Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

[MaskedOne]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

Even at that there are (by the surgeon generals findings ordered by Obama) 1.5 to 3 million times every year when people use guns to prevent a crime, most often never even firing a shot. That means that every day (on an average) there are more crimes stopped by good people with guns than murders in a year. Those places in the USA with the strictest gun controls are where most "gun crime" occurs. Typically the areas with the least controls on concealed carry of firearms are the places with the lowest violent crime rates. why is it that most of the "mass shootings" occur in "gun free zones"? (a "mass shooting" is where three or more people are shot in a single event) Could it be that if others have guns the shooters don't get to shoot the third time? It happens!

Do you have a link to this surgeon general report?

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

It was completed in Obama's first term. The findings are on the internet. I saved the information but did not save the address that it was published. If you are really interested it should not be hard to find.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

It was completed in Obama's first term. The findings are on the internet. I saved the information but did not save the address that it was published. If you are really interested it should not be hard to find.

Could you look for it? I find a lot about the Surgeon General's stance on gun control, but no reports issued on the subject.

Reports of the Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service

A search of the reports using the vague term "gun" turns up a reference to preventing youth violence, and a "smoking gun" relationship between cancer and smoking.

[Briton]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

It's not so much "guns" that are the problem, the largest you can own is a .50 BMG, a beast of a gun, in the UK. You can also own pistols. I've come across someone who was convinced you cannot own anything beyond an air rifle, even to the point of arguing with me, a Brit, about it.

No, the problem is with access. Many gun-toting conservatives deny the Firearm Show loophole exists, calling it a myth, but it does exist. The fact is, in 33 states private gun owners are not restricted from selling firearms at gun shows. Furthermore, those who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to federal background checks, which completely undermines legislation requiring it of licensed gun sellers standing right next to a private individual.

[Hickory67]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

Actually this is not an existential threat as the vast, vast majority of mass shootings are done by people with no terrorist ties.Quite the defeatist attitude though that we are better off stockpiling weapons than trying to bring down the rate of mass shootings.

The existential threat I refer to comes from those extremists who are currently engaged in destroying the western way of life and subjugating the masses under a so-called caliphate. I've watched it happening for years and it's coming closer to fruition.

Bringing down the rate of mass shootings is best achieved by hardening potential targets and allowing the sheepdogs the latitude to guard the flock as they're trained to do. Deranged is deranged. Organized delusion (and I speak of extremists of any stripe) is an existential threat to any society. History is replete with examples of that very thing.

I also use the "existential threat" tern to refer to the social, political, and religious divisions we currently are experiencing as a society - something guns cannot resolve. Having witnessed the Bosnian war 20-odd years ago, I have always maintained the same could happen here...and we see the flames of hatred being fanned by "leaders" who represent polarizing agendas versus the will of the people, and a media machine that magnifies it with inflammatory rhetoric. You never see the mutual admiration, love, and respect people of all races and creeds have for one another because it doesn't sell. I experience it every day.

I'm veering off topic so I'll stop there. My final thought is that we moderates, and we pagans, have the wherewithal to transcend BS agendas and demonstrate the profound effect of tolerance if we but choose to.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

It was the CDC and not the surgeon general - my mistake.
Here is one link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...rime-deterrent
and here is a quote from that link:

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.
“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”
The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

[nbdy]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

I understand and respect the position that access to guns are not the root problem. I went to a high school where guns were routinely stored in school lockers during class so that folks could go hunting immediately after school without having to go back home first. Even so, it is just common sense that fewer guns would correlate with fewer shootings. The social dysfunction wouldn't change, but maybe it would be less deadly.

I don't even think that the finger can be pointed at extremism, though that is an efficient means to the end result. Society has changed. I am reminded of Durkheim's 19th century assessment of increased suicides being the result of increased social alienation, and know that it is not such a large step from suicidal to homicidal. Perhaps the same dynamic is in play only people now decide to take as many other people with them as they can. Latching on to extremist doctrines or groups gives the alienated person a sense of identity and purpose.

It is not a sign of mental illness to want to have meaning in one's life, and it is not mental illness to feel frightened and alienated in a world that changes so quickly. This is not making excuses or apologies for murderers, but we are all complicit in creating a society where some people find no value in life, and increasingly this is externalized to others rather than manifesting as the benign despair of suicide.

If anything near this dynamic is in play, then "radicalizing" people is sort of like weaponizing despair. Is it any wonder that the most susceptible are mostly the younger people who still feel their pains so profoundly? I have tried to think of what alternatives could be brought into play, but it is not as simple as that. I do think that strong communities are part of the answer, but can only be a solution if they exist everywhere. Yah -- good luck with that.

That's enough random thoughts for today. Be well, y'all.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

It was the CDC and not the surgeon general - my mistake.
Here is one link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...rime-deterrent
and here is a quote from that link:

Thanks! The actual report is a free download, I see, so I can actually look at it.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

The problem with the feelings on shootings in general and mass murders specifically is that it concentrates on just a single form of violent crime. In most cases violent crime remains at the same level or increases when guns are removed from the hands of the public. Laws regarding guns don't have any effect of criminals who don't follow or even respect the laws. Victims of violent crime are not interested in whether brute force, a knife or a gun is used to make them victims. They want to feel safe, to be able to prevent that act in the future. When they find out that it is impossible for the police to protect them it is a real shock.

We wear seat belts and shoulder harnesses to protect ourselves from the injuries caused in collisions, we wear special clothes to protect us from the weather, and have credit to protect us from unexpected expenses. Is it so different to wear a gun to protect ourselves from a violent attack? It all comes down to a right to defend ones self. Every animal on earth has the right to defend itself and its young, what makes us any different? What is it that makes us willing to give up that right?

[Medusa]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

We want the right to kill. Except if you are a woman and it's part of your body.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

We "kill" every day of our lives. we have to to breath and feed ourselves. Sometime people kill for enjoyment - like that tree that was killed so it could be decorated in the front room. The meat that we eat was killed so we could enjoy a meal or the abortion of a chicken so we can eat it. Even the vegetables we eat had to be killed. Killing is a way of life but the difference is that self defense is saving more lives than are taken. If a mass murderer is killed after firing his/her first shot by someone who is able to defend him/herself and it prevents 20 deaths and more injuries is that more wrong than letting the shooter go on with the killing of innocents? That is why, after all, that abortion is objected to so strongly by some - it is the killing of an innocent.

Personally I don't care if a woman decides to abort a child within her body. That choice is hers and hers alone and she has to live with that decision not me. If someone wants to kill my child or wife or even a complete stranger and I can prevent it, I will. It stops not only that murder but all the others that the murderer may commit before someone else stops him/her. Self defense is as natural as pulling a carrot from the garden and eating and just as beneficial to society. If I kill, even in self defense, I am the one who has to live with the consequences, not anyone else. If the taking of life is so repugnant that you would rather let a murderer get away to do it over and over then there is, in my opinion, something wrong with your sense of morality. (your and you is in the wider group meaning as I am not pointing at any individuals)

[thalassa]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

Thanks! The actual report is a free download, I see, so I can actually look at it.

Here's the online read, for anyone else that wants to read it...because it really doesn't make the case that the article presents, if you read it context.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

From your on-line source:]

Protective Effects of Gun Ownership

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

It does make the statement that was cited in the article. The report gave their findings and the findings that were including another source that suggests higher counts.

[thalassa]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

From your on-line source:]


It does make the statement that was cited in the article. The report gave their findings and the findings that were including another source that suggests higher counts.

So here's what you are missing...

Estimates are between 60 THOUSAND to 2.5 MILLION events annually.

Think about that for a second.

2,500,000
-__60,000
2,440,000

That is one effing wide distribution.

That is the most meaningless set of numbers pretty much ever. You can't make any sort of determination from data with a distribution like that, other that A) your data is worthless and/or B) you need to do more research with better sample methods to figure out were that discrepancy comes from. And, if you read the entire 100+ pages of the report, you will see the overarching theme of it is exactly that.

Cherry picking data is bad science, and worse policy.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Another shooter. In San Bernardino 20 shot!

The problem with the data is that self defense rarely amounts to pulling the trigger - bad guys run away when confronted. A large percentage of self defense using guns don't get reported to the police. My son was put in a position where he had to pull his gun in self defense against three aggressors. There was no report and no shootings. This kind of action happens a lot more often than people want to admit. When polled people may or may not admit to these actions. I pulled a shotgun on a couple of trespassers that turned out to be cops on my land looking for a suspect because my dogs were barking. I had to tell them to leave my property because if a suspect had run in he would have been stopped by the electric fence or the dogs. They were barking at the cops. My case was not a "self defense" situation, only a misunderstanding.
Incidents only get reported when a gun is fired.

And not to cherry pick data the CDC report used 60,000 to 120,000 and stated their own data at 117,000 times per year in two particular years. That is still much more defensive use of guns than criminal use.