1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[RD] Florida School Shooting

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Feb 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,877
    Location:
    the golf course
    Ronald Reagan was guv of California when the Black Panthers showed up at the capital with guns, it didn't take long for new gun control.

    I was responding to this: "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

    What details did I leave out making my question irrelevant? People in more dangerous situations are more likely to be armed. The relative number of people in both groups (armed and unarmed) depends on how much danger they face, true? If you're in the Mafia or on the police force, you have guns because your line of work requires them. The regular Joe Schmo doesn't face that danger and dont need guns nearly as much. So there are proportionally more armed people facing danger than unarmed people.

    The stat compared Pennsylvanians, your point compared them to people in some other society where cops dont need to be armed because its safer. That was my point - people in safer environments dont need guns as much. People facing increased danger do need guns more and that means they have a better chance of being shot. How many armed people get shot on a battlefield compared to unarmed people watching the battle from afar?
     
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,926
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The detail where the population being analyzed is comprised entirely of victims of assault, and so "people carrying guns are more likely to be in dangerous situations," while probably true, does not help to explain the statistic you think you're "responding to."
     
  3. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,533
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
  4. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,877
    Location:
    the golf course
    Who do you think I was comparing if not people being assaulted? My question does help explain the stat, increased danger = more armed people = more armed people being shot. Armed people not facing that increased danger probably dont have a 4.5 times greater chance of being shot and I'd expect unarmed people facing that increased danger to be at greater risk than a population of safer armed people.

    That was an example to show how armed people can get shot proportionally more than unarmed people. Some parts of America have higher crime rates, those parts have more armed people, presto - we have a stat showing armed people are shot proportionally more than unarmed people.
     
  5. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,705
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Well first of all, the "watching the battle from afar" is an important distinction. I think the more accurate comparison might simply be "on the battlefield while armed" versus "on the battlefield while unarmed", right? Also, more importantly, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida isn't a battlefield, right?

    Putting that aside, what you seem to be hitting upon is an inherent chicken-egg problem. I mean we can say that people who are in danger need guns more that people who are not in danger, but that ignores the fact that the guns themselves are a source of the danger. People asking for gun control are arguing that gun control will make the environment safer, which then in turn would theoretically lessen the "need" for guns. But of course the response becomes "don't pass gun control because we need the guns since we're not safe."
     
    Synsensa, hobbsyoyo and Azem.Ocram like this.
  6. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,533
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    That's a correlation, but not necessarily indicative of a causation though. Look at Switzerland for instance, last I checked they had a decent amount of guns in the country.
     
  7. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,926
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    What a wonderful human specimen we have here:
     
  8. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,225
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    I think you are missing the fact that by limiting the sample to "people being assaulted" all the various things you are trying to throw in get equalized. Whether the people "face increased danger" makes no difference, because no matter the risk faced their "number came up," they are being assaulted.

    The bottom line is IF you happen to get assaulted (again, equalizing all the variables as far as the particular odds of you being assaulted vs someone else, since we start from you are) statistics indicate that your chances of being shot in the course of being assaulted are more than four times greater if you are carrying a gun.

    I think the mechanisms at play here are obvious. If I'm assaulting someone and I have a gun it is pointed at them, so as soon as they reach for one or otherwise indicate that they have one, I'm pulling the trigger and they are shot. If I'm assaulting someone and I don't have a gun then at the start of the event we can assume theirs isn't in their hand (otherwise I'd be assaulting someone else...assault 101, skip the guy who is waving a gun around) and when they try to get it in their hand I am going to redouble my efforts to make them incapable of shooting me...and once they are down and out there's a very good chance I will shoot them with their own gun, just for spite.
     
  9. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Doctor of Funk

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,291
    Gender:
    Male
    My memory is hazy, but haven't there been studies on the old "When all you have is a hammer..." idea? I seem to recall a finding that people who have a gun at hand are more likely to view lethal force as necessary or reasonable. That is, I think the study found that even having a gun in view (e.g. sitting on the table while they answered questions) made a person more likely to think shooting someone was a correct or acceptable solution to a proposed, hypothetical scenario. iirc, the study randomly assigned the presence of the gun to half the participants, which should have controlled for the fact that a more-violent person is more likely to own a weapon than a less-violent person (I would expect that people who view lethal violence favorably would be a higher portion of the population of gun owners than of non-gun owners, but I guess I don't know that for sure).
     
    Owen Glyndwr and Lexicus like this.
  10. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,926
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I've been trying to explain this to him for like a page and a half, I gave up, but good luck to you.
     
  11. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,225
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    There's a quote in Rome: Total War that says "The blade itself incites to violence." I don't know who it is attributed to, but I think it was true then and is still true now, and applies just as well to guns.
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  12. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,877
    Location:
    the golf course
    They dont have a drug war or comparable violence, its safer there for both the armed and the unarmed... What are the odds of an armed person in Switzerland being shot compared to an unarmed person in a high crime area in Pennsylvania? I'd bet it aint 4.5 times higher. So having a gun doesn't make you 4.5 times more likely to be shot than if you didn't, proximity to crime determines those odds and gun ownership increases with proximity.

    I made that distinction to show people in more dangerous situations need guns and get shot proportionally more than unarmed people who avoid those dangerous situations.

    It became one... So what were the odds an unarmed person would be shot compared to an armed person that day? You make my point, those odds depend on where the battlefield is and who is on it. If more people with guns are on the battlefield, they will get shot more often.

    I understand that... I'm just disputing the stat's relevance. Of course the guns are a source of danger, but violence is the egg...or chicken. Sheriff Andy didn't need a gun because he wasn't dealing with the Hatfields and McCoys.
     
  13. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Doctor of Funk

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,291
    Gender:
    Male
    Anecdotally, I knew a guy in college who'd been in the US Marines, and I recall him saying that their weapons were locked up while they were on a base in an inactive area. I think he'd been stationed on Okinawa between deployments to more 'interesting' places.
     
  14. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,856
    Location:
    Canberra
  15. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,705
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    An older, more famous version goes:

     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  16. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,777
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Given that Tim's quote comes from Homer's Odyssey, the Bible is probably not the older quote here.
     
    Sommerswerd likes this.
  17. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    16,705
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    :blush: Well my quote is still the more famous one... so there :p

    Anyway good catch... post edited
     
  18. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,225
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    It also doesn't mean the same thing. Yes, taking up the sword, or going to war, is going to likely lead to dying in that war. But the other quote is a warning that just arming yourself will incline you to use the arms you have. It's a caution to those who think there is such a thing as "defense spending."
     
    miaasma and Lexicus like this.
  19. Marla_Singer

    Marla_Singer United in diversity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,943
    Location:
    Paris, west side (92).
    That's a well-established strategy from the conservatives to propose silly alternatives such as "arming the teachers" in order to divert the political debate from the stricter gun control obvious reasoning. Similarly, the problem about Nikolas Cruz wasn't that he could buy AR-15's, it was that he was mentally ill, but changing the law so that a licence requiring a proper medical test would be needed in order to buy such weapon is not the solution, because we already have the legislation, it's just not "well enforced". Anything is good to never talk about stricter gun laws. And when you have no argument as with the Las Vegas shooter, then it's just "not the time to politicize the issue".

    I didn't know that guy, Trevor Noah, but he got it spot on. He says it all.


    Link to video.


    Link to video.
     
    Lexicus and Hrothbern like this.
  20. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,533
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    Why hasn't anyone thought of the most obvious solution here? Arm the students.

    There's a lot more students than teachers. Imagine a school shooter pulling out a gun and trying to shoot someone. What are the chances there will be a teacher nearby to respond to the threat? Who knows. What are the chances there will be a student nearby to respond to the threat? A lot higher! On a university campus here's students everywhere!

    It could also be used as a way to ease young adults into proper American life. Owning a gun is a big part of what it means to be American. What better way to get those patriotic juices flowing than training students to shoot an unpatriotic attacker, take him out, and save their fellow Americans?

    This is such a no-brainer. Win/win all around
     
    Silurian and Marla_Singer like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page