Another school shooting

[BackInTex]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Scenario 1 (Bob's preference): Terrorists firing at will, standing tall, taking their time, comfortably aiming at me and others while we stare at them thinking WTF?

Scenario 2 (logical preference): Terrorists firing intermittently while ducking return fire, not able to take much time to get an accurate aim, thinking WTF?

[ten96lt]

SSS, how many of them had CCW permits? How did the Canadian one even happen if they have such strict gun laws? I'm not advocating constitutional carry. I think reasonable training and competence should be required to carry, but if we went with your logic of banning an activity because something bad can happen, we wouldn't be able to do anything but live in a bubble.

A modest proposal: How about we just ban movie theaters instead so there's one less soft target out there? Better yet, let's require movie theaters and soft targets have armed security and metal detectors to prevent a mass attack.

[Bob78164]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Scenario 1 (Bob's preference): Terrorists firing at will, standing tall, taking their time, comfortably aiming at me and others while we stare at them thinking WTF?

Scenario 2 (logical preference): Terrorists firing intermittently while ducking return fire, not able to take much time to get an accurate aim, thinking WTF?

Of course, here in the United States, the terrorists (even those on our official terrorism watch lists) would be able to purchase their guns legally. As they have done. On more than 2000 occasions between 2004 and 2014. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Of course, the chances of you or a member of your family dying from gunfire increase dramatically when you have a gun in your house, but it's worth it to a real guy like BiT so he can stand up to terrorists when they break his door down.

[ten96lt]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Of course, the chances of you or a member of your family dying from gunfire increase dramatically when you have a gun in your house, but it's worth it to a real guy like BiT so he can stand up to terrorists when they break his door down.

I've lived in a house with a gun for 26 years. I'm still alive. I also know neighbors that keep a lot of propane on their property, yet their house hasn't caught fire despite the dramatic increase in risk of fire.

[BackInTex]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Scenario 1 (Bob's preference): Terrorists firing at will, standing tall, taking their time, comfortably aiming at me and others while we stare at them thinking WTF?

Scenario 2 (logical preference): Terrorists firing intermittently while ducking return fire, not able to take much time to get an accurate aim, thinking WTF?

Of course, here in the United States, the terrorists (even those on our official terrorism watch lists) would be able to purchase their guns legally. As they have done. On more than 2000 occasions between 2004 and 2014. --Bob

Or they could just be personally delivered to them by the current administration.

But that's not the point. The terrorists will obtain weapons, though legal or illegal channels. If you haven't noticed, they don't really care too much about laws. All your gun control ideas will do is ensure law abiding citizens don't get them.

[silverscreenselect]

I've lived in a house with a gun for 26 years. I'm still alive

And there are people in their 80s who are still alive despite having smoked their entire lives. Doesn't mean it's the best way to improve your life expectancy.

[Spock]

Bob>>>And I've seen one story speculating that one of the terrorists came in through Greece with the refugee stream.<<<<

His fingerprint places him coming through Leros refugee stream about a month ago. And are you really going to hang your hat on ONE terrorist in the refugee stream? It has been going on only a couple months or so. I would say this guy punched his terrorist card pretty fast. Are you confident that there are no others in the stream? There have been many arrests since the attack-most of which we know nothing about-there may be a few others mixed in these arrests.

He apparently had a fake passport. It is interesting the super, duper,double probation vetting process can't even detect a fake passport.

Bob>>> I believe at least one of them has been positively identified as a French citizen.<<<<<

Hence the true problem. France and the EU have, over the last few decades, saddled themselves with a huge unassimilated, Muslim mass population that is fundamentally at odds with Western European secular humanist values. Why is it a good idea to add hundreds of thousands (millions?) to this mass in a matter of weeks?

[ten96lt]

I've lived in a house with a gun for 26 years. I'm still alive

And there are people in their 80s who are still alive despite having smoked their entire lives. Doesn't mean it's the best way to improve your life expectancy.

I'm also not going to tell someone they can't smoke in public because their second hand smoke could kill me.

[flockofseagulls104]

The argument to create some 'Common Sense' laws for gun control is about as valid as adding some 'common sense' laws against suicide vests.

People who are going to use guns for bad purposes are going to use guns for bad purposes no matter what the laws are. Same with suicide vests. Or pressure cookers. The problem is not the tool, it's the person.

And by the way, we all believe that second hand smoke is a big killer, and we've made all kinds of laws against it. But apparently it ain't true. At least the largest, most comprehensive study we've undertaken says it ain't.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... jt365.full

I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political.

[SportsFan68]

The argument to create some 'Common Sense' laws for gun control is about as valid as adding some 'common sense' laws against suicide vests.

People who are going to use guns for bad purposes are going to use guns for bad purposes no matter what the laws are. Same with suicide vests. Or pressure cookers. The problem is not the tool, it's the person.

And by the way, we all believe that second hand smoke is a big killer, and we've made all kinds of laws against it. But apparently it ain't true. At least the largest, most comprehensive study we've undertaken says it ain't.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... jt365.full

I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political.

Sorry, Flock, wrong again. Nice try, your attempt to say that secondhand smoke isn't a big killer based on one disease.

Unfortunately, secondhand smoke is indeed a big killer. The study you cite indicates that lung cancer doesn't increase significantly from secondhand smoke. However, secondhand smoke is clearly a huge risk factor for heart attacks, well beyond the 5% required for a factor to be statistically significant. The Pueblo Study indicates a number of 27%.

Saying that it's OK to fill the air your loved ones breathe with toxic poisons because it doesn't increase lung cancer is like saying that everybody should gulp huge amounts of coffee because it decreases the likelihood of liver cancer. If I'd kept gulping coffee like I did when I was in my early 30s, I'd probably be dead from a hypertension ailment right now. But I woulda been safe from liver cancer.

Here's the URL for the site where I found the key findings below: http://www.no-smoke.org/download.php?fi ... mation.pdf

Pueblo Heart Study Fact Sheet
About the Study:
The Pueblo Heart Study was an observational, scientific research effort designed to assess the potential impact of a newly
enacted smoke-free ordinance on heart attack admissions in Pueblo, Colo.
The study evaluated the number of heart attacks in Pueblo, Colo., during a three-year period from January of 2002 to December of 2004. This time frame covered the year and a half before the Smoke-Free Air Act went into effect on July 1, 2003, as
well as a year and a half afterward.
Findings of the Pueblo study were present ed at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2005 conference in Dallas on Nov. 14.
Key Findings:
The study showed that heart attack rates in Pueblo decreased by 27 percent after implementation of the city’s smoke-free ordinance.
In the year and a half before Pueblo’s smoke-free ordinance went into effect, 399 heart attack patients were admitted to Pueblo’s two primary hospitals. In the year and a half following enactment of the ordinance, the number of heart attack
admissions dropped to 291, representing 108 fewer heart attack patients or a decrease of 27 percent.
Pueblo, Colo., is the second U.S. community to examine data on hospital admissions for heart attacks following the institution of a comprehensive indoor smoke-free ordinance.
The Pueblo study’s findings are similar to a study done in Helena, Mont., which noted a 40 percent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks during a six-month period when Helena first implemented its smoking ordinance. Pueblo’s study reinforces the Helena findings based on similar but improved methodology, including a sample size that was three times the one used in Helena.

[flockofseagulls104]

The argument to create some 'Common Sense' laws for gun control is about as valid as adding some 'common sense' laws against suicide vests.

People who are going to use guns for bad purposes are going to use guns for bad purposes no matter what the laws are. Same with suicide vests. Or pressure cookers. The problem is not the tool, it's the person.

And by the way, we all believe that second hand smoke is a big killer, and we've made all kinds of laws against it. But apparently it ain't true. At least the largest, most comprehensive study we've undertaken says it ain't.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... jt365.full

I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political.

Sorry, Flock, wrong again. Nice try, your attempt to say that secondhand smoke isn't a big killer based on one disease.

Unfortunately, secondhand smoke is indeed a big killer. The study you cite indicates that lung cancer doesn't increase significantly from secondhand smoke. However, secondhand smoke is clearly a huge risk factor for heart attacks, well beyond the 5% required for a factor to be statistically significant. The Pueblo Study indicates a number of 27%.

Saying that it's OK to fill the air your loved ones breathe with toxic poisons because it doesn't increase lung cancer is like saying that everybody should gulp huge amounts of coffee because it decreases the likelihood of liver cancer. If I'd kept gulping coffee like I did when I was in my early 30s, I'd probably be dead from a hypertension ailment right now. But I woulda been safe from liver cancer.

Here's the URL for the site where I found the key findings below: http://www.no-smoke.org/download.php?fi ... mation.pdf

Pueblo Heart Study Fact Sheet
About the Study:
The Pueblo Heart Study was an observational, scientific research effort designed to assess the potential impact of a newly
enacted smoke-free ordinance on heart attack admissions in Pueblo, Colo.
The study evaluated the number of heart attacks in Pueblo, Colo., during a three-year period from January of 2002 to December of 2004. This time frame covered the year and a half before the Smoke-Free Air Act went into effect on July 1, 2003, as
well as a year and a half afterward.
Findings of the Pueblo study were present ed at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2005 conference in Dallas on Nov. 14.
Key Findings:
The study showed that heart attack rates in Pueblo decreased by 27 percent after implementation of the city’s smoke-free ordinance.
In the year and a half before Pueblo’s smoke-free ordinance went into effect, 399 heart attack patients were admitted to Pueblo’s two primary hospitals. In the year and a half following enactment of the ordinance, the number of heart attack
admissions dropped to 291, representing 108 fewer heart attack patients or a decrease of 27 percent.
Pueblo, Colo., is the second U.S. community to examine data on hospital admissions for heart attacks following the institution of a comprehensive indoor smoke-free ordinance.
The Pueblo study’s findings are similar to a study done in Helena, Mont., which noted a 40 percent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks during a six-month period when Helena first implemented its smoking ordinance. Pueblo’s study reinforces the Helena findings based on similar but improved methodology, including a sample size that was three times the one used in Helena.

Hey, don't argue with me. Just presenting a study. I didn't do it. I don't even say it's right. And I said I am not advocating it.

But this is one of those subjects that can't be discussed factually. Just like gun control. If you have a different view than they do, some people will go ballistic. Call you names.

[SportsFan68]

Flock wrote:

Hey, don't argue with me. Just presenting a study. I didn't do it. I don't even say it's right. And I said I am not advocating it.

But this is one of those subjects that can't be discussed factually. Just like gun control. If you have a different view than they do, some people will go ballistic. Call you names.

Nice try again, Flock. Here's you:

And by the way, we all believe that second hand smoke is a big killer, and we've made all kinds of laws against it. But apparently it ain't true. At least the largest, most comprehensive study we've undertaken says it ain't.

Nowhere does the study you cited say that secondhand smoke isn't a big killer. You do. Your assertion that "apparently it ain't true" that secondhand smoke is a big killer was based on entirely specious reasoning. This is just as specious:

I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political.

Those clean air laws were not based on a false assumption "no matter what the facts are;" they were as thoroughly grounded in facts as you can get. Eventually the politics were disregarded as legislators voted on what was clearly demonstrated to be a health issue.

[Bob78164]

Flock wrote:

Hey, don't argue with me. Just presenting a study. I didn't do it. I don't even say it's right. And I said I am not advocating it.

But this is one of those subjects that can't be discussed factually. Just like gun control. If you have a different view than they do, some people will go ballistic. Call you names.

Nice try again, Flock. Here's you:

And by the way, we all believe that second hand smoke is a big killer, and we've made all kinds of laws against it. But apparently it ain't true. At least the largest, most comprehensive study we've undertaken says it ain't.

Nowhere does the study you cited say that secondhand smoke isn't a big killer. You do. Your assertion that "apparently it ain't true" that secondhand smoke is a big killer was based on entirely specious reasoning. This is just as specious:

I am not advocating anything, just making a point. Nobody's gonna change the laws we've made based on a false assumption no matter what the facts are. Because it's political.

Those clean air laws were not based on a false assumption "no matter what the facts are;" they were as thoroughly grounded in facts as you can get. Eventually the politics were disregarded as legislators voted on what was clearly demonstrated to be a health issue.

It's made a huge difference in Southern California. When I first arrived here in 1978, there were plenty of days when smog prevented me from seeing the mountains about 10 miles north of campus. I could pretty much count on several days during the summer when my eyes would burn from irritation. Stage 2 smog alerts were not out of the ordinary.

None of these statements is true now. The mountains are always visible from campus unless ordinary cloud cover gets in the way. I haven't suffered from burning eyes in decades. And I don't think there's been a Stage 2 smog alert since I graduated. --Bob

[Estonut]

How many concerts have been performed in recorded history? 10 million, 100 million - a billion? Scenario 1 has happened once and scenario 2 has happened zero times. A situation happens .0000001 % of the time and you bring this up as an argument? Give me a break.

Here's one time it happened. Of course, incidents like this don't usually make the national news unless celebrities are involved somehow:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/s ... -1.2313829

I know about this one because it made the local news and occurred at the art theater Mrs. SSS and I often attend:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/2-pe ... ter/njZYQ/

The point is that the pro-gun crowd always chooses to concentrate on these spectacular tragedies with their ideas about how the right "good guy with a gun" could have stopped them, while ignoring how many more mundane shootings will occur by adding lots more people with lots more guns into theaters and similar venues.

Neither of your examples match your scenario 2. You described a shootout. Both incidents were shootings, not shootouts.

[silverscreenselect]

Neither of your examples match your scenario 2. You described a shootout. Both incidents were shootings, not shootouts.

None of the articles I read about the Drake shooting indicated how many shooters there were. That occurred in a building that had 70 security guards and used metal detecting wands to search people for weapons as they entered into the club. Police were supposedly looking for two suspects.

I know the Atlanta theater had virtually no security procedures in place (this is an arthouse), but weapons were illegal there as well. The point is that if we have these incidents when guns are banned from theaters and nightclubs, what do you think is going to happen when people are freely allowed into these places with guns. Both of these incidents indicate that when the shooting starts, it tends to be rather indiscriminate.

[Bob78164]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Scenario 1 (Bob's preference): Terrorists firing at will, standing tall, taking their time, comfortably aiming at me and others while we stare at them thinking WTF?

Scenario 2 (logical preference): Terrorists firing intermittently while ducking return fire, not able to take much time to get an accurate aim, thinking WTF?

For every time a household gun is used legally in self-defense, there are four unintentional shootings, seven assaults or murders, and 11 attempted or "successful" firearm suicides. Source: National Institutes of Health.

No wonder Republicans have cut off federal funding for the NIH to study this issue. --Bob

[BackInTex]

For every time a household gun is used legally in self-defense, there are four unintentional shootings, seven assaults or murders, and 11 attempted or "successful" firearm suicides. Source: National Institutes of Health.

No wonder Republicans have cut off federal funding for the NIH to study this issue. --Bob

Their funding should be cut off because they don't provide a complete picture and manipulate the facts and stats to meet their agenda.
The stats uses are not meaningful statistics other than to hype the hysteria of the hoplophobes.

The statistics need to measure the times guns were used, but they are used in many ways that aren't counted, mostly as a deterrent. Pulling the gun out and making ready performs most of the effectual deterrent for firearms. Those stats do not include those uses. They are only counting when the gun was actually fired. Open carry provides a constant use of the firearm for use as as deterrent. So every time a thug looking for a victim sees an open carry person, it should be counted as a 'use'.

[Bob Juch]

The difference is range and ability to fire frequently. Would you feel like you had an even chance if you had a handgun and the people trying to kill you had a fully automatic weapon with longer range than yours? --Bob

I would feel my chances are much better with a firearm, any kind of firearm, than with none.

Scenario 1 (Bob's preference): Terrorists firing at will, standing tall, taking their time, comfortably aiming at me and others while we stare at them thinking WTF?

Scenario 2 (logical preference): Terrorists firing intermittently while ducking return fire, not able to take much time to get an accurate aim, thinking WTF?

For every time a household gun is used legally in self-defense, there are four unintentional shootings, seven assaults or murders, and 11 attempted or "successful" firearm suicides. Source: National Institutes of Health.

No wonder Republicans have cut off federal funding for the NIH to study this issue. --Bob

If someone has an unsuccessful suicide by firearm they are either pretty damn stupid or not really trying. I think those stats are too high as I've heard that only 1/3 of firearms deaths are suicides.

[silverscreenselect]

The statistics need to measure the times guns were used, but they are used in many ways that aren't counted, mostly as a deterrent. Pulling the gun out and making ready performs most of the effectual deterrent for firearms. Those stats do not include those uses. They are only counting when the gun was actually fired. Open carry provides a constant use of the firearm for use as as deterrent. So every time a thug looking for a victim sees an open carry person, it should be counted as a 'use'.

Here's the problem with your logic. I've been robbed once in my life. I've also come across hundreds, if not thousands, of other potential "thugs looking for a victim." I haven't even needed a gun to deter them. I just do it with my good looks, because none of those thugs have ever robbed me. Mrs. SSS must be even tougher than I am because surely those thugs want to rape her as well as rob her, but none of them ever have. There's a reason for that. They weren't thugs looking to rob me or Mrs. SSS. They were just people who for whatever reason for a moment looked suspicious.

Odds are, if I carried a gun and pulled it whenever someone who looked suspicious came near me, they would probably beat a hasty retreat (unless of course they thought I was planning to rob them and were also carrying in which case we'd have a case of two "good guys with guns" deterring each other with rather drastic consequences). A deterrence isn't a deterrence unless you're deterring an actual crime and not just a figment of someone's John Wayne fantasy. How many of those "deterrences" result in the would-be victims calling the police to report an attempted robbery? You'd think if they were good citizens, they'd want to make sure the police were on the lookout for those "thugs" who might choose to victimize someone else next who wasn't armed.

If you look at the numbers of reported "deterrences" in these bogus studies, you'll find they are way, way out of proportion to the number of actual robberies that take place. Since most people don't carry guns in public, it would stand to reason that, if those deterrences were genuine, then most of those "thugs" would just move on and select an easier target.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's the statistics for violent crimes in the country over the years:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

You'll see that violent crimes in the 1990s, when the "justified gun use" surveys first came out, numbered about 1.9 million a year. Since then, they've dropped so they are now 1.2-1.3 million a year. But the claim is that over two million justified uses of guns to deter crimes occur every year. If that's so, where are all the police reports of these crimes that were thwarted?

Even if you accept the NRA estimates (which are highly dubious) that 40-45% of US households have guns, if those gun owners deter 2.5 million violent crimes a year, then there should be more than that number of total violent crimes every year, since presumably criminals would target non-gun owners at the same rate and there are more non-gun households than gun households in the country. And that's not even counting the number of gun owners, like Chris Kyle, who are unable to prevent crimes against themselves despite being armed. In fact, by BiT's logic, these criminals would be more likely to target non-gun owners and thus more successful, so there should be considerably more than 2.5 million violent crimes every year.

Once you look at the actual numbers and not the unsubstantiated claims, they don't add up.

[Bob78164]

>>>I suspect I'm on safe ground predicting that firearm deaths in Austria are about to increase sharply over the next couple of years. In the meantime, according to the story, the rush to purchase shotguns is being driven by an inchoate fear of refugees, as opposed to any actual evidence that life in Austria has suddenly become more dangerous to unarmed citizens. --Bob<<<

Way to hit the nail on the head, Bob and prioritize risks. Maybe one of the most unfortunate and ill-timed predictions on this Bored. Those xenophobic Austrians who will only shoot themselves and their inchoate fear of the refugees sure hit the world news this week. Because, well you know, nobody could have ever predicted that terrorists might be hiding in the refugee stream.

Thank God that nobody in that theater had a gun, or there might have been a massacre.

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees.

How does it feel to be played, Spock?

Fortunately, there's at least one Republican out there with the vision to see what's really going on and the courage to say so on the floor of the House. Meet Representative Steve Russell of Oklahoma.



--Bob

[tlynn78]

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees

It's true. You really can't fix stupid.

[Bob78164]

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees

It's true. You really can't fix stupid.

Perhaps, but I'll never stop trying. --Bob

[BackInTex]

According to this story, French authorities have now confirmed that none of the terrorists actually came in through the refugee stream. They were carrying fake Syrian passports in an effort to look like they had done so, specifically to provoke a public backlash against Syrian refugees

It's true. You really can't fix stupid.

Perhaps, but I'll never stop trying. --Bob

How did they "confirm". Most if not all of those terrorists were killed before they could be questioned. Seems made up to me.