• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Good guys with guns.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As I just posted on another thread, the common denominator with our high homicide and mass shootings is the proliferation of guns in American society, whereas we have one gun for almost every single man, woman, and child here. The concept that having more guns will supposedly make us safer is simply delusional, and it falls under the same "logic" that having more cars in society will lower the number of traffic accidents.

BTW, beware of some studies because one needs to try and find sources that have no vested interest in one side or the other, which is why I prefer university studies. The NRA has sponsored some "studies", and I think one can imagine what they conclude.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Cops need better training in gun safety??? What are u talking about?
Hi........ Welcome to RF.

Yes, armed police need extra training in gun safety and gun deployment. And then they need regular retraining in gun safety, deployment etc.

They also need regular counselling for stress which builds up through constant 'on-job' alertness. Any cops who insist that they don't need any of the above should be put to top of the 'urgent' list. :)
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nor is it intended to.
But if at least 10% of school shootings are caused by cops or cops in
training (with no injuries, btw), this strongly points to one of 2 things:
- The cited statistic is misleading, or
- Cops need better training.

Or both.

I would change "better training" to "continuous training". But I agree with you in principle.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
I understand the emotional content of your post but, in all fairness, you should also look at how many crimes were derailed due to someone with a firearm on scene.
Then, by all means, please site them here.

There's a problem establishing this though. Gary Kleck has done much work on this,
finding many thousands of cases per year, but none on the anti-gun side accept his work.
Even discounting his findings by a factor of 10, self defense with a gun is significant.
The other problem is that news media will report wrongful killings because they're more
newsworthy, but justifiable killings are less dramatic. The NRA publishes these cases,
but alas, only NRA fans will ever read them. So the media paint a biased picture.

Even the Huff Po article about 18 school shootings in 2018 includes at least 2 cases
of cops behaving unsafely. No cop should let a child accidentally pull the trigger
of a loaded gun....that situation should not arise. But "18" is a big number, & makes
the statistics & news more dramatic, & so it becomes a "fact".
Kleck’s work has been thoroughly refuted, by many rational and unbiased researchers. It is Kleck who has been shown to be biased. And thus, unless Fox is your media source, the media is also not biased on the subject.

PS - Cops letting kids touch a loaded weapon is grounds for immediate dismissal, and just plain dumb-*** stupid. :facepalm:
As for real fatal shootings in US schools, there have been 25 since Columbine in 1999, some with multiple deaths, some with one. There have been additional non-fatal school shootings as well.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Kleck’s work has been thoroughly refuted, by many rational and unbiased researchers. It is Kleck who has been shown to be biased.
Right...& the unpresented supposedly unbiased sources are better?
And thus, unless Fox is your media source, the media is also not biased on the subject.
Why do you guys always make the Fox News accusation?
Does someone train you say this with knowledge of my favored sources?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Right...& the unpresented supposedly unbiased sources are better?

Why do you guys always make the Fox News accusation?
Does someone train you say this with knowledge of my favored sources?
I am biased in favor of engineers like my mom. Therefore I found this last statement funny-frubal-worthy.

Kleck is just a very prolific writer, making a buck by bucking the research. Like writers for the cigarette companies in the 1960’s and 70’s, or the petroleum companies in the last 15 years....

As for your request....
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
....”I asked how many times Scottsboro residents had used their guns to protect themselves. “I've been doing this for 35 years, and I just can't recall one,” the sheriff answered. Harnen, though, suddenly remembered something. “We did have a lady that was in one of our firearms classes. She had a guy try to break into her house,” he recalled. “She yelled and said, ‘I've got a gun,’ and she opened the door, and he was running away—she fired at him.”

But they could not think of any other examples. Graydon, back in Kennesaw, also could not remember a time when a resident used a gun in self-defense, and he has been working for the police department for 31 years.

The frequency of self-defense gun use rests at the heart of the controversy over how guns affect our country. Progun enthusiasts argue that it happens all the time. In 1995 Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, and his colleague Marc Gertz published a study that elicited what has become one of the gun lobby's favorite numbers. They randomly surveyed 5,000 Americans and asked if they, or another member of the household, had used a gun for self-protection in the past year. A little more than 1 percent of the participants answered yes, and when Kleck and Gertz extrapolated their results, they concluded that Americans use guns for self-defense as many as 2.5 million times a year.

This estimate is, however, vastly higher than numbers from government surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted in tens of thousands of households. It suggests that victims use guns for self-defense only 65,000 times a year. In 2015 Hemenway and his colleagues studied five years' worth of NCVS data and concluded that guns are used for self-defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. They also found that self-defense gun use is about as effective as other defensive maneuvers, such as calling for help. “It's not as if you look at the data, and it says people who defend themselves with a gun are much less likely to be injured,” says Philip Cook, an economist at Duke University, who has been studying guns since the 1970s.”​

Contradictions of Kleck

“The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape. “​

....
Alas, I’m running late. Otherwise I could spend more time posting more links.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am biased in favor of engineers like my mom. Therefore I found this last statement funny-frubal-worthy.
Who doesn't have an engineering degree.
Even I have a couple.
Kleck is just a very prolific writer, making a buck by bucking the research. Like writers for the cigarette companies in the 1960’s and 70’s, or the petroleum companies in the last 15 years....

As for your request....
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
....”I asked how many times Scottsboro residents had used their guns to protect themselves. “I've been doing this for 35 years, and I just can't recall one,” the sheriff answered. Harnen, though, suddenly remembered something. “We did have a lady that was in one of our firearms classes. She had a guy try to break into her house,” he recalled. “She yelled and said, ‘I've got a gun,’ and she opened the door, and he was running away—she fired at him.”

But they could not think of any other examples. Graydon, back in Kennesaw, also could not remember a time when a resident used a gun in self-defense, and he has been working for the police department for 31 years.

The frequency of self-defense gun use rests at the heart of the controversy over how guns affect our country. Progun enthusiasts argue that it happens all the time. In 1995 Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, and his colleague Marc Gertz published a study that elicited what has become one of the gun lobby's favorite numbers. They randomly surveyed 5,000 Americans and asked if they, or another member of the household, had used a gun for self-protection in the past year. A little more than 1 percent of the participants answered yes, and when Kleck and Gertz extrapolated their results, they concluded that Americans use guns for self-defense as many as 2.5 million times a year.

This estimate is, however, vastly higher than numbers from government surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted in tens of thousands of households. It suggests that victims use guns for self-defense only 65,000 times a year. In 2015 Hemenway and his colleagues studied five years' worth of NCVS data and concluded that guns are used for self-defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. They also found that self-defense gun use is about as effective as other defensive maneuvers, such as calling for help. “It's not as if you look at the data, and it says people who defend themselves with a gun are much less likely to be injured,” says Philip Cook, an economist at Duke University, who has been studying guns since the 1970s.”​

Contradictions of Kleck

“The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape. “​

....
Alas, I’m running late. Otherwise I could spend more time posting more links.
Without reading all that (& having read criticisms of Kleck's work before), I'll state....
- I don't favor more guns.
There are a lot of simplistic claims which deal with quantity, but not important
things like the who, the training, the where, the which & the when.
- I've often advised dividing Kleck's figures by a factor of 10.
This is a significant discount which still points to usefulness of guns for self defense.
- Claims that other forms of self defense would suffice as replacement for guns
conflicts with experiences of people I know. It reminds me of polls showing that
Hillary was a shoe in for the presidency. But surveying yard signs around the
country showed a very different picture....one which was borne out by her loss.
- There is the issue of what constitutes "use" of a gun. Kleck includes merely
presenting the gun without firing. I find this cromulent.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
With the mass shooting that took place in parkland yesterday you have a lot of people that are saying the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

18 school shootings so far in 2018.

And not one good guy with a gun came to save the day! Also there were armed grauds on the campus and they couldn’t prevent the shooting. Why do people continue to cling to this faulty logic?


What about the "good guy" that brings a gun inside a church?


https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/man-s...-advocating-for-right-to-have-guns-in-church/
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
With the mass shooting that took place in parkland yesterday you have a lot of people that are saying the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

18 school shootings so far in 2018.

And not one good guy with a gun came to save the day! Also there were armed grauds on the campus and they couldn’t prevent the shooting. Why do people continue to cling to this faulty logic?

A problem I foresee is let's say you have a armed bad guy show up and start shooting, then two or more armed good guys draw their weapons in response, but what if they're uncertain who the shooter is and during the chaos and confusion mistake each other for the bad guy and start shooting at each other? Or even if it's only one armed good guy and he engages the bad guy. Police arrive moments later and see two armed men, not knowing who's who. Also, mass shootings tend to be ambush style attacks that catch people off guard. An armed good guy could potentially stop the spree sooner, but not prevent it.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
A problem I foresee is let's say you have a armed bad guy show up and start shooting, then two or more armed good guys draw their weapons in response, but what if they're uncertain who the shooter is and during the chaos and confusion mistake each other for the bad guy and start shooting at each other? Or even if it's only one armed good guy and he engages the bad guy. Police arrive moments later and see two armed men, not knowing who's who. Also, mass shootings tend to be ambush style attacks that catch people off guard. An armed good guy could potentially stop the spree sooner, but not prevent it.

I think I'd be willing to take the chance of possibly being shot accidentally as oppose to probably being shot on purpose. BTW, if you are ever in an active shooter situation why don't you try to reason with him and let us know how that turned out for you.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I think I'd be willing to take the chance of possibly being shot accidentally as oppose to probably being shot on purpose. BTW, if you are ever in an active shooter situation why don't you try to reason with him and let us know how that turned out for you.

Calm down, Rambo. I never said anything about "trying to reason" with a shooter. I merely pointed out situations that could potentially be problematic. Real life ain't like the movies, kid.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
With the mass shooting that took place in parkland yesterday you have a lot of people that are saying the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

18 school shootings so far in 2018.

And not one good guy with a gun came to save the day! Also there were armed grauds on the campus and they couldn’t prevent the shooting. Why do people continue to cling to this faulty logic?
Not to mention that schools can't even afford to get teachers basic classroom supplies, but suddenly they're going to have enough for a Glock and effective training for them? Pull the other one.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I think I'd be willing to take the chance of possibly being shot accidentally as oppose to probably being shot on purpose. BTW, if you are ever in an active shooter situation why don't you try to reason with him and let us know how that turned out for you.
Why not take steps to reduce the number of active shooter situations in the first place? You know, like every other developed country on the planet?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Calm down, Rambo. I never said anything about "trying to reason" with a shooter. I merely pointed out situations that could potentially be problematic. Real life ain't like the movies, kid.
Oh come on, play fair! You know strawmanning is all they have when you insist on using facts and logic. If you don't let them have that, what are they supposed to do? Change their ideological position in light of overwhelming evidence? Please.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I understand the emotional content of your post but, in all fairness, you should also look at how many crimes were derailed due to someone with a firearm on scene.
Yeah? How many is that then? How many of those crimes were violent, while we're at it?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Even if it worked, hands up if you want to be the good guy with a gun when the cops turn up looking for a shooter?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Calm down, Rambo. I never said anything about "trying to reason" with a shooter. I merely pointed out situations that could potentially be problematic. Real life ain't like the movies, kid.
I think Rambo's point was that real life also presents
scenarios where a gun is useful for self defense.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Even if it worked, hands up if you want to be the good guy with a gun when the cops turn up looking for a shooter?
It would be important to recognize that once the cops arrive & can handle
the situation, it's best to holster one's own gun, & behave peacefully.
This avoids misunderstandings.
 
Top