Gun Control Debate

[Frelga]

Actually, that's what I was taught have always heard, that America was free because we could own guns and people in the USSR couldn't.

I shouldn't be laughing so hard at that, should I?

[Impenitent]

Laughter is good medicine, so guffaw all you like.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Those responding to my post aren't doing much to dispute the position that gun "control" is based on fear.

[yovargas]

Considering what guns are, fear of them is perfectly rational.

[Frelga]

Isn't carrying in public being based on fear, too?

[Primula Baggins]

Fear and concern for one's own safety are not identical. Being concerned for one's safety around people carrying guns openly is entirely rational in a country where there is a mass shooting, on average, every single day.

[Lalaith]

I own guns and am rather comfortable around them. However, I also maintain a very healthy fear of them. They are deadly weapons, and I think losing one's fear of their potential is very dangerous. That's when bad things happen... like dogs and cats shooting you or children getting a hold of guns and shooting you, themselves, or other children, etc.

So fear is not necessarily a bad thing, and, in the case of guns, I say it is a good thing.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Isn't carrying in public being based on fear, too?

It could be. But the argument that one should panic and flee if there is a holstered firearm near is an argument composed completely of fear.

It would only impact one particular business, the restaurants where one eats first and then pays. A store where one collects their goods, then pays, then leaves, would have a shopping cart abandoned in the aisle. A fast food restaurant would have food abandoned on the table.

Still, supposing one takes this guys advice and either truly or feigns a freak out - does that include ALL instances of a holstered firearm or does that exclude the occasions where the firearm is worn by someone wearing a uniform and a tin badge?

[yovargas]

I suppose when people wearing a uniform and a tin badge start regularly making the news for killing random strangers in public, it would also be reasonable avoid being in their vicinity too.

[Primula Baggins]

It's not "panicking and fleeing." It's being logical. Is finishing my grocery trip worth the small but nonzero risk that I'll be in the line of fire during a shooting incident? No, of course not. I leave. All self-defense courses teach that you must trust your "bad feeling" about a situation and act accordingly. People have died because they were too shy or too polite to do what was necessary to protect themselves. In this case you leave, calmly but immediately.

If actions like this make a business decide to put up a sign forbidding open carry in their store, that's fine with me, and most people I know. I do not feel free or even safe where complete strangers are openly carrying firearms. I don't see that there's anything hard to understand about this.

And I agree with yov.

edited to clarify

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I suppose when people wearing a uniform and a tin badge start regularly making the news for killing random strangers in public, it would also be reasonable avoid being in their vicinity too.

Ahem.

[Frelga]

I'd be happier if the US police managed without carrying guns everywhere, like their peers in other Western countries do. But at least I know why an officer carries a gun. Chances of one opening fire at me in a public place are quite low. Some random wannabe cowboy? I have no way to evaluate the risk. Forget it, I'm out of there.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Civilians killed by police is at a 20 year high. Police killed by civilians is at a 20 year low.

And those statistics aren't accurate because one of those 20's should be a 40 but I don't remember which one.

One of the two groups, armed civilians and police, are "wanna be cowboys".

If you really believe in leaving an establishment because you see a holstered firearm, then honesty insists you include the police in that evaluation.

[Lalaith]

Source?

The police stats are as follows for firearms deaths (does not include deaths by automobile accident, etc.) as an AVERAGE* per decade:

First of all, this decade is only half over, so your source should be taking that into account.

So far, for the 2010s, we're at 53. That probably does not include the 8 gunfire deaths in the past month week or so.
For the 2000s, the numbers were 57.
For the 1990s, the numbers were slightly higher at 68.

I certainly wouldn't throw around a statement like, "Police killed by civilians is at a 20 year low." (I am assuming you mean gun deaths because that is what we're talking about, but the numbers are greater if you include civilian-caused non-gun deaths.) I think it's especially true when you add in the 8 gun-related deaths so far in 2016 to give us a total of 61. So 61 as compared to 68.

That doesn't impress me much as being a statistically significant decline.

The other factor to consider is that civilian deaths by police officers is only now really being tracked (and, even then, I'm not sure how that's shaping up). So I believe accurate stats would be very difficult to obtain, but I could be wrong about that. I'll be happy to look at your source. Just remember to add into that that the police are often dealing with people committing crimes and breaking the law and threatening their lives. Of course there are going to be more civilians killed by police than vice versa. But comparative stats would be helpful to assess the situation.

*To compare, the actual numbers for 2005-2015 are 582 officers killed by gunfire alone.

ETA: My source: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/research-bulletins/

EETA: updated specifics on month vs. week and average numbers

[yovargas]

The other factor to consider is that civilian deaths by police officers is only now really being tracked (and, even then, I'm not sure how that's shaping up). So I believe accurate stats would be very difficult to obtain, but I could be wrong about that.

You would not. That data simply doesn't exist. At least at a national level.

[Dave_LF]

Civilians killed by police is at a 20 year high. Police killed by civilians is at a 20 year low.

But what does that mean? Without knowing how many of those civilians were killed in error, there's no way to interpret the data. For example, maybe the police have just gotten better and defending themselves.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The other factor to consider is that civilian deaths by police officers is only now really being tracked (and, even then, I'm not sure how that's shaping up). So I believe accurate stats would be very difficult to obtain, but I could be wrong about that.

You would not. That data simply doesn't exist. At least at a national level.

Yes, I was just going to say that anyone who claims to know how many civilian deaths by police officers there are is either deceived or has access to information that no one else does. There are efforts going forward to obtain and preserve that information, but it has proven more difficult than it should be.

[Griffon64]

This article contains some information about officer deaths and the percentage of them that are gun-related.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/law-en ... index.html

[Lalaith]

Griffy, thanks for that article! It made me realize that the stats I posted were averages for the decades. When I posted that late last night, I missed that detail. I'm going to add that qualifier to my post above.

[Frelga]

Another story with a yes in the "In Florida?" column.

Pro-gun Florida mom is accidentally shot by her four-year-old son while driving after the boy found her pistol in back seat - just a day after she bragged about his shooting skills

A high-profile pro-gun activist was shot in the back by her four-year-old son after he found her pistol lying on the back seat of her truck just 24 hours after he boasted about his shooting skills online.

Jamie Gilt, 31, who posts about firearms on her social media accounts was driving through Putnam County, Jacksonville, Florida, on Tuesday in her truck when she was wounded after the toddler picked up the weapon and shot her in the back.

It came just a day after she said the youngster would get 'jacked up' before a shooting practice on a page dedicated to her musings on Second Amendment rights.

Thankfully, the little boy wasn't injured.