else's child when the gun went off, they could have caused the death of a complete stranger.

We're increasingly making a decision in our society to prevent smokers from putting others at risk by indulging their habit in public places. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction with gun owners, allowing them to put more people at risk in more situations in the name of the Second Amendment.

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. But what did he know....

[BackInTex]

If we could just ban stupid, ignorant and evil people, all would be right in the world. They're the ones making all the problems.

Obama would never let that happen to his base.

[silverscreenselect]

If we could just ban stupid, ignorant and evil people, all would be right in the world. They're the ones making all the problems.

The tea party would be out of business overnight.