Dystopia watch: American schools are installing anti-shooter smoke cannons and bulletproof doors


#41

I didn’t notice the little asterisk on that chart, but given it was from Mother Jones, I highly doubt it has been manipulated to be somehow down playing gun deaths. I already know the general trends, but I will dig up the CDC 2016 data which I know they have published. I don’t think they have released their 2017 report, and 2018 isn’t over.

Except I didn’t. I posted stats on all three vectors, refuting the hyperbole about an “epidemic” of accidents, confirming that suicide gun deaths are up, while homicide gun downs are down. Any further travel was in reply to others.


#42

That is a very ambitious list. Good luck with that. I think licenses should the most likely laws one could pass. The idea limiting owners to X number won’t stop suicides of murder by lawful owners, but it might reduce the pool of guns that can be stolen and sold on the black market.

Note - some states do require safe storage, and combined with free gun lock programs and more affordable safes than ever before (you can buy them at Sams club and Costco), has contributed to the accident reduction rate.

Domestic violence already is supposed to suspend one’s gun rights. Even a restraining order or charges can you get flagged on the NICS check. The problem is the local authorities don’t always do the paper work to get the NICS system updated, and local LE doesn’t go and remove guns from domestic abusers that they may already have. So those laws are in the books, they are just poorly enforced. I don’t have a problem with those laws, they should be enforced.

Canada has a very stringent licensing scheme compared to the US, including handgun registration. I imagine many in the US would find their laws something to strive towards. Yet there are those in Canada pushing for MORE laws, including banning handguns. Which just illustrates that there is never a “satisfactory” amount of gun laws for some people. They will just move the goal posts.


#43

OK - found the data. Again they only have up till 2016:

https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Book mark this page, because the newest data isn’t in a big long report.

Accidents:
2010 - 606
2011 - 591
2012 - 548
2013 - 505
2014 - 461
2015 - 489
2016 - 495

Ah, so you got me. There there was a slight uptick over the last 2 years, even though it is still less than the 2013 numbers, and as the chart shows, a steady decline overall. Though this is the actual numbers, not the per capita, which would be decreasing as the population has increased. The Suicide / Homicide comparison is per capita.

Still not an epidemic. Unless Cory has access to published number for 2017 that shows a large increase in accidental gun deaths. If so, by all means, share with the rest of the class.

I can’t look up the other numbers right now. I was an idiot and forgot that little dongle thing you need to plug your Mac into the wall. So I have to shut down now. Maybe can dig up the others tomorrow, though I am off and have a ton of errands to run.


#44

I appreciate your research efforts.


#45

So, we can’t have gun laws because then people would ask for more, better gun laws?

Wrong. Canada’s gun laws were restricted by the will of the majority. If new laws pass, that’ll be because they, too, represent the will of the majority. But you don’t indicate how large the population of people calling for more restrictions, just that they exist.

Your argument is, essentially, creating strawmen and then using that to dismiss any concern as ‘moving the goalposts,’ which is disingenuous and bad-faith. Let me ask you something: You think some people will never have a ‘satisfactory’ amount of gun laws. Using your logic, I’d like to ask you what your acceptable level of shot schoolchildren and civilians is, because that’s what you’re in favor of.


#46

The “Will of the Majority” isn’t really the thing you want to always use as a reasoning for something. There are terrible, horrible things humans have done to one another that the majority of people thought just fine, and we are aghast about now. Now, one can obviously come up with “good reasons” for more gun laws, but that isn’t one of them, IMHO.

Is it though? Because I feel that some people asking for more gun laws are also in bad faith with their statements that “we don’t want to ban guns” or “we just want sensible laws”. Then they point to places which have banned guns (albeit not ALL of them, but a significant number and type). Or to other place who have what anyone should be able to say have “sensible” gun laws, yet pushing for more.

I mean, I could live with some increased regulation. But I don’t think for a second that is going to be the end of it. The further forward I draw the line in the sand, the more room I have to get scooted back. Because the other side has no line they are happy with.

Let’s say, for example, we adopt Canada’s laws. By any measure, “common sense” laws, right? (Link below if one is unfamiliar.) How many people calling for “common sense” laws now would turn around and push back against more laws proposed? Probably close to none of them will say, “Hold on, we have sensible laws in place, any further from this is just over kill.”

Speaking of building strawmen and bad faith…

I can list a half dozen things that are contributing to waaaay more deaths of people than the number of people murdered by firearms. Some of it will take you a good long while to kill you, but it clearly leads to chronic health issues. Other are common things we encounter, know are dangerous, but accept that danger as their utility over rides the risk involved.

Does that mean if one is against regulating those things, you are FOR the continued death toll? No, of course not.


#47

So can I; the difference is that no one is walking into a school and making kids smoke cigarettes, and no one is going to a Country music concert and making them drive on the interstate. The issue with guns isn’t just danger, it’s ease and danger combined. There is NO UTILITY to guns other than the fact that they kill – none – and killing should be something we try to reduce in the name of a more perfect union.

Let me put it this way: I wouldn’t have to be so vociferous in my request for and belief about gun control if you weren’t so vociferous in your request for and belief in less regulation. But I know which one of these results in less dead people, sir, and that’s your call. You sound like a Libertarian – “We’d all be fine if people were as smart and awesome as me!” – and Libertarianism is the last refuge of ex-Dungeon Masters who like smugness and hate people.

Little Thought experiment here:

Guns are useful but deadly. So are cars.

We regulate cars and driving and car ownership. Would you be willing to see your guns regulated in the same way? That is:

– Licence and Testing to Obtain Licence
– Mandatory Insurance
– VIN-style number and registration
– Transfer of Title on Sale
– Regular re-Licencing
– Licences removed for persistent violations

Bear in mind a) this is what we have for cars b) it saves lives unequivocally and c) No one from the Gummint has come for your El Camino in the past, say, 40 years. Would you consider this overreach? And, if so, why isn’t it overreach as applied to your car?


#48

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.