27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[MrJonno]

Just get rid of schools , then you don't get any school shootings. Let face if it you go to Marxist progressive school you are probably a commie anyway

[aspire1670]

Seth is in a minority in his belief that people should be permitted to carry guns concealed.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/4/282.full

I quote from the conclusion :

"Conclusions—The public believes that increased gun carrying by others reduces rather than increases their safety. Overwhelmingly, the public believes that in many venues gun carrying should be prohibited."

Irrelevant, and factually untrue.

First, the true will of the majority is expressed by the legislatures of the states, 40 of which have determined that citizens are more safe, or at least are not less safe when licensed concealed carry is permitted, which is why they have voted to permit CCW. A telephone poll of a couple of thousand people doesn't trump the careful deliberation, examination of evidence and resulting legislation of 40 states. The research you cite is crap science.

Second, it's not relevant what the "public" believes because the right to armed self defense is an inherent, unalienable, natural and INDIVIDUAL right in this country and as such, it's not subject to the tyranny of the majority, any more than a woman's right to abortion is.

But but but the 2nd amendment was enacted by a tyranny of the majority, Seth. And if there is a natural right to armed self defence why didn't we evolve with a little pouch containing a weapon? Perhaps you did?

[Seth]

Let me add something to the argument about concealed carry.

Seth believes that it reduces crime.

It does reduce crime, particularly in my immediate vicinity, which is the only pertinent consideration.

The basis for this belief is the observation that more Americans these days are carrying concealed guns and the crime rate is dropping. Fine. But that is not cause and effect. The problem with that argument is that crime rates throughout the entire civilised world are dropping in parallel with the drop in crime rates in the USA.

How is it that crime rates drop in so many countries where concealed carry is prohibited?

Who knows? But what's clearly evident is that crime is not INCREASING as a result of expanded concealed carry, and since this is not, and never has been, and never will be a statistical argument, it's not in the least bit relevant.

All that's relevant is whether any individual who chooses to lawfully carry a concealed weapon is safer, or feels safer by doing so.

The answer, as I have pointed out before, is that the entire western world is undergoing a demographic change - age structure. All those western nations are moving to a state with a lower percentage of young people, and a higher percentage of older people. One effect is to reduce crime, and especially violent crime, since older people are less prone to committing those crimes. It has exactly nothing at all to do with concealed carry.

Perhaps. You haven't cited any credible evidence to support this conclusion, not that it's relevant anyway. All that matters is that crime is decreasing, not increasing, in the US at the same time that the lawful carrying of concealed firearms is becoming much more widespread. Irrespective of the causation, the correlation is obvious: Widespread concealed carry by law-abiding citizens does not increase crime rates (either among criminals or among licensed persons) and therefore does not pose any additional risk to the public for them to do so.

No one actually knows what increased concealed carry will do,

Wrong. We know that in every jurisdiction where it's lawful, violent crime rated drop substantially. We also know that of those properly licensed to carry concealed, the incidence of criminality among them is a fraction of the rate of criminality among the general public, and there is no evidence that licensed concealed carry results in an increase in either crime or danger to the community. Therefore, the conclusion is that even if it is not identifiably helpful in reducing crime, it is at worst benign and harmless to the public for properly qualified persons to carry concealed weapons. Therefore, there is no compelling need, or even rational basis for legislatures not to permit the practice.

but the majority of Americans certainly do not believe it makes them safer. Quite the reverse, and they are probably right.

Wrong. A few thousand people called at random by telephone expressed the opinion that they were less safe. That's not a "majority of Americans." The majority of Americans elect their legislatures and their will is reflected in the policies and laws enacted by those legislatures after due and solemn consideration, and what the vast majority of those state legislatures have concluded is that licensed concealed carry is beneficial, or at least not harmful to society. This is so true that a federal court recently ruled that Illinois' absolute ban on carrying handguns and refusal to issue permits is unconstitutional and that Illinois (the last remaining "no carry" state) has been ordered to create a reasonable system for the issuing of permits within 180 days. In ruling, the court said that Illinois is not unique and that neither their criminals nor their citizens are any different from those in the rest of the states, ALL of whom have some sort of permitting system, even if it's draconian and impossible to navigate, and that Illinois prohibition is therefore outside the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment.

[Blind groper]

Irrelevant, and factually untrue.

So who do I believe?
Do I believe the British Medical Journal - one of the most reputable scientific journals on this planet?
Or do I believe Seth, who is well known for his 'reasoned and sane' arguments?

[Seth]

The solution to a disease is not more disease.

First you need to properly identify the disease. You haven't. Guns aren't the disease, people are. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are antibiotics that can cure the disease, or at least lessen its severity.

An antibiotic is a selective poison. It has been chosen so that it will kill the desired bacteria, but not the cells in your body. Whereas a bullet, not so much. If you don't believe me try shooting yourself in the head.

Any antibiotic will damage the wrong target if used incorrectly. The key is to apply the high-velocity lead to the right invader at the right time under the right circumstances, in the right manner, in which case it's 100 percent effective in eliminating the disease organism from the planet.

[Svartalf]

Yes, but everyone is not sane until they go on a shooting rampage.

I'm not particularly sane, and I don't go on rampage either.

[Kristie]

No armed cops or metal detectors at my high school (96-2000) or at the high school my daughter will go to.

So, you DON'T care if your daughter is slaughtered like an animal by some deranged gunman. Very illuminating.

Why bother posting things like this? Trying to convince us that you're an enlightened, rational one? You only make yourself sound like a callous jerk. And not a very intelligent one at that.

Go hide in your bunker and rant about those Marxists or something.

No, I'll continue to make my point using whatever controversial language is required. For someone to say, in a thread about a deadly attack on schoolchildren, that she's determined to send her daughter to a school that DOES NOT have adequate protections in place to keep deranged shooters out of the school is a classic example of liberal hoplophobe head-in-the-sand denial that got all those poor kids killed in Connecticut.

Don't you dare put words into my mouth! I never said I was determined to send my daughter to a school that does not have adequate protections in place. I wasn't rly pointing out that unlike what another oater said, my school and the one my daughter will now go to don't have metal detectors or armed guards. If they change the school in our district to having those things, I will still send her to that school.

[Jason]

Yes, but everyone is not sane until they go on a shooting rampage.

I'm not particularly sane, and I don't go on rampage either.

Maybe, but are you not sane in a way that makes you a potential danger to yourself or others? People that are not sane in that way should be prohibited from owning firearms before they go on a rampage. If they live with someone who owns firearms, then careful precautions should be taken to ensure they cannot access that person's firearms.

[Jason]

What's an 'oater'?

[Seth]

No armed cops or metal detectors at my high school (96-2000) or at the high school my daughter will go to.

So, you DON'T care if your daughter is slaughtered like an animal by some deranged gunman. Very illuminating.

Why bother posting things like this? Trying to convince us that you're an enlightened, rational one? You only make yourself sound like a callous jerk. And not a very intelligent one at that.

Go hide in your bunker and rant about those Marxists or something.

No, I'll continue to make my point using whatever controversial language is required. For someone to say, in a thread about a deadly attack on schoolchildren, that she's determined to send her daughter to a school that DOES NOT have adequate protections in place to keep deranged shooters out of the school is a classic example of liberal hoplophobe head-in-the-sand denial that got all those poor kids killed in Connecticut.

Don't you dare put words into my mouth! I never said I was determined to send my daughter to a school that does not have adequate protections in place. I wasn't rly pointing out that unlike what another oater said, my school and the one my daughter will now go to don't have metal detectors or armed guards. If they change the school in our district to having those things, I will still send her to that school.

Ah, well, thanks for clarifying that. My apologies. I hope her chosen school takes security seriously. I'd suggest going there and discussing it with the administration before the school year starts.

[Blind groper]

Further to the idea that Seth loves, that concealed carry reduces crime.
This came from work by a guy called John Lott. However, further work has been done since that casts grave doubt on his conclusions. In particular, work at Yale University.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayre ... rticle.pdf

I quote, in relation to the John Lott work that Seth relies upon :

"we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced
crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."

[Twoflower]

The high school I went to didn't have metal detectors, it probably should have though as there were a lot of angry teens with easy access to hunting rifles.

[Jason]

I should add that ownership/access restrictions are ancillary. What really needs to be done is improving mental healthcare, including early identification of people who pose a threat, classification of the scale of threat they pose, and mandatory treatment where appropriate. If it turns out some are so far gone they need to be placed in a permanent facility, I support that as well.

[Jason]

The high school I went to didn't have metal detectors, it probably should have though as there were a lot of angry teens with easy access to hunting rifles.

Training teachers to identify warning signs and instituting a counselling system students who exhibit those signs would be referred to would certainly do a lot towards providing people who need help the treatment they need as early as possible and when it benefits them most.

[Twoflower]

The high school I went to didn't have metal detectors, it probably should have though as there were a lot of angry teens with easy access to hunting rifles.

Training teachers to identify warning signs and instituting a counselling system students who exhibit those signs would be referred to would certainly do a lot towards providing people who need help the treatment they need as early as possible and when it benefits them most.

I agree 100% I think this shouldn't be a gun only debate, but a debate about gun control and a debate about mental healthcare.