Guns in America

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

 

[Jamie_B]

16 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

I tried briefly to look into her, I believe shes up for reelection this year, the same year many of those kids turn 18

[oldschooler]

On 3/9/2018 at 1:43 PM, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

If only we could figure out the problem.

Do any of these countries have video games, music, movies, fatherless homes or evil?

 

 

 

 

 

[fluhartz]

I was downtown (Columbus) today and there was a bunch of people walking around with guns.

It was a gun rights rally or something.. So weird

[USN Bengal]

Happened where the gun laws are the most strict... mental health issues have to be addressed.

[oldschooler]

I'm proud that my twins' school here in Wisconsin, teachers, staff and students are all going to participate in this walk out.

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

12 hours ago, USN Bengal said:

Happened where the gun laws are the most strict... mental health issues have to be addressed.

  

 

He bought them all legally.

[USN Bengal]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

  

 

He bought them all legally.

He may have, but he also had obvious mental issues too.

[oldschooler]

Lieutenant Governor of Ohio threatening to shoot people who want responsible gun reform.

 

 

 

[Jamie_B]

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099

 

Quote

 

MASS SHOOTINGS AND MENTAL ILLNESS: IS THERE A CONNECTION?

 

The publicity regarding mass shootings unfortunately overshadows another public health tragedy that affects exponentially more people: the daily toll of morbidity and mortality due to the more common types of gun violence, including suicide. Rarely, if ever, do these events receive the same media attention as mass shootings (Pinals et al. 2014). As discussed in Chapter 2, “Firearms and Suicide in the United States,” evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that suicide, not homicide, is the most significant public health concern in terms of guns and mental illness. Indeed, the small amount of research on firearm removal laws suggests that removal by police “was rarely a result of psychosis; instead, risk of suicide was the leading reason” (Parker 2010, p. 241). Even if one assumes a direct association between violence against others and serious mental illness, the focus must be narrowed to the population of individuals with serious mental illness associated with less than 3% of all violence (Fazel and Grann 2006).

 

Furthermore, current research suggests that in general there is a minimal relationship between psychiatric disorders and violence in the absence of substance abuse (Martone et al. 2013). Thus, the assumption that all persons with mental illness are a “high-risk” population relative to violence generally and gun violence in particular lacks supportive evidence. The likelihood of error and oversimplification is substantial when mental illness is considered on “the aggregate level” such that a “vast and diverse population of persons diagnosed with psychiatric conditions” is considered to uniformly represent people who are at risk of committing gun violence against others (Metzl and Macleish 2015, p. 241).

 

Some research has identified a small but higher fraction of homicides (not specific to those involving firearms) committed by individuals with schizophrenia than by those in the general population (Bennett et al. 2011; Schanda et al. 2004). Despite this small but elevated risk, the rate of stranger homicides committed by individuals with schizophrenia or chronic psychosis is extremely low. On the basis of a meta-analysis from 1999, one stranger homicide is perpetrated by someone with a psychotic illness per year in a population of 14.3 million (Nielssen et al. 2011).

 

Assuming a U.S. population of 320 million, approximately 23 people a year on average are killed by an individual with a psychotic illness. In contrast, an average of about 330 people in the United States are struck by lightning per year (Jensenius 2014). A person is about 15 times more likely to be struck by lightning in a given year than to be killed by a stranger with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or chronic psychosis. Few perpetrators of mass shootings have had verified histories of being in psychiatric treatment for serious mental illness. Rather, detailed case analyses reveal that individuals who commit mass shootings often feel aggrieved, are extremely angry, and have nurtured fantasies of violent revenge (Knoll 2010). Such individuals function (perhaps marginally) in society and do not typically seek out mental health treatment. Thus, in most cases, it cannot fairly be said that a perpetrator “fell through the cracks” of the mental health system. Rather, these individuals typically plan their actions well outside the awareness of mental health professionals.

 

 

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

[USN Bengal]

One of those would have the possibility of saving a child’s life, the other one not so much.

 

The safety of the children is paramount, but try telling that to the same fucking idiots who supported making them targets by putting them in “Gun Free Zones” in the first place.

 

The world is an evil place, and it’s because of bad people with evil intent. Acknowledge the evil and deal with it... PROTECT our kids lives FIRST... then deal with gun laws s next.

 

Utopia and the “perfect world” do not now nor has it EVER existed.

[oldschooler]

21 hours ago, USN Bengal said:

One of those would have the possibility of saving a child’s life, the other one not so much.

 

Some would argue that the kneeling was an attempt to save save a child's life.

Without possibly putting the child in more danger. If you have a gun in your

home, you're 4 times more likely to die from that gun than you are to use it in self defense.

 

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents

involving guns in or around a home. Why shouldn't I think any of that will translate to schools?

 

 

Quote

The safety of the children is paramount, but try telling that to the same fucking idiots who supported making them targets by putting them in “Gun Free Zones” in the first place.

 

The head on the NRA was one of those "idiots" not too long ago.

 

Plus, if you make schools a hard target, then hospitals will be next.

Make hospitals a hard target, shopping centers will be next.

Movie theaters next. Next thing you know everywhere you go is 

like a prison with check points, razor wire perimeter and with armed guards.

Sound like the land of the free to you?

 

Quote

The world is an evil place, and it’s because of bad people with evil intent. Acknowledge the evil and deal with it... PROTECT our kids lives FIRST... then deal with gun laws s next.

 

 

 

Every country in the world has evil people. Yet, not every country has school shootings like us.

 

[USN Bengal]

Old... do you really think it has been the “land of the free” for a while now?

 

Like I said, get people’s head OUT of the sand, admit we live in evil times, and deal with REALITY.

 

The REALITY is that our kids are in just as much danger NOW as they were 3 weeks ago.

 

NOTHING has been done to make them safer... except arguing, posturing, and rhetorical bullshit.

 

I am a man of action... if there is a problem you address it.

 

Kids unsafe?

 

Make them safe... for Gods sake we guard all our politicians with weapons, our money with weapons, our fucking hypocritical Hollywood stars with weapons...

 

but NOT our kids.

 

Now how in the hell does that make sense?

 

[Jamie_B]

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

 

From the article ....

 

"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time."

 

 

and it's not the only study done, Johns Hopkins has a working paper on it and found that 30% number as well. (they actually said less than 30)

 

http://releases.jhu.edu/2018/03/02/mmedia-advisory-jhu-expert-has-new-paper-on-risk-of-arming-teachers/

 

 

 

So tell me, if trained police have a 30 to less than 30 percent accuracy rating how on God's green earth is it a good idea to arm untrained teachers?

[USN Bengal]

First off, no teacher should have to carry a weapon unless they want to. That idea of "arming the teachers" is beyond asinine to me.

Secondly, if a teacher WANTS to be armed they should be allowed to.

When the workplace, schools, restaurants, and entertainment venues aren't considered safe places to be, you should have the right to defend yourself.

Like I keep saying, this world IS an evil place. Would I love for it to be a utopia where guns aren't needed?

Hell yes I would, but until I see flying unicorns shitting rainbows and pissing glitter, utopia DOESN'T exist.

 

That shooting percentage is not surprising at all... think about it... having been in situations that I have had to fire at someone that was trying to kill me, I guarantee that with the adrenaline and fear rushing blood through your body, you will NEVER be as accurate as you are on the range. On a range, I am considered an expert marksman with many weapons... with bullets flying and being on the move, there is no way ANYONE is a marksman.

 

Hollywood has led people to believe in a lot of things, and hitting whatever you fire at is one of them. You're literally fighting your instinct to run, while also knowing you have to shoot at someone in order to live.

 

Professionals that are trained should be protecting our kids, because what's the alternative?

 

Leaving them as vulnerable as they are now.

 

That's not acceptable to me, and it shouldn't be to anyone. 

[Jamie_B]

Who is talking about utopia here?

 

Those who look at the accuracy of trained professionals and think it's insane to let anyone who isn't a trained professional carry, especially around kids or people who have Wyatt Earp fantasies?

 

I'm more in favor of deputies being put in the schools than ANY teacher being allowed to carry, even if they want to.

 

Because I think we agree it should be people who are trained, but I very seriously disagree that anyone who wants to should. The level of training police receive does not compare to someone taking a weekend firearms class.

 

[USN Bengal]

1 hour ago, Jamie_B said:

Who is talking about utopia here?

 

Those who look at the accuracy of trained professionals and think it's insane to let anyone who isn't a trained professional carry, especially around kids or people who have Wyatt Earp fantasies?

 

I'm more in favor of deputies being put in the schools than ANY teacher being allowed to carry, even if they want to.

 

Because I think we agree it should be people who are trained, but I very seriously disagree that anyone who wants to should. The level of training police receive does not compare to someone taking a weekend firearms class.

 

The police couldn't touch my level of training... except maybe some SWAT teams.... but I digress.

 

You really aren't going to know what will happen to a person until they have to face gunfire. I know a NYC cop who retired at 35 years who only had to pull his weapon once, and that was to shoot a rabid dog.

Training is great, and it helps IF you don't run first. That's what it all comes down to... what will an individual do when their life is on the line.

 

So if there is an ex-military teacher who is very well trained with firearms and possibly combat action (there are a LOT of them, the Troops to Teachers program has been around since 1993),  you wouldn't want them to be able to protect the kids?

 

Not being an ass, serious question...

 

[Jamie_B]

I would think combat training in war situations is a bit different than city/school type of needs