Poll: Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You err in presuming that someone bent on mass murder will actually give a rat's ass about a "no gun" policy. The fact is, he'll just ignore that and bring a gun anyway. And he did. All the school shooters have. How many is it going to take before anti-gun liberals realize that no-gun zones don't work?

And even if you could wave a magic wand and make guns vaporize the second someone crossed a line into a no-gun zone, then those murderers would still use some other method, or some other place, like you say.

And with the same reasoning and logic I explained that if you take away the no gun zones, somebody hell bent on killing many people will just use a bomb. Hence, my assertion that it wouldn't make a difference.I still believe that private property owners should have the right to dictate what is and isn't allowed on their property.

In your example above of the lady who works at a University, she is more than welcome to find a job where she is allowed to keep a gun in her car, if she truly feels that unsafe.

Quote

And since you seem to acknowledge that no-gun zone laws won't stop murderers, then you should also be willing to admit that other gun-control laws don't work either. Do you recognize this too?

I already wrote above that the original intent of the 2nd amendment should be honoured and all gun control should be abolished. There should be absolutely no restriction on the type of weapon a US citizen can acquire or carry. The original intent was to enable citizens to possibly overthrow a rogue government. As such, every citizen should be allowed to acquire the same weapons as the US armed forces have access to. Anything less would be in direct violation of the intent of the 2nd amendment.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't think that employers should be allowed to dictate that their employees can't have a self defense gun in their cars.

I agree, what's in my car is my business. How do you even enforce it except with unreasonable/illegal searches?

If work makes you give up your gun, then it should be checked in formally at a front desk. Given back whenever you leave the building if you want it. The gun and your personal safety should be guaranteed by work.

But, if some passive corp eventually respects this, they'll do something petty - like designate a separate (long walk) for a special "gun owner's parking lot" - lots of signs, no security. That way, the criminals will know which cars to break into to get guns.

Then use the thefts as further 'proof' that guns are bad.

The anti-gun crowd is unreasoning and insidious.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

With that said - I don't believe that the school has the right to search her vehicle without due cause. I think if I were her, I'd have a quick-access lockbox hard-mounted in the vehicle... and let the school try to get a valid warrant to search it.

The university claims that they have gun-sniffing dogs which sometimes patrol the parking lots. So if the dog "hits" on her car, then that's probable cause, and could lead to a search. And then she's out of a nice job, for simply wanting to protect herself from a murderer on the loose, while driving home from work...

[narcimund 0]

Quote

And then she's out of a nice job, for simply wanting to protect herself from a murderer on the loose while driving home from work...

She should get a job with an employer whose policies fit her needs better.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>So, you tell me, what do you think would be better for a
> woman than a gun, for self defense against this murderer?

Common sense and a safe environment. Knowledge of self-defense.

Thousands of people are attacked every day while exercising common sense and while in so-called "safe" places. It is naive to think that those measures will make you immune from crime.

And even if it were true, it wouldn't help people who have to travel through or into unsafe places for their jobs.

And a knowledge of physical self defense doesn't work for frail, elderly or weak people.

If that's your big plan for protecting your wife from vicious murderers, then I wish her much good luck.

It's time to trot out this statistic once again:

Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery  Assault

Physical force ............................  51%      52% 

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  49%      40%

Knife .....................................  40%      30% 

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  35%      26%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  31%      25% 

Other measures ............................  27%      21% 

No self protection ........................  25%      27%

Other weapon ..............................  22%      25%

Gun .......................................  17%      12% 


From:   Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", 

Table 4.4.

Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime

Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

Note:   Percentages do not total to 100% since any single 

criminal incident can involve several different types 

of self-protection methods. 

Do you see what the single most effective means of defense is?
A gun!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In your example above of the lady who works at a University, she is more than welcome to find a job where she is allowed to keep a gun in her car, if she truly feels that unsafe.

She shouldn't have to find another job. The university should recognize that a gun in her car endangers no one at the university, and they should also be interested in her getting home safely while a murderer is on the loose.

But instead, they treat her like she's the murderer, and want her to be defenseless against an attack by an actual murderer.

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

In your example above of the lady who works at a University, she is more than welcome to find a job where she is allowed to keep a gun in her car, if she truly feels that unsafe.

She shouldn't have to find another job. The university should recognize that a gun in her car endangers no one at the university, and they should also be interested in her getting home safely while a murderer is on the loose.

But instead, they treat her like she's the murderer, and want her to be defenseless against an attack by an actual murderer.

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

Since when did it become a right to have an employer of your choice and make your own rules at work?

She has the right to look for another employer if she doesn't like the rules of the one she has.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

She shouldn't ..... The university should..., and they should also....

Wow. For a freedom loving person you sure do have a lot of opinions about how other people should be forced to live.

Quote

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

I agree with you here. I recommend she find an employer with less ridiculous policies.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

She shouldn't have to find another job.

Figured you would have known by now that life isn't fair.

Quote

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

There are many ridiculous policies with most large employers. You either live with it, or find another job. Policy change within a company is almost impossible to affect.

By the way, hoe come you never responded to my answer to you about gun control?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

In your example above of the lady who works at a University, she is more than welcome to find a job where she is allowed to keep a gun in her car, if she truly feels that unsafe.

She shouldn't have to find another job. The university should recognize that a gun in her car endangers no one at the university, and they should also be interested in her getting home safely while a murderer is on the loose.

But instead, they treat her like she's the murderer, and want her to be defenseless against an attack by an actual murderer.

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

I agree - I think it's a ridiculous policy.

However, it *IS* their policy so she has 3 options:

1. Suck it up and take her chances.

2. Keep it in the car and take her chances.

3. Find a different job.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I agree - I think it's a ridiculous policy.

However, it *IS* their policy so she has 3 options:

1. Suck it up and take her chances.
2. Keep it in the car and take her chances.
3. Find a different job.

It is a ridiculous policy.

If enough people do #2 and #3 (i.e., the employer is finding they are firing and losing a TON of good staff) = the only effective way to get that employer to change their policy.

But, in this case, universities would likely instead lobby the government to make it a law that employees can't quit over this issue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

John - here's some good news for you...

Workers' handgun bill

Snippage:

Quote

AUSTIN — A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill, fiercely opposed by businesses, that gives workers the right to lock concealed handguns in their cars, even if the parking lot is owned by their employer.

While businesses testified the bill undermines their private property rights, supporters said those rights must be balanced against the safety rights of licensed concealed handgun owners.

"It just says, whether it's a public or private employer, you cannot discipline, discharge or discriminate against an employee who has a handgun in the parking lot," said Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, author of the bill.

The bill calls for reinstatement of an employee with back pay if an employer fires them for locking a concealed handgun in their car.

Likewise, workers are required to notify their employer that they carry guns in their cars.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

It's time to trot out this statistic once again:

Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery  Assault

Physical force ............................  51%      52% 

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  49%      40%

Knife .....................................  40%      30% 

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  35%      26%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  31%      25% 

Other measures ............................  27%      21% 

No self protection ........................  25%      27%

Other weapon ..............................  22%      25%

Gun .......................................  17%      12% 


From:   Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", 

Table 4.4.

Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime

Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

Note:   Percentages do not total to 100% since any single 

criminal incident can involve several different types 

of self-protection methods. 

Do you see what the single most effective means of defense is?
A gun!

Actually John, it shows "Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection", which is altogether different than "most effective means of defense".

What you quoted did not define some very basic things, such as what the term "injury" even means.

Isn't it entirely possible that both the author and yourself have drawn incorrect conclusions from this data that itself is not very well defined?

Further, I'd love to see the data on Rates of Injury by Perpetrator's Weapon of Choice. Can you point me in the right direction to find the other side of this equation?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Is it possible that your bias keeps you from admitting that the data proves that defending yourself with a firearm results in the lowest percentage of injury in those cases that were reported?

I don't believe the DOJ stores the type of information you're requesting. The AMA might, assuming that their numbers are clean, and not skewed by their anti-gun bias. (They *do* keep referring to the oft-disproved Kellerman study in their literature)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Is it possible that your bias keeps you from admitting that the data proves that defending yourself with a firearm results in the lowest percentage of injury in those cases that were reported?

I suppose it's possible, but then again, I'm not claiming otherwise.

Look, it's pretty easy to say that if you have the bigger/faster/stronger weapon at your disposal will generally lead to your "winning" in any fight. So I completely understand and to a certain extent agree with JohnRich et. al. that a weapon for personal protection makes a certain amount of sense. I've actually never denied that. You can search hear and find that to be true.

Where I -am- concerned are weapon that find their way into the wrong hand via either black market or theft from the widely available ones owned by the "honest" citizens as well as weapons that really serve no purpose other than to kill a large number of people in a -very- short amount of time. I -do- believe there should be an upper limit on what the "average" person can have. I also believe in licensing of the operators of the weapons. I see absolutely no difference in the responsibility of gun ownership and that of any one of a number of other things that are regulated.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

I agree that people carrying firearms in public SHOULD be licensed and trained - as they are now, if they are carrying legally.

I agree with the fact that weapons are falling into the wrong hands - I'd love to find a comparison between stolen weapons and black market weapons - I honestly believe that black market weapons are the majority.

I disagree with an "upper bound" on what civilians should be able to aquire - if it's a standard personal weapon for the infantry, then you or I should be able to walk into the gun store and buy it, provided we can pass the federal background check/approval.

Here's a bit of info from the DOJ...

Quote

For 1993-2001 about a quarter of
violent crimes overall resulted in an
injury to the victim (table 8). Crimes
committed with weapons and crimes
committed without weapons were
about equally likely to result in victim
injury (26%). Crimes committed with
weapons, however, were about 3.5
times as likely to result in serious injury
as crimes committed by unarmed
offenders (7% versus 2%,
respectively).
Of all violence with a weapon, the
crimes committed with blunt objects/
other weapons were the most often
associated with victim injury (36%).
Twenty-eight percent of the crimes
with knives/sharp objects and 15%
of crimes with firearms involved injury.
Offenders armed with knives
accounted for 6% of all violence but
24% of all serious injuries — having
inflicted serious injury on about 1 in 8
of their victims. About 1 in 15 victims
of offenders using a blunt object/other
weapon and 1 in 22 victims of offenders
with a firearm sustained serious
injury.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I agree that people carrying firearms in public SHOULD be licensed and trained - as they are now, if they are carrying legally.

I agree with the fact that weapons are falling into the wrong hands - I'd love to find a comparison between stolen weapons and black market weapons - I honestly believe that black market weapons are the majority.

National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), for the Police Foundation, under sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (part of the DoJ) concluded that approx. 500,000 firearms are stolen annually, and that 32% of firearms used in felonies had been stolen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree that people carrying firearms in public SHOULD be licensed and trained - as they are now, if they are carrying legally.

I agree with the fact that weapons are falling into the wrong hands - I'd love to find a comparison between stolen weapons and black market weapons - I honestly believe that black market weapons are the majority.

National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), for the Police Foundation, under sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (part of the DoJ) concluded that approx. 500,000 firearms are stolen annually, and that 32% of firearms used in felonies had been stolen.

Appreciate that info... so roughly 2/3 are black market guns, then...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree that people carrying firearms in public SHOULD be licensed and trained - as they are now, if they are carrying legally.

I agree with the fact that weapons are falling into the wrong hands - I'd love to find a comparison between stolen weapons and black market weapons - I honestly believe that black market weapons are the majority.

National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), for the Police Foundation, under sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (part of the DoJ) concluded that approx. 500,000 firearms are stolen annually, and that 32% of firearms used in felonies had been stolen.

Appreciate that info... so roughly 2/3 are black market guns, then...

Well, some of those 2/3 might have been obtained legally (the VT killer got his legally). They might have entered the black market after previously being stolen. Some are smuggled in. I don't think Smith&Wesson wholesales weapons directly to the black market.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I don't think Smith & Wesson wholesales weapons directly to the black market.

I think you're probably right...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

That's a ridiculous policy for an employer to have!

I agree with you here. I recommend she find an employer with less ridiculous policies.

Like one that doesn't hire gays, and hires PIs to root out that unwelcome element?