Archive for Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Letter to the editor: No to more guns

April 4, 2018

Advertisement

To the editor:

I would like to respond to the half-baked suggestion of Vincent Muirhead in his March 6 letter to the Public Forum calling for more guns to stop school shootings, in accordance with National Rifle Association suggestions.

How about church shootings? I bet that had the church leaders in Charleston, S.C., and the Texas church’s recent carnage been properly armed and skilled in weaponry that those devoted churchgoers would still be alive today. I wonder if the NRA and Mr. Muirhead may have considered some other alternatives.

Comments

Glen Stovall 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Oh oh---the church is going to be angry.

Bob Smith 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Which church are you referring to, Glen? There are several.

Glen Stovall 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Oh Bob---you know darn good and well which one---The Church of the Second Amendment and White Nationalist Fellowship.

Bob Smith 1 month, 3 weeks ago

In other words, something you made up. GlenWorld is a strange place.

Greg Cooper 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Strange only in that GlenWorld acknowledges reality, unlike BobWorld.

Bob Smith 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Back in 2007, an armed security guard at a church ended the violent career of a shooter. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/ Too bad that doesn't fit your narrative, George.

Scott Burkhart 1 month, 3 weeks ago

At the church shooting in Sutherland, TX, recently, it was an armed neighbor that heard gunshots, grabbed his weapon, and killed the suspect. I suspect if there had been armed parishioners that day, 26 people wouldn't have died. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Steve Hicks 1 month, 3 weeks ago

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The murder of "American Sniper": Chris Kyle shows otherwise.

That's presuming you and the N.R.A. would consider Chris Kyle a "good guy"...?

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 3 weeks ago

No, it does not show otherwise. However, your post does show that you are relying on a logical fallacy to get around the truth in the statement. It doesn't have to occur in every situation for it to be a true statement. Even worse, you bank on incidents that occur where civilian good guys are prohibited from carrying a gun to justify your claim that armed civilians don't help.

Do you have anything other than dishonesty to justify your assault on my rights?

Steve Hicks 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Andrew, Chris Kyle was armed when he was murdered.

But don't let facts stop you. You never do.

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Are you saying he would be alive today if he had been unarmed? If so, you've got a lot of explaining to do to convince me. If not, your comment is irrelevant.

Daniel Kennamore 1 month, 3 weeks ago

And the usual suspects desperately linking to one-off incidents they think prove their point while ignoring the thousands of other incidents that disprove it.

Study after study shows that adding more guns does nothing but increase the average body counts.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/fbi-bank-robbery-data-shows-armed-guards-increase-risk-of-violence/

http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/armed-guards-schools-wont-work/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/study-concealed-carry-leads-to-15-increase-in-violent-crime

Seriously, how to you even try to debate someone immune to reality? Gun nuts are beyond help at this point.

Bob Smith 1 month, 3 weeks ago

You guys should take your lovefest to a cheap motel somewhere.

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Well, let's look at that. The first article draws the conclusion that armed guards increase the risk of violence. They do manage to show correlation, but they don't even attempt to show causation. In fact, in trying to support their theory they instead create more questions about its validity. First, they point out that having armed guards is getting rarer but offer no explanation for why those banks that have guards are bucking that trend. Next, they interview a bank robber who plainly stated he avoided banks with guards but offer no testimony as to why other robbers would choose a bank with an armed guard. Finally, they mention that of 31,000 incidents reported, there were armed guards at only 2% of them (then later "slightly more than 1 percent"). Without knowing what percent of banks have armed guards, it is impossible to draw any solid conclusions from that data. Instead, we are left with many questions. The most important one is probably this: What is it about these banks that make them buck the trend by having armed guards and is it the same thing that makes some bank robbers accept the greater risk in robbing a bank with armed guards? If so, is not that undisclosed factor the real cause of the increased violence while armed guards are only a symptom?

The next article digs the hole even deeper. Not only do they assume causation from the same correlation, they throw out even more damning evidence as if it supported their position. They point out from the 2016 statistics that only 224 robberies occurred at banks with a security guard policy but only 177 had a guard on duty at the time. In other words, in 47 cases the robbers picked a time when the guard was not on duty rather than running the additional risk and in 3509 cases they simply picked a target that never had armed guards. It brings us back to the question of what is the reason that some banks are hiring guards and that robbers are willing to confront them when there are safer choices elsewhere? On top of that, it really doesn't matter as their conclusion is based on a fallacy anyway. When a bank robber walks into a bank, his priority is money. Violence normally only comes into play when that desire meets resistance. When a school shooter walks into a school, his priority is killing. You can't prevent violence by giving him what he wants, as violence is exactly what he wants. It's nothing like giving a bank robber a bag of money (with a dye pack) to get him to leave.

[continued below due to character limit]

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 3 weeks ago

[Continued from above due to character limit]

Your last article really isn't much better. It did a good job of saying it without saying it that RTC increased the crime rate of people carrying legally because some of the people who were carrying illegally before were suddenly carrying legally until they got caught in a crime, thus skewing the data. What really takes the cake though is the way they abused the data like this: "the agency investigated 160 active shooter situations and found that in only five of those incidences, armed civilians were able to intervene, with the shooter either dying or taking his own life after grave injury. In contrast, 21 other non-armed interventions led to the shooter being restrained." They conveniently left out how many of those 160 situations had armed civilians present that didn't successfully intervene. Since we know that all of those situations involved non-armed civilians, the non-armed success rate was 13.125%. If there were armed civilians at all 160 situations, that would put the armed success rate at 3.125%. However, since these shooting primarily take place in "Only Criminals Are Allowed Guns" locations, I would posit that the number of situations with armed civilians present is nowhere near that level. If there were armed civilians at even a fourth of those situations, that would represent a success rate close the unarmed rate. However, even 1 out of 10 is highly unlikely and that would be a 31.25% success rate. In other words, the misrepresentation of the per capita aspect of the raw numbers impunes their conclusion made from them.

In conclusion it is you that is immune to reality, which would explain why you are more likely to yell "Gunsplaining!" and "Whataboutism!" than actually have an informed knowledge of the subject...

Daniel Kennamore 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Did you even read those or did you just google 'more guns less crime' and post any headline you thought supported your view? Because none of those links prove your point in the slightest.

The daily caller link is not new data...it's a bias re-reading and distortion of the same study in one of my links.

Your first NPR link doesn't make any comment on the crime rates in relation to gun laws at all.

Your second NPR link also doesn't make your claim either, but rather says it's hard to draw conclusions without more actual study because we don't have enough of it now...something caused by the NRA's efforts to suppress research on the issue.

Your final link is just a summary of the long discredited 'More Guns Less Crime' book by John Lott. May I suggest this article about the book:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/29/more-guns-less-crime-not-exactly/?utm_term=.97a7af17f071

Excerpt from that:

""John Lott’s research was in my opinion very instrumental over decades in having more states pass laws to make it easier to get permits to carry concealed loaded guns, and to lessen the barriers for those permit holders to take guns in ever more places, whether it's bars, or places of worship, or schools," says Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "It’s all based upon Lott’s scholarship that has been completely discredited."

Steve Hicks 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Glad you linked to 2 NPR stories, to balance against the 1 blogger and 1 partisan "news" site you also linked to.

And the NPR stories support your assertion that there are studies showing "more guns=less crime"...where exactly...?

Greg Cooper 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Daniel and Steve, better watch out: you'll soon be accused of posting fake news. Or alternative facts.

Bob Smith 1 month, 3 weeks ago

If you want to see an example of what can happen when a government denies its law-abiding citizens the right to self-defense, you only have to look at Mexico.

Gary Stussie 1 month, 2 weeks ago

... or if you want support for "more guns, less crime" check Panama's recent statistics after approving concealed carry.

Richard Heckler 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Politicians will say anything to shut americans up about guns when in reality are only waiting for this massive teen slaughter situation to run out of steam.

This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with new regulations need to stay active and loud.

WE don't need to own assault weapons, military style assault weapons, weapons that can accept magazines or SWAT team style weapons. The second amendment did not approve these weapons.

Law enforcement KNOWS very well assault weapons and open carry places them and all of us in harms way to a greater extreme than ever before.

When assault weapons are retired by law enforcement and the defense department they should go quickly to an iron industry to be melted down.

Gun sales finance NRA special interest political campaigns. Can we say no more special interest political donations?

Arming teachers is not the answer.

Majority Against Assault Weapons!!!!

The majority want stiff new regulations for private ownership of weapons.

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 2 weeks ago

"This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with new regulations need to stay active and loud." - In other words, you admit that all of the laws you've pushed through in the past didn't work but somehow they will work if you can just recycle them and call them new? I guess that would explain your irrational spamming of this forum with the same outdated and unrelated links repeatedly...

"WE don't need to own assault weapons, military style assault weapons, weapons that can accept magazines or SWAT team style weapons. The second amendment did not approve these weapons. " I'd say speak for yourself, but you've made it fairly clear that you're not competent enough to do that. If you had a brain in that empty skull of yours, you would be able to tell the difference between "assault weapons", which require federal approval and fees to posses, and scary looking AR-15 style weapons that lack selective fire and thus are not military/SWAT weapons. Further, history shows that the 2nd Amendment was in fact intended to keep the people on equal footing with an army, so it would be illogical to say it excludes military weapons. While mortars and howitzers are illegal today, they were legal then. Cannons were also legal then but are actually still legal today as the "primitive firing mechanism" excludes them from the current restrictions along with the muskets of the time, which would otherwise be outlawed today for being larger than .50 caliber.

Finally, you'd better be careful about saying "Can we say no more special interest political donations?" A lot of Democrats would be rather upset (and broke) if George Soros had to quit trying to buy the government he wants.

Gary Stussie 1 month, 2 weeks ago

Richard, you hardly represent "the majority" ... I suspect that after Red Flag laws are enacted, your history on this cite will be used to pull any weapons you own!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...