A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Mountain Man]

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee (D), gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

...Yee also discussed buying weapons overseas and bringing them to the U.S. with two associates and an undercover agent. He accepted $6,800 and a list of arms for purchase in the Philippines.

The maneuvers were not only illegal, but also in stark contrast to what he had long purported to stand for.

Yee told CBS two years before he was arrested: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear — there is no debate, no discussion.”

As a legislator, Yee supported strict gun control laws and was named to the Brady Campaign’s Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.998907ba86f1

Huh... I can't figure that one out. Was he trying to snuff out the competition? Make his products more valuable?

I mean, an ardent opponent of homosexuality coming out as gay makes some sort of sense because they feel ashamed of their sin and are trying to slay their demons, but that sort of thinking really doesn't make sense here.

[carpedm9587]

So much for your honest and open mindedness. This not only positively blames gun availability as THE big cause, but totally distorts the honest innocent actions of the NRA in a dishonest way.

I see that you have not yet "had time" to examine the 101 million dollar study I pointed out to you. If you do I expect a similar distortion in your handling of that.

Color me disappointed in you.

This is my second response to this. This note from you, Jedidiah, has been playing in my head since I first saw it. I have to admit, it has me a bit flummoxed. Here's why:

When I wrote my post, I had no thought whatsoever about "blaming the gun" or "advocating for gun control." As I've said multiple times, with the exception of the background checks and central registry, the only thing I advocate for is the funding to study the problem. IMO, neither side is making rational proposals about guns because there is no impartial data about the problem to inform those decisions. So when gun control advocates say "eliminate some of the guns" they are talking without a foundation. Likewise, when the gun rights advocates say "arm the teachers," they are talking without a foundation. Fact is - no one has data to show that way X will or will not work.

My point in making the comments I did was to note the difference between the "gun" discussion and the "bomb" discussion. The first is legal (most everywhere); the second is not. The first is being defended everywhere, and arguments are being made to expand it everywhere; the second is not. In other words, bombs are widely seen as "a bad thing" so there is little "issue" about it - we all generally agree about bombs. If there is little "issue" about it, it gets less news cycle. It's just another trajedy, briefly reported and then back to page 12 the next day. But there is ENORMOUS issue about guns. Some see guns as "good thing" and some see guns as "bad things." Politicians seize on it to make politiacal hay. People get up in arms decrying or defending guns. As a consequence, it gets more eyes and more news cycles, staying on "page one" for days or even weeks. That was my point in making my post.

What is interesting to me is that the post was interpreted as saying "gun availability is the problem." I actually never said that, or even intended it. So why, I have to wonder, was it interpreted that way?

As for the rest - I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, see the NRA as "innocent." The NRA is at the center of shutting down studies. It defends the industry it has selected, even when there is no adequate information to support that defense. No one can look at the incredibly inflammatory advertising the NRA has put forward and justifiably call them "innocent." To be fair, I think the same is true of gun control advocates who are fighting tooth and nail for solutions there is not adequate information to prove would actually solve anything. There is deception and misrepresentation going on on both sides.

Note that the NRA is about the NRA as an organization. It does not mean all members of the NRA are equally culpable. There are some members of the NRA actually willing to enable funding, search for answers, and take reasonable steps to deal with the issue, once those reasonable staps can be determined. Then there are those who place every possible obstacle int he way of researching the problem, deriving solutions, and enabling those solutions. THOSE are the people I think are as culpable as the NRA itself.

In other words - if you're not part of getting to a solution - you're part of the problem.

My $.02

[JimL]

This is SoS - Stupidity on Steroids

Well then, make your point. How is it SoS?

[carpedm9587]

I had initially started this discussion in the hopes that people could have respectful, reasonable discussions about this issue. After policing that for several pages, I ended up being pulled off to deal with work/home issues, and I ceased policing it. I just spent a bit of time wandering through the various pages of the thread. It has drifted far away from respectful fairly regularly. That is disappointing. I had hoped it could be otherwise.

I'm not going to restart policing it. I simply don't have the time or energy. I just ask that people please think before you hit submit. If your post contains a barb, perhaps you might consider whether or not that barb is strictly necessary to the making of your point.

[Cow Poke]

I had initially started this discussion in the hopes that people could have respectful, reasonable discussions about this issue. After policing that for several pages, I ended up being pulled off to deal with work/home issues, and I ceased policing it. I just spent a bit of time wandering through the various pages of the thread. It has drifted far away from respectful fairly regularly. That is disappointing. I had hoped it could be otherwise.

I'm not going to restart policing it. I simply don't have the time or energy. I just ask that people please think before you hit submit. If your post contains a barb, perhaps you might consider whether or not that barb is strictly necessary to the making of your point.

I lost track that this was "the thread". I've only been here on and off recently, and, I think everybody is just saying the same things over and over.

I'll unsubscribe, and the rate of civility will increase dramatically.

[Psychic Missile]

And I would rather the people at schools and other public venues have the means to defend themselves from a psychopath intent on killing them whether he's armed with a knife or a gun. "Gun free" zones should be outlawed.

If they have a knife, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

[Psychic Missile]

Answer the question. Which way would you rather be murdered? Shot to death or slashed to death by a knife? Which weapon causes more damage and pain? It seems that is all you care about, the amount of damage.

It doesn't matter if the experience of dying from one or the other is worse, so the question is irrelevant. What matters is how many total lives are lost.

[Mountain Man]

If they have a knife, you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

I would prefer to have a gun versus a knife assailant regardless of your perception of "need".

[carpedm9587]

This is a great example of why I beleive a "story" is not an argument. The story supports the suggestion that teachers should not be armed, but all it does is causes the opposite side to find a story where a teacher stopped a gunman, and then you have dueling stories. What is needed is a study that quantifies the increase/decrease in risk that results from arming teachers. Until we have that, both sides are blowing smoke (IMO) when they argue that teacher should or should not be armed.

That is why I believe our first step is to free up funding for impartial, peer-reviewed study. This is one place where I fault the NRA - because it is largely at the behest of their lobbying that we do NOT have this.

[Sparko]

This is a great example of why I beleive a "story" is not an argument. The story supports the suggestion that teachers should not be armed, but all it does is causes the opposite side to find a story where a teacher stopped a gunman, and then you have dueling stories. What is needed is a study that quantifies the increase/decrease in risk that results from arming teachers. Until we have that, both sides are blowing smoke (IMO) when they argue that teacher should or should not be armed.

That is why I believe our first step is to free up funding for impartial, peer-reviewed study. This is one place where I fault the NRA - because it is largely at the behest of their lobbying that we do NOT have this.

How do you have a study on that? Send in active shooters into classrooms with teachers armed and not armed, over and over to see what happens?



I for one think that arming teachers is probably not the best idea. Armed guards at school might be what is needed. We don't want to turn our schools into prisons, but we have armed guards at airports, banks, government buildings, etc. So why not schools?

[carpedm9587]

How do you have a study on that? Send in active shooters into classrooms with teachers armed and not armed, over and over to see what happens?

In a sense - but using existing data from past events.

I for one think that arming teachers is probably not the best idea. Armed guards at school might be what is needed. We don't want to turn our schools into prisons, but we have armed guards at airports, banks, government buildings, etc. So why not schools?

Certainly, today, it makes sense (to me) to have a security force present. I have advocated for beefing up funding for the localp police department so they can have a presence at the schools. That creates a youth/police link that could have other benefits as well.

[Sparko]

In a sense - but using existing data from past events.

what past events had armed teachers?

Certainly, today, it makes sense (to me) to have a security force present. I have advocated for beefing up funding for the localp police department so they can have a presence at the schools. That creates a youth/police link that could have other benefits as well.

My thinking is that colleges have college police, so why not have the same thing at k-12 but on a smaller scale? As a side benefit, maybe the students, being exposed to police during their formative years will come to see them in a more friendly light, as someone who is there to protect them instead of some evil enemy there to kill black people.

[Jedidiah]

what past events had armed teachers?




My thinking is that colleges have college police, so why not have the same thing at k-12 but on a smaller scale? As a side benefit, maybe the students, being exposed to police during their formative years will come to see them in a more friendly light, as someone who is there to protect them instead of some evil enemy there to kill black people.

There was already a 10 million dollar study that I referenced earlier. Carpe was supposed to check it out and report, but . . .

[carpedm9587]

what past events had armed teachers?

I do not know the statistics of how many schools have and do not have armed teachers, here or internationally.

My thinking is that colleges have college police, so why not have the same thing at k-12 but on a smaller scale? As a side benefit, maybe the students, being exposed to police during their formative years will come to see them in a more friendly light, as someone who is there to protect them instead of some evil enemy there to kill black people.

My thoughts exactly...but the police would have to be very selective about the police they get. They need "kid-friendly" police. Some crochety old coot sour on everything and ready for retirement will just make things worse.

[carpedm9587]

There was already a 10 million dollar study that I referenced earlier. Carpe was supposed to check it out and report, but . . .

I have not had a chance to read. Indeed, I can't find the link. Can you relink?