Grooooaaannnnnn…
I guess it depends on what “used” means concerning guns.
Ok…I’m aware of the event. Now…explain why you think that this is A) representative of most school shootings and B) proves Whitman needed to be a crack shot to do what he did.
-XT
Whitman is a bad example to use for a spree shooter who was a “military type.” He did not have “years of experience” and “nerves of steel.” He may have been a Marine but as Marines go he was a horrible Marine.
The Wikipedia page on “concealed carry” is an article that labels itself “concealed carry in the US”:
This possibly indicates that the US may be the only nation to have such a thing? (further googling looks like possibly New Zealand does.) If I can get a list of nations, I can do some searches.
Yeah, I noticed that later. But I’d rather have people debating actual studies, regardless if they’re on my side or not, than simply wasting thread real estate without any sort of data at all.
The pro-CCW side seems to base things on X-law was passed in Y-year and the crime rate did Z within W timespan. While it’s possible that other things could have caused Z at that particular time, it seems a bit unrealistic to say that the same Z happened within W timespan for every place where there was a similar X.
…and yet not be caused by X.
missed the edit window
Gee, my car is also available for use 24/7/365.
Anyone want to actually try to answer the question?
You hold the loaded weapon in your hands and pull the trigger with the intent of using it for the purpose for which you think it is intended.
Considering the deterrence factor, I would add that simply carrying a gun should be considered a use. If one wants to make a case that an armed populace is a deterrence to civil rights abuses, the ownership of guns must also be considered a use.
That pretty much makes any comparison useless.
As long as we are comparing guns with cars, it seems that in most American states, a licence is not required to own and use a gun, but all states require a licence to operate a car. Is that right?
Also, I see that each state has a traffic/highway safety department. Is there a comparable department for firearms in each state?
Licenses aren’t required to own cars in the US. Nor to drive on private property. The act of licensing is for driving on public roads.
Similarly, you can own a gun in most places without a license and use/carry it on your private property, but most places require a license to carry it onto public areas.
Also, seeing as we’re discussing cars again, how many deaths from privately-owned vehicle owners going ‘postal’ would it take, before the authorities banned their use by anyone without rigorous training and psychological profiling? And a car is something that is far more useful to society than a gun.
It might take more than one incident a day of someone suddenly mowing down pedestrians, but eventually a ban would be considered. How many deaths will gun owners be satisfied with before they’ll accept far greater restrictions on how people ‘defend’ themselves?
And my owning a car relieves me from the worry of figuring out how I’m going to get to work each morning.
Comparing hours of usage, including target practice(see, I’m actually not being totally unreasonable, folks), how do those accident rates compare when it’s number of times a car is used vs. number of times a gun is used?
Look, I can dance this dance for a loooong time, but I’d much rather have a straightforward answer.
No, but I tried to subltly tell you what I thought of the intelligence of the question.
Well, Whitman made some pretty difficult shots from the top of the tower that I doubt I’d be able to duplicate. I’m hardly an expert though but it seems to me that it would be difficult to pull off what Whitman did without being a crack shot.
Odesio
I’ve defined usage for the purpose of the question.
The only problem I saw on this show was when they had a student with a gun in the classroom that showed the inability to properly pull the gun out and get a shot. The student was in-turn shot while trying to do this.
The only problem with this demonstration was that only one student was armed. This show was aimed at the question whether or not you would be safer with a gun. In this case only one student had a gun, but what if there were others? The odds in real life of the intruder being able to pick out someone pulling a gun out seems as though it would be pretty low. Unless you are a well trained law inforcement officer as in this case. This is simply not the case with most of these shootings.
I did not watch the whole program so I don’t know if they had other situations like this but it doesn’t always happen in a class room as we have seen recently. Say you were in an office or a gas station your odds of getting a shot off are much greater than that of a classroom. If everyone was going to be shot, why not have a gun? why not give yourself and others a chance even if it is small?
I didn’t see the show, but others have said that they gave the student a retention holster. This is designed to prevent anyone but the user from drawing the weapon, but there’s a technique to drawing it - you have to do it exactly at a certain angle or you won’t draw smoothly. People practice it hundreds of times to get the motion down, but it sounds like in this case the students didn’t know what they were doing. That hampered a realistic draw time.
I didn’t see the 20/20 program but am not remotely surprised by the descriptions of what it portrayed. As has been pointed out in the past by calmer heads it’s not that the media has a liberal bias, it’s that it has a drama bias. Which makes for a more exciting program: “If you, a law-abiding citizen, carry a gun, everything will be okay” or “If you, a law-abiding citizen, carry a gun, you’ll be the first to die”? (Also, of course, if they show that carrying concealed improves a situation and then someone carrying concealed shoots someone, somebody would sue 20/20. It’s the American way.)
Me, I had hoped for something along the lines of a proper school shooting simulation in which the shooter fired randomly, the students didn’t know what to expect, and more than one student had a weapon. Because I’d be genuinely curious to see how many bystanders get taken out by the “can’t shoot for shit” factor. In a relatively clear field of fire defensive use of firearms may be more effective than running away screaming but in a crowded, confused environment you just know that a few bystanders are going to get pegged.
I am, however, a little mystified with the suggestion that the student in the scenario should have had the gun easily accessible. Do I really want people to be ready and able to whip out a gun that easily at any time? Even in class? Is that best practice?
Another scenario I would have liked to have seen played out: A street scene, with more than one “law-abiding citizens” carrying concealed. There is a loud bang - could be a shot, car backfire, firework, etc. Does the situation escalate? Does Person A draw his weapon, look around, spot Person B who has done the same, assume that Person B has fired a shot (since he’s got a gun out) and start banging away, with Person B doing the same to Person A? Or do they act sensibly? It’d be interesting to see.
We don’t know. But I’m not letting you and Hentor handwave away the facts of reality with a hypothetical supposition, no matter how reasonable it may appear.
I’ll allow that if firearms were used at a rate comparable to autos that the numbers may look different.
Reality check: ifs, buts, and candied nuts have fuck-all to do with the facts as they stand.
You guys bitch and moan about accidental deaths from guns until it’s pointed out to you the 1/2 dozen or more other leading causes of accidental deaths.
You then bitch and moan that that’s not a statistically valid comparison because the gun numbers aren’t adjusted for “use.”
Anything, and I mean any-fucking-thing, to get those numbers where you want 'em, eh guys?