Gun Control

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Gun Control

Postby Keirador » 01 Feb 2018, 00:50

Man, this thread never dies, huh?
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Gun Control

Postby musashisamurai » 01 Feb 2018, 21:14

Keirador wrote:Man, this thread never dies, huh?


Which is surprising because on average,93 people die every day from guns. Guess its a good thing PlayDip is hosted in an area with stricter gun control laws
¸,,¸_____}\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,
`’’´¯¯¯¯¯}/’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¨¨¨¯
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
musashisamurai
 
Posts: 16401
Joined: 16 Dec 2010, 21:54
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Gun Control

Postby joe92 » 22 Feb 2018, 13:26

OK, I've stayed wayyy clear of this debate because trying to talk gun control to a gun loving American is about as fun as dragging a cheese grater over my own face... but arming teachers?! THAT'S your solution to school massacres?

So now when the crazy kid walks into school the teacher gets shot first then a load of kids. As if teaching wasn't shitty enough with low pay and little respect, you're most likely going to be the first one to die in a school massacre (WHICH SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A SENTENCE ONE CAN WRITE OUT AS IF IT'S THE NORM). Then as the other teachers - who aren't trained to military standards - start firing bullets back dozens of extra kids can die too.

Or, when a teacher loses it from a bratty kid pushing their buttons too much, WHAM, bullet to the face.

So many messed up scenarios from this.

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting guns as much as the next guy. They are fun to use, and the satisfaction of hitting the target is just, well, satisfying. I got pretty good at using a .22 rifle with iron sights when I worked on a farm in Australia (kangaroo population was insane on that farm, they were all malnourished, and I had to contribute to the culling). But seriously, they aren't that fun they need to be so easily accessible that school massacres are the norm and you're talking about allowing teachers to carry guns in schools.

What is the objection to stringent psychiatric assessments in order to buy a gun?
What in the world do you need a handgun for? It serves no purpose other than to execute other human beings with. You ain't catching a deer with a handgun.
Semi-automatic rifles? Semi-automatic shotguns? Why?
Why is there an objection to limiting the number of guns a person can own?

That's my contribution to this. No, I haven't read 117 pages on this debate so I don't know whether this has been covered already. Also, I know I've asked questions but I probably won't respond to anything if they get answered. They are more rhetorical than actual questions. I know the type of responses I'm going to get and reason will not be involved, but perhaps some petty insults will. That's what usually happens.
Designer: Emergence, Modern Extended
GM'ing: Emergence

Platinum Classicist

Peru in War in the Americas
User avatar
joe92
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: 02 Feb 2013, 00:26
Location: Leeds, GB
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1106
All-game rating: 1689
Timezone: GMT

Re: Gun Control

Postby palmtaiga » 22 Feb 2018, 15:41

What was the saying Fight fire with fire?

I can see so many consequensce, studient shot by teacher after pissing him off, teacher was unstable.
Teacher shot in the road by student gangbanger cause he pulled the gun on student during school for treatening other students and stuff.
Kindergarden tolder killed as he played with teachers gun.

The story goes on. I love the thinking through its bad of fuck it lets make it worst.
palmtaiga
 
Posts: 93
Joined: 11 Oct 2017, 14:59
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (772)
All-game rating: (826)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Gun Control

Postby Riles » 23 Feb 2018, 07:05

joe92 wrote:So now when the crazy kid walks into school the teacher gets shot first then a load of kids. As if teaching wasn't shitty enough with low pay and little respect, you're most likely going to be the first one to die in a school massacre


For clarification, are you saying that you would prefer that a student gets shot first or that the teacher should have an equal chance of getting shot first as all the other kids? This seems like an odd statement that you made. Obviously you wouldn't want anyone to get shot at all, but stating how horrible it would be for the teacher to be targeted FIRST is basically saying that you think it would be better for someone else to be targeted first, and the only other ones in the classroom are the kids.

In a lot of the articles and proposed solutions I've read of school districts that already have armed people in the school, many are just a select few who are specially trained. Could a stray bullet catch a kid from the teacher? Yes. But I don't think it would be dozens like you stated.

palmtaiga wrote:I can see so many consequensce, studient shot by teacher after pissing him off, teacher was unstable.
Teacher shot in the road by student gangbanger cause he pulled the gun on student during school for treatening other students and stuff.
Kindergarden tolder killed as he played with teachers gun.

The story goes on. I love the thinking through its bad of fuck it lets make it worst.


Seriously? You think that a teacher is just going to threaten a student with their firearm? I highly doubt that's even remotely realistic. Teachers already have access to weapons in or around the classroom: knives. Biology teachers have scalpels for the frog dissections, art teachers have x-acto knives for their projects. Are these weapons of mass destruction? Of course not, but I still don't see many teachers threatening students by holding a knife up to a student's neck, do you?

Come on guys, I understand you don't like the idea of guns in the classroom, and the point about a child getting hurt/killed because of an improperly stored/holstered gun is a very valid concern and is worth discussing, but let's not build straw men out of unrealistic scenarios. This isn't GTA. Like I said, look at districts that already have armed teachers. Many have rules like the teachers would need to already have a concealed carry permit, and are only given the option to carry in school, not the obligation. So this isn't like the proposal is to arm a 23 year old, fresh out of college, never touched a gun before teacher. These are people that already know what they're doing with a gun.

Your arguments come across as the same as a conservative claiming that legalizing abortions would encourage kids to go out and have lots of sex because they could just get an abortion whenever they want. It's just exaggerating to the point of absurdity.

If you don't like teachers with guns, would you be opposed to an armed officer stationed at the school? My high school had an armed police officer patrolling the halls and parking lots every day, even had his own office in the building. What about a teacher that was in the military? Then they would literally be military trained. What if it is limited to just trained administration? They'll be in the building, but they won't be around dozens of kids at a time and they'd be able to store the gun in a much safer place. Does the distance from the school to the nearest police station matter? Some rural communities are pretty sparse where the nearest officer may be pretty far from the school at the time of a shooting.

I know I seem pretty pro-guns in schools, I'm not really. I'm pretty split, both sides make valid points. I know many claim that armed people in schools would deter school shooters, but I'm not sure I buy that argument. Most school shooters don't survive the day anyway, and I'm not so sure that someone that is making that kind of choice in the first place is going to second guess themselves just because the teacher in the next classroom over is armed. I don't know of a shooting that took place in an armed school so I don't know what effectiveness an armed teacher would have against it. Obviously I hope to never find out.
Riles
Premium Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 25 Jan 2018, 06:14
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1164)
All-game rating: (1362)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Gun Control

Postby palmtaiga » 23 Feb 2018, 15:25

Riles wrote:
joe92 wrote:So now when the crazy kid walks into school the teacher gets shot first then a load of kids. As if teaching wasn't shitty enough with low pay and little respect, you're most likely going to be the first one to die in a school massacre


For clarification, are you saying that you would prefer that a student gets shot first or that the teacher should have an equal chance of getting shot first as all the other kids? This seems like an odd statement that you made. Obviously you wouldn't want anyone to get shot at all, but stating how horrible it would be for the teacher to be targeted FIRST is basically saying that you think it would be better for someone else to be targeted first, and the only other ones in the classroom are the kids.

In a lot of the articles and proposed solutions I've read of school districts that already have armed people in the school, many are just a select few who are specially trained. Could a stray bullet catch a kid from the teacher? Yes. But I don't think it would be dozens like you stated.

palmtaiga wrote:I can see so many consequensce, studient shot by teacher after pissing him off, teacher was unstable.
Teacher shot in the road by student gangbanger cause he pulled the gun on student during school for treatening other students and stuff.
Kindergarden tolder killed as he played with teachers gun.

The story goes on. I love the thinking through its bad of fuck it lets make it worst.


Seriously? You think that a teacher is just going to threaten a student with their firearm? I highly doubt that's even remotely realistic. Teachers already have access to weapons in or around the classroom: knives. Biology teachers have scalpels for the frog dissections, art teachers have x-acto knives for their projects. Are these weapons of mass destruction? Of course not, but I still don't see many teachers threatening students by holding a knife up to a student's neck, do you?

Come on guys, I understand you don't like the idea of guns in the classroom, and the point about a child getting hurt/killed because of an improperly stored/holstered gun is a very valid concern and is worth discussing, but let's not build straw men out of unrealistic scenarios. This isn't GTA. Like I said, look at districts that already have armed teachers. Many have rules like the teachers would need to already have a concealed carry permit, and are only given the option to carry in school, not the obligation. So this isn't like the proposal is to arm a 23 year old, fresh out of college, never touched a gun before teacher. These are people that already know what they're doing with a gun.

Your arguments come across as the same as a conservative claiming that legalizing abortions would encourage kids to go out and have lots of sex because they could just get an abortion whenever they want. It's just exaggerating to the point of absurdity.

If you don't like teachers with guns, would you be opposed to an armed officer stationed at the school? My high school had an armed police officer patrolling the halls and parking lots every day, even had his own office in the building. What about a teacher that was in the military? Then they would literally be military trained. What if it is limited to just trained administration? They'll be in the building, but they won't be around dozens of kids at a time and they'd be able to store the gun in a much safer place. Does the distance from the school to the nearest police station matter? Some rural communities are pretty sparse where the nearest officer may be pretty far from the school at the time of a shooting.

I know I seem pretty pro-guns in schools, I'm not really. I'm pretty split, both sides make valid points. I know many claim that armed people in schools would deter school shooters, but I'm not sure I buy that argument. Most school shooters don't survive the day anyway, and I'm not so sure that someone that is making that kind of choice in the first place is going to second guess themselves just because the teacher in the next classroom over is armed. I don't know of a shooting that took place in an armed school so I don't know what effectiveness an armed teacher would have against it. Obviously I hope to never find out.


So what you are saying if there is a drag related problem, get the law to allow more people to carry drags? Cutting access to weapons will bring let weapon related crimes. How can you not see that? And do you think a teacher that loves his students would shoot one of his own when he knows the student pointing the gun at him was possibly brought to the point of doing the crazy stuff?
palmtaiga
 
Posts: 93
Joined: 11 Oct 2017, 14:59
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (772)
All-game rating: (826)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Gun Control

Postby Jegpeg » 23 Feb 2018, 20:25

How many staff are expected to carry guns in schools? How well trained should / will they be? Are schools any different to the rest of the US?

If there are only a few armed staff someone would be able to shoot an awful lot of people before the nearest armed staff member gets onto the scene especially if they have a bump stock. In Florida there was an armed security guard in the school but they were too frightened to confront the situation, this was someone who was employed solely for security failing to do their job, would someone who it the school to teach be more likely to look after themselves first?
To ensure a rapid response to any school shooting you would need at least two armed staff wherever people are present (in order to respond to the teacher gets shot first philosophy) for that you would really have to arm every adult in the school.

How well should they be trained, being able to hit a target isn't enough, you might be able to simulate shooting a gunman in a crowded environment (e.g. using a light gun) but it would be very expensive and would not replicate the stress levels of a real emergency. Police officers apparently have an 18% hit rate and while hopefully the majority of the remaining 82% of bullets do not hit anyone the risk of an innocent person getting shot by someone trying to shoot the killer is pretty high. https://www.myajc.com/blog/get-schooled/gunfights-trained-officers-have-percent-hit-rate-yet-want-arm-teachers/mDBlhDtV6Na4wJVpeu58cM

Schools are not the only target of gunmen nor are they immune from attacks, as far as I am aware people were allowed to take guns to the harvest music festival in Las Vegas and First Baptist Church in Sutherland but shootings happen there too.

Other countries have minuscule rates of gun shootings compares to the US (e.g. the US has 50 times as many firearm deaths per head of population as the UK) and I think this is mainly due to gun culture in the US, clearly there is no way the UK gun laws (ban on hand guns, shot guns and rifles require a hard to get licence and can only carried for good reason such as going pheasant shooting not for self defence) would be accepted in the US but I would like to see some compromises such as:

1. Banning bump stocks to at least reduce the rate at which people can be killed
2. Requiring a permit which would not be available to anyone with mental health issues or have been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanour
3. Background checks required for all sales.

Clearly laws like these would not prevent all the bad guys getting guns, but it would help. In the UK a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence means you have to have a pretty good reason to have a gun, so the likes of urban gang members and drug dealers tend to go without, if a large proportion of law abiding people continue to have guns in the US it will continue to be relatively easy to get a gun if you want it even illegal to do so.
Jegpeg
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Gun Control

Postby Buachaille » 23 Feb 2018, 22:39

Dear god, it’s testament to how far removed from reality this debate has gone that people are keeping a straight face whilst discussing such a “let’s put the fire out with petrol” solution. It’s fucking lunacy.

If you’re not advocating radical gun control at this stage, you are unequivocally saying that the continued and regular death of school children is an acceptable side effect of your country’s gun ownership laws. It’s really that simple. And horrific. :cry:
Classicist.
User avatar
Buachaille
Premium Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 28 Aug 2013, 00:29
Location: Glen Coe
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1580)
All-game rating: (1635)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Gun Control

Postby Riles » 24 Feb 2018, 09:44

Let's not get ahead of ourselves that "fighting fire with fire" is an absurd idea. People literally fight fire with fire. Firefighters that are fighting out of control wildfires set controlled fires themselves ahead of the path of the inferno so it can slow (ideally stop) the blaze when it hits the large strip of fuel-less land. In addition, oil well fires are often fought with explosions. You fight a fire with an even bigger fire.

I like this analogy because literally fighting fire with fire is usually a bad idea (your house is on fire, setting the neighbors house on fire won't help). But in special circumstances, additional fires are an effective tool.

Guns have clear benefits. I don't think anyone would argue that the police or military should be without firearms. They are trained personnel that only use them for special circumstances (there are exceptions of course, but would you argue that the negative outweighs the positive?). Those that conceal carry are a weird case, because there are plenty of documented cases on both sides of someone who carries helping stop a bad situation from getting worse and cases where someone who carries probably made the situation worse.

In statistics, there's a thing called Type I and Type II errors. The basic premise is that there are two ways to make an error with a binary decision, one with each decision. Easy example: Bob is charged with a crime, the two options are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty." If Bob DID the crime and is found Guilty, no problem. If Bob did NOT do the crime and is found Not Guilty, no problem. If Bob did NOT do the crime and is found Guilty, Type I error (false positive). If Bob DID do the crime and is found Not Guilty, Type II error (false negative). In practice, there has to be a decision as to "how sure do we have to be to convict?" We can eliminate Type II errors altogether by making all rulings Guilty automatically. No trial, if someone accuses you of something, you go to jail. Or you can swing completely the other direction, give everyone the verdict of Not Guilty, eliminate Type I errors altogether. Now you can commit any crime you want because you won't be convicted. Obviously both of these are worse than where we currently are, so you have to accept that sometimes an innocent person will go to jail, and sometimes a criminal will walk free, because if you don't you will make the situation worse. You try to minimize those cases of course, but they will happen. So where do you draw the line? "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that basically means it is better for a criminal to go free than to send an innocent person to jail, so society set the line so we are more likely to make a Type II error than a Type I error, towards the side where criminals roam free and away from innocents in jail.

Now back to guns. We could try to get get rid of all guns period. No military, no police, not even a BB gun. Criminals will still have access to guns (maybe fewer, but criminals will still manufacture them or acquire them somehow), but those criminals will rule the streets. Or we can give EVERY adult a gun. 18th birthday? Here's your gun from the government. Even if you're a felon, mentally ill, whatever, here's your gun, take two if you want! Obviously, both situations are worse than where we are now. So there is a middle ground somewhere, a peak that balances the good with the bad as best as possible. Police will misuse firearms (Type I error), but we still want them to have them. A mass shooting will happen where someone without a gun could've stopped it if they had one, but we don't want to give guns to everyone (Type II error).

The question is where is that ideal line, the balance point? Are we close to it? We could change something relatively minor, like background checks, or we could do something major like Australia and ban guns pretty much altogether for civilians. If things go too far in that direction, will there be diminishing returns, and risk possibly more harm than good? It is very difficult to judge what a "deterrent" legal gun ownership has on crime. How do you know when a crime "would've happened, but didn't because of guns?" Home security alarms might help your risk of burglary go down, but it's impossible to know how many (if any) burglaries were prevented because a potential burglar saw your sign on your front yard. If your home security system that costs $300 only helped you prevent a burglary where they were just going to steal $200 worth of stuff, was the cost worth it? What if you bought the $300 system, and someone was able to steal $1000 worth of stuff anyway, was the cost worth it? Maybe, because just maybe you prevented a theft of $3000 worth of stuff in both scenarios, clearly justifying the cost, but you would never know. Maybe no one would ever have tried to steal anything even if you just left the door open all the time (like some like to do). Are criminals more likely to do armed crime in America than other countries, a quick google seems to suggest so (but I could be wrong), so would increased gun control decrease that? I don't know.

If you look at homicide rates compared to gun ownership by country, the trendline is downwards, meaning more guns, less homicides. Brazil, Russia, and Mexico have fewer legal gun owners (per capita) than Finland and Switzerland, but have much much higher homicide rates. Now you could argue correlation vs causation, consider other relevant factors, and you would be completely right to do so. Now stop reading here, and think for yourself if you think outside factors matter more than what the trendline shows, be honest. This would suggest increased gun control could bring more harm than good.

The United States is an outlier, they noticeably do not follow the trendline, they skew upwards in homicide rate (though Brazil, Russia, and Mexico's homicide rates are still much higher). So has the United States gone beyond the point where guns bring benefit according to the trendline and start causing more harm (effectively making the trendline parabolic in nature)? Very possible, if you trend gun ownership to homicides by the 50 states, the trendline is positive, which would suggest more guns, more homicides in the USA. Or maybe those same factors used to explain away the negative trend on a global scale would also explain the positive trend here. Now what do you think about outside factors? Be honest. This would suggest that increased gun control could bring more good than harm.

If your answer changed from one scenario to the other, then you are possibly biased beyond the point where you can be convinced no matter how much real data is shown to you. This type of scenario was demonstrated in a study done in 2013, showing that people will stop looking for data once their bias is confirmed.

If you don't increase gun control, leave people with their guns, there will undoubtedly be a situation where a family is mourning the death of their child that died due to a firearm accident, and they will go to the press and say "if I had only NOT had my gun, my child would be alive today," and they would be right. Type I error.

If you increase gun control, take a gun from a (formerly) legal carrier or restrict someone from acquiring one, there will undoubtedly be a situation where a family is mourning the death of their child that died in an armed crime or mass shooting, and they will go to the press and say "if I had my gun, my child would be alive today," and they would be right. Type II error.

Increase gun control, you decrease Type I errors, but you increase Type II errors, both error types cause injury and death. But which would move the most? That is the crux of every gun control debate I've heard. Type I errors are easy to measure, Type II errors are not. It is easy to point to real cases where guns caused bad things to happen, harder to point to cases where guns prevented it from happening in the first place.

My stance? Let's find out the Type II error rate, put some real data to these nuanced cases. Put guns in schools, see if it lowers the frequency of mass shootings (over an appropriate period of time). Best case, mass shooting rate in schools goes down, we win. If it doesn't, remove guns from schools, and you have a strong case to do so. The short period may not have been good, but we win the long run by having clearer evidence that should convince the general American (except the biased anti-gun control people of course) that guns in schools is bad in America.

But also increase gun control measures like background checks and put stricter rules on who can own guns. If crime gets better (over an appropriate period of time), we win, best case scenario. If crime gets worse, then loosen the standards again and you have a strong case to do so. The short period was not good, but we win the long run by having clearer evidence that should convince the general American (except the biased pro-gun control people of course) that stricter gun laws are bad in America.

So do I consider myself pro-gun control or anti-gun control? My answer, it depends on the situation, much like whether or not literally fighting fire with fire is a good idea.

If you are blindly pro-gun control or anti-gun control, cherry picking anecdotal evidence that supports your stance, making broad generalizations with sensationalized hypotheticals, ignoring evidence that goes against your beliefs, then I won't continue the conversation with you. You are the reason this gun control debate is so heated and tense.

You could be the biggest pro/anti gun control supporter out there, but if you're willing to discuss (and try to understand) both sides and be willing to change your mind given appropriate evidence, then discussing this (and anything else), would be a pleasure.
Riles
Premium Member
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 25 Jan 2018, 06:14
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1164)
All-game rating: (1362)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Gun Control

Postby Jegpeg » 24 Feb 2018, 17:03

Countries like Switzerland and Finland have much more respect of the rule of law in general than Mexico, Russia and Brazil and I don't think that is down to the number of guns they have. It would make more sense to compare Finland and Switzerland with the countries in Western Europe with the lowest levels of Gun ownership, the Netherlands and Ireland both have lower levels of Homicide than Finland and Switzerland though probably not at statistically significant levels.

Finland and Switzerland have significant levels of people who hunt and Switzerland also has a large militia, guns are generally locked away most of the time and only become accessible when, for example, going hunting. In the USA many people feel a need to carry a gun for their own protection but this creates an arms race between the criminal and the potential victim. Generally speaking a house breaker in the UK will go unarmed, if confronted, most will attempt to run away. In the US the victim is likely to have a gun so the house breaker realises if they try to run away they are likely to get shot, they therefore need a gun in order to have a chance of getting the first shot in, and they need a powerful gun to ensure the house holder is in no position to shoot back if they are hit and a rapid fire mechanism in case they miss or there are more than one people confronting them and so on.

I would also point out that Americans in favour of the second amendment would find both Finnish and Swiss gun laws completely unacceptable. In Finland a license is required for every gun and that will only be granted alongside proof for the need, if it is for hunting you would need to show a valid hunting permit, if it is for sport you would need to show you are active in gun sport (with further restrictions for hand guns), self defence is not an accepted need. In Switzerland it is almost impossible to be granted permission for concealed carry.

I would also challenge your assertion that we all want the police to carry guns. In the UK very few police are allowed to have fire arms, the majority have to rely on items such as speed cuffs and batons. In the year 2015/6 in England and Wales only five bullets were fired aiming at people (i.e. excluding shooting at things like tyres or dangerous animals), I would not say the criminals rule the streets over here and I think limiting police access to firearms to a select groupl of extremely highly trained officers is the correct balance between type I and type II errors.
Jegpeg
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: 08 Dec 2009, 20:56
Location: Scotland
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1125)
All-game rating: (1401)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests