Coach Shoots Attacker as he Walks Students to the Parking Lot

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

It is silly to think that the 2nd amendment can't be repealed. Of course it can.

it can in the sense that there is a mechanism to repeal amendments. however in over 200 years only 1 amendment has ever been repealed - the ban on booze - it seems so unrealistic to even imagine that this is a possibility, especially when so many so strongly support it.

it seems to me that the problem that exists with guns is that there are ideas floated around that just have no chance of either solving the problem or going anywhere. repealing the 2nd amendment is one of those. if that is the best idea one has, the problem wont be resolved. other ideas need to be brought forth.

sam w wrote:

it seems to me that the problem that exists with guns is that there are ideas floated around that just have no chance of either solving the problem or going anywhere. repealing the 2nd amendment is one of those. if that is the best idea one has, the problem wont be resolved. other ideas need to be brought forth.

i agree. What needs to change is the idea that people need or want guns. E.g. in Canada, you can own a mossberg and keep it in your home for protection. But very few people do. It is not in the common belief that a gun is a good thing.

This needs to happen in the US. I am not sure it will.

sam w wrote:

it seems to me that the problem that exists with guns is that there are ideas floated around that just have no chance of either solving the problem or going anywhere.

I don't think the question is, “How do we solve the problem?” As long as the 2nd Amendment is around we will always have a high gun homicide rate.

I think the more pertinent question is, “How do we take a bite out of the problem?” As mentioned before with drunken driving legislation, it used to be ok to drink and drive. Now it no longer is. It didn't solve the problem but it reduced fatalities.

Gun control would do the same thing. Make it much more difficult to acquire a gun, ban assault rifles, high capacity, etc., etc. These actions would reduce the fatalities but not solve the problem. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

We couldn't ban alcohol (thankfully) and we can't ban guns (hopefully) but at least we can do something...or can we?

I think the problem is people who oppose guns, even those with good intentions have few actual solutions. Those people get reduced to ideas like banning guns that are never used in shootings or talk of repealing the the 2nd Amendment. The later is just a non-starter of an idea. To do such a thing would require a strong consensus on this issue in this nation and we have the opposite of that.

Often people who oppose guns tend to be the most liberal. These people often seem the most reluctant to lock people up. I think that may be the solution. Make crimes with guns felonies with prison and then enforce it. If people see others actually going to prison for using a gun then that may have an effect. May. Sending felons in possession of a gun to prison would help as well. This is something we actually can do. Vigorous enforcement should be the 1st step.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

This myth that the US is a violent society is just that - a myth

The non-gun murder rates in US/Can/Aus/UK 1.5/1.3/1.0/1.2

there is nothing materially more violent about the US when guns are absent.

http://www.Gunpolicy.org

Two points: First, the numbers you cite show US with the highest non-gun homicide rate in that list of 4, suggesting a higher level of lethal violence in US compared to the other listed countries. Second your conclusion requires that homicides by different causes are completely non-replaceable, i.e., a gun-related homicide will not be replaced with a non-gun homicide. This seems highly improbable. Again, look at the suicide rates. In the absence of easy availability of guns, individuals motivated to commit suicide use other methods. Another analogy is transportation. For many purposes, individuals choose to drive their own cars, but if that is not possible they do not all stay home, they use other modes such as buses, trains, bicycles, and walking. Some percentage do not made the trip they would have if they had a car available, but many simply use a different transport method. Similarly, even without ready access to a gun, many (but not all) of the individuals motivated to commit a homicide will choose another mode of accomplishing their purpose.

What percentage of US gun homicides are gang related? I wouldn't be surprised if this data would show that the US has a gang problem more than a gun problem. I haven't been able to find any data on this one way or another, however. Anyone?

Jefe in the CO wrote:

manipulatedata wrote:

The lack of good correlation between total homicide rates and gun restrictions I noted in my previous post suggests the major problem in the US is a propensity to resort to violence rather than the availability of guns.

Assuming this were true, then it's a good idea to give us easy access to guns?

Easy access to guns already exists and will continue in the absence of gun confiscation. However, in trying to solve a problem, it is better to actually address the core problem instead of addressing a consequence. Compare, for example, Switzerland. In both the US and Switzerland, the fraction of homicides which are related to guns is about 0.75 (different stat sources result in some variance in the fractions). However, Switzerland has an overall homicide rate of 0.7 compared the the US with 4.8. We should have much more focus on reducing the overall homicide rate instead of focusing solely on gun-related homicides. These issues call for very serious societal policy decisions and should not be diminished with emotional rhetoric and knee-jerk reactions to tragedies as we observe in the media.

Realistic Guy wrote:

Often people who oppose guns tend to be the most liberal. These people often seem the most reluctant to lock people up.

This is not a partisan issue.

Often people who are proponents of guns tend to be the most conservative. These people often seem the most reluctant to fund care for people who have mental health issues.

The issue of gun violence in America affects liberals and conservatives alike. Gun violence thrives for a myriad of reasons but if we make it a them versus us issue it will only get worse. Which is saying alot because it's pretty bad now.

The non-gun murder rates are w/in 0.5/100k of each other. Pretty close.

The gun murder rates are vastly different. What else could could account for this vast discrepancy?

you are saying that transportation is analogous to murder? Really?

Maybe the conclusion is that the US is like central america - a wasteland of violence that is best avoided.

manipulatedata wrote:

We should have much more focus on reducing the overall homicide rate instead of focusing solely on gun-related homicides. These issues call for very serious societal policy decisions and should not be diminished with emotional rhetoric and knee-jerk reactions to tragedies as we observe in the media.

I'm all for this. Just as a guesstimate, how long do you think it will take our society to change enough to effectively curb gun violence? Two, maybe three generations? Can you think of anything that we could do to curb the death rate while we are deliberating?

When you think of these tragedies and the accelerating rate of their occurrences I think a knee jerk reaction is an absolutely rational response.

The Obamarama gun laws would have made no difference in this case

How can you people be arguing this when Egypt suffer from a lack of bleach and men won't help keep their womens' breasts clean?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/432037/20130206/egypt-hisham-qandil-unclean-breasts-diarrhoea-cairo.htm

Come together letsrun! Let's form a charity to clean these dirty dirty women!

Addressing your comments in order:

The non-gun homicide rates different by 50% (i.e., 0.5/1.0). As rates both 1.0 and 1.5 are small numbers, so it makes much more sense to look at the percent change instead of the absolute difference. 50% is a substantial difference.

Obviously I used transportation as an analogy that when there are substitute modalities for a desired action, individuals will avail themselves of the alternate modalities when their primary modality is unavailable. Perfect analogy ... no; fair but limited analogy ... yes.

While violence (gun-related and other) is a problem in the US, let's not equate the situation with others far worse. The US homicide rate is slightly below average worldwide. So, even though the US rate is unacceptably high (substantially higher than many other developed countries), it is not nearly the same magnitude as others, for example Mexico.

Instead of banning guns all together we should severley prosecute those who are found guilty of any crime involving a gun, including carrying without a liscense/registration. Same thing with pot, make it legal but restrict it and esverly punish anyone who provides it to minors etc... No more slaps on the wrists.

Thinking of the changes which would be necessary in society to effectively curb violence (not just gun violence) is a daunting task. However, with major commitment across a broad range of society and reasonable actions by government to support that societal commitment, I believe substantial changes could be accomplished within one generation and possible less. Of course, people being what they are, we will never be able to eliminate violence; at best we could reduce it to levels which are less destructive to society.

As to a knee jerk reaction being an absolutely rational response - knee jerk reactions are never rational. Sometimes the knee jerk reaction may turn out to be correct or the knee jerk reaction may turn out to be substantively the same as a rational response. However, the knee jerk reaction does not involve rational processes and therefore cannot be a rational response. In many cases, solutions which follow knee jerk reactions are simply wrong, or even worse, damaging or dangerous when viewed long term taking into consideration all the associated effects.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

... and we can't ban guns (hopefully) but at least we can do something...

after a terrible incident like sandyhook or the theater in colorado, there is always (rightly it think) a desire to "do something" or for people to go out and "make a difference." i am just naturally leary of people "doing something" or "making a difference."

thomas sowell had an article a while back on "making a difference" and "doing something." he pointed out that people seem to think this is a good thing. he mentioned that on any given flight if were able to go into the cabin he could "make a difference" to the flight of the plane. he also pointed out that "difference" would probably not be for the better. he concluded that sometimes it is better if people "do NOT do something" and "do not make a difference."

what i fear is that for all the good intentions, and i believe people on all sides of this issue have them, will lead to a further erosion of freedom and not provide increased safety.

i tend to subscribe to the old quote, "those that trade freedom for security, in the end will have neither."

my 2 cents, ymmv.

sam

There is an update on this story:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/detroit/sources-tell-7-action-news-fatal-shooting-at-martin-luther-king-high-school-may-be-ruled-justified

From the article:

"Police say the teens "announced a holdup" and grabbed the coach by his chain necklace and stuck something in his chest. The girls ran as the 70-year-old coach, who is also a reserve police officer, struggled with the teens.

A source tells 7 Action News that on surveillance video, the coach is seen struggling with the teens and then when he is able to get some distance between himself and them, he pulls out his gun and fires at the teens, striking both of them.

Sixteen-year-old Michael Scott was killed. His body was found in the median of Lafayette Boulevard .

Scott's 15-year-old alleged accomplice in the attempted robbery is listed in serious condition at a local hospital."

Causcos wrote:

Instead of banning guns all together we should severley prosecute those who are found guilty of any crime involving a gun, including carrying without a liscense/registration. Same thing with pot, make it legal but restrict it and esverly punish anyone who provides it to minors etc... No more slaps on the wrists.

Agreed. Essentially the robbers in this case were severely prosecuted.

The point about the liberals being most likely in favour of gun controls also being most likely to be lenient towards criminals was well put.

Standard Bearer wrote:

The point about the liberals being most likely in favour of gun controls also being most likely to be lenient towards criminals was well put.

That is not true. If real gun control laws were enforced, then a lot of regular gun owners would be fined and even jailed for failing to secure their weapons. THAT would raise hackles.

"control" would come about w/ real laws with teeth that modify owner behaviour e.g. all guns must be secured in the home. That means a safe, or some other form of security device. IF those guns are stolen, and subsequently used in a crime, the owner is liable. THAT would change behavior, and force all gun owners to be careful about how they store their weapons, who they lend them to, and other issues.