Impenetrable "gun free zone" penetrated

[CrAz3D]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/551/story/291155.html

"No guns" signs aren't super magnetic wizard force fields, only signs.  Signs don't stop anything (except for drunk people that run into them, haha).

Check out the comment section.

[Newby]

I'm impressed. You take a simple objective story and spin it into some twisted political message. You're insane. Congratulations.

Maybe I am jumping to conclusions, though; did I miss the part of the story that mentioned a gun-free zone and/or a sign that said gun-free?

[CrAz3D]

Gotta think outside the box.
Sure when you use the numbers 2 & 3 you can add them to get 5, multiply to get 6 ... OR ... you get the nifty phrase 23 skidoo.

If you take things at face value that's fine.  But if you analyze the situation more, you can see that there is a policy failure in that signs don't stop murders/hostage situations/anything*.




*Except drunk people that walk into them(signs)

[abc]

Code: [Select]

[Falcon]

Gotta think outside the box.
Sure when you use the numbers 2 & 3 you can add them to get 5, multiply to get 6 ... OR ... you get the nifty phrase 23 skidoo.

If you take things at face value that's fine.  But if you analyze the situation more, you can see that there is a policy failure in that signs don't stop murders/hostage situations/anything*.




*Except drunk people that walk into them(signs)

That is kind of like saying "One way traffic" signs don't stop people from going against traffic. There will always be retards that don't/can't read and take the turn anyways. Your logic fails, horribly.

[CrAz3D]

I made a statement that is true.  Noflawkthnxbai.

[iago]

If you take things at face value that's fine.  But if you analyze the situation more, you can see that there is a policy failure in that signs don't stop murders/hostage situations/anything*.

And laws don't stop murderers, so we should make murder illegal.

Brillant bit of strategy there!

[CrAz3D]

Murder is harmful, gun possession is not.

[iago]

That, which, incidentally, is debatable, makes absolutely no difference to the argument.

[Newby]

I made a statement that is true.  Noflawkthnxbai.

No, no actually you didn't. You made a statement that is true in an isolated situation.

Check this one out: how many people in schools across the nation got held up on that day? To our knowledge, zero. How many schools are there across the nation? Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of schools across the nation. I'll guesstimate 100,000: 1/100,000 = ~0.001. That's a thousandth of a percent of one percent.

Let's jump to something bigger: how many people are murdered, on average, every day in this nation (United States)? Let's make some gross overestimate: 10 people in every state every day. That's 500 people a day shot dead in their tracks. Now, how many people live in America? According to Google...

United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

That's a shitload. 500/301,139,947 = 1.66 x 10^-4 %. That's even less than the previous number. That's miniscule. That's not even statistically relevant.

The policies work great, apparently. Hundreds of millions of people living here every day, and a school gets held up once, and the policies are fucked up? Exceptions are just that: exceptions. They deviate from what is normal. They're insignificant.

[CrAz3D]

That, which, incidentally, is debatable, makes absolutely no difference to the argument.

My argument is that guns should be allowed for self defense.  The apparent argument of the other side is that guns are harmful/

I made a statement that is true.  Noflawkthnxbai.

No, no actually you didn't. You made a statement that is true in an isolated situation.

Check this one out: how many people in schools across the nation got held up on that day? To our knowledge, zero. How many schools are there across the nation? Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of schools across the nation. I'll guesstimate 100,000: 1/100,000 = ~0.001. That's a thousandth of a percent of one percent.

Let's jump to something bigger: how many people are murdered, on average, every day in this nation (United States)? Let's make some gross overestimate: 10 people in every state every day. That's 500 people a day shot dead in their tracks. Now, how many people live in America? According to Google...

United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

That's a shitload. 500/301,139,947 = 1.66 x 10^-4 %. That's even less than the previous number. That's miniscule. That's not even statistically relevant.

The policies work great, apparently. Hundreds of millions of people living here every day, and a school gets held up once, and the policies are fucked up? Exceptions are just that: exceptions. They deviate from what is normal. They're insignificant.

The "murder is illegal" seems to cut back homicide.  Increasing gun ownership seems to decrease homicide even more: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[iago]

My argument is that guns should be allowed for self defense.  The apparent argument of the other side is that guns are harmful/

Err, I thought your argument was that gun-free zones are bad because people can still bring guns in there? You seem to have changed your argument..

[Super_X]

This story is obviously a complete hoax. The fedra gubment done made it agin the law to have a gun at a school. Therefore, since all schools are gun free zones, this guy could not have had a gun at the school. When will people realize that complete gubment control works?

Hey, Craz3d posted on the comment page for that article, too.

[Sidoh]

LOL

[Newby]

The "murder is illegal" seems to cut back homicide.  Increasing gun ownership seems to decrease homicide even more: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Wow. look at that. A random news article. WorldNetDaily Exclusive. Looks trustworthy and legitimate.

National Bureau of Economic Research says: "Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime"

I can find random articles, too, that support my side of the story.

iago: Care to comment on homicide in the great country of Canada? Isn't firearm ownership small there?

[CrAz3D]

My argument is that guns should be allowed for self defense.  The apparent argument of the other side is that guns are harmful/

Err, I thought your argument was that gun-free zones are bad because people can still bring guns in there? You seem to have changed your argument..

No, just that signs don't stop guns.  Gun free zones aren't bad in theory, just in practice they don't work.

iago: Care to comment on homicide in the great country of Canada? Isn't firearm ownership small there?

My understanding is that handguns are hard to get there.  But gun murders still happen.

In 1970s? the UK banned handguns straight out.  Handgun crime has gone up a lot since then.

[iago]

iago: Care to comment on homicide in the great country of Canada? Isn't firearm ownership small there?

We have stabbings and beatings and even a recent beheading, and we're the murder capital of the country (most murders per capita for the last few years). But, I can't recall any gun violence.

So yeah, not many (any?) gun homocides here.

Also, a lot of people have guns for hunting and sport and stuff, those are legal if they're registered. But you aren't allowed to carry them around with you.

[Blaze]

A lot of the gun-related murders in Canada happen in Toronto, and almost 100% of that is gang to gang related violence.  Gangs that started in the States, at that.  Most of the other gun related murders happen in the rural areas of Canada.

[Super_X]

I didn't look for any sources, but I've always heard that if you keep a weapon to protect yourself, it's usually that weapon that ends up hurting you. I've mostly heard that in reference to break-ins, but it is still valid, if it's a fact.

[CrAz3D]

I didn't look for any sources, but I've always heard that if you keep a weapon to protect yourself, it's usually that weapon that ends up hurting you. I've mostly heard that in reference to break-ins, but it is still valid, if it's a fact.

"Can owning a gun really triple the owner's chances of being murdered?" - Gary Kleck (PhD in sociology at U Illinois @ Urbana, Professor of criminology @ FSU)

Using a case-control design comparing homicide victims with matched nonvictims, Kellermann et al. (1993) concluded that keeping a gun in one's home increased the risk of being murdered by a factor of 2.7. The authors' underlying assumption was that a significant elevation in homicide risk derived from the risk of being murdered with a gun kept in the victim's home. This article shows that homicides are rarely committed with guns belonging to members of the victim's home and that such killings could be responsible for no more than a 2.4% increase in the relative risk of being murdered. Guns in one's own home have little to do with homicide risk. Scholars need to attend more closely to the mechanisms by which an alleged causal effect is supposed to operate and to consider their plausibility before concluding that an association reflects a causal effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Defensive carrying has more benefits than risks.

[Sidoh]

Defensive carrying has more benefits than risks.

The quote you gave dispels the argument that murders are often committed with the victim's own weapons.  It does not address the claim you are making by any means.

[CrAz3D]

Defensive carrying has more benefits than risks.

The quote you gave dispels the argument that murders are often committed with the victim's own weapons.  It does not address the claim you are making by any means.

Ooops, that was about the home thing.


This is about general carrying:

title of article: Carrying guns for protection: results from the National Self-Defense Survey

Consistent with this hypothesis, Kleck and Patterson (1993:269) found that cities with higher gun prevalence (and presumably higher gun-carrying rates) had lower rates of robbery, a crime typically committed in public places. This association was not significant for total and gun robberies but was significant for nongun robberies. This fits closely with the expectation that robbers lacking guns themselves would be the ones most likely to be deterred by the prospect of victims with guns. Deterring these robbers is especially important in fight of the fact that prior research has consistently indicated that unarmed robbers are more likely to injure victims than are armed robbers

Basically, unarmed robbers are more likely to hurt you and unarmed robbers are deterred by gun carrying citizens

Likewise, in a comprehensive pooled cross-sections time series analysis of virtually all 3,141 U.S. counties, Lott and Mustard (1997) found that robbery rates, as well as homicide (both with and without guns), rape, and aggravated assaults, declined after states passed laws making it easier for noncriminals to obtain carry permits. They interpreted the results as indicating that allowing more citizens to legally carry guns reduced rates of crimes involving direct offender-victim contact by raising robbers' perception of risk from armed victims. Although it is debatable how much of this pattern reflected causal effects of new laws (Kleck 1997, chap. 6), the results strongly undercut the conclusions of McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema (1995), based on univariate (or bivariate) analyses of homicide trends in just seven nonrandomly selected counties (clustered into five areas), that such laws increase gun homicides, supposedly because they indirectly stimulate offender gun carrying (see Britt, Kleck, and Bordua 1996 for a critique of interrupted time series evaluations of legal interventions).

While allowing gun possession doesnt necessitate decrease in crime, there is a strong correlation.

It is a mistake to think of gun carrying as something done largely for criminal purposes, except in the definitional sense that most concealed carrying without a permit is itself a crime. As will be documented, most nonrecreational carrying is done for noncriminal purposes of self-defense. Self-defense gun carrying is worth taking seriously for two reasons. First, the empirical literature is unanimous in portraying defensive gun use as effective, in the sense that gun-wielding victim are less likely to be injured, lose property, or otherwise have crimes completed against them than victims who either do nothing to resist or who resist without weapons (for reviews, see Kleck 1997, chap. 5; Kleck and DeLone 1993).

Second, the literature is nearly unanimous (with a single dissenting source of survey information) in indicating that defensive gun use (DGU) is commonplace, though largely invisible to governments.(1) At least 15 surveys have yielded results implying anywhere from 760,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year, with evidence from the first survey specifically designed to estimate DGU frequency, the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), indicating about 2.5 million instances of DGU per year (Kleck and Gertz 1995; for a recent confirming estimate, see Cook and Ludwig 1997:61-3).(2)

Over all?  Carrying has far more benefits than risks.