chartreuse

Easy, there, Hoss. I'll put my hands up to repeating something that I read elsewhere, without fact checking it first, but that's all. Calling me a liar is a bit strong, IMHO.

Anyway, there's no point carrying on with this. When I cite papers or studies it's "studies, schmudies", but when somebody cites one that supports gun control, it's gospel. This isn't a discussion, it's a row and I've got ammo to hand-load.

Sally Redux

It should do, but some people appear to live 'through the looking-glass'.

dakota44

Reminds me of a case a few years back. A guy shot and killed his daughter who, as I recall, had hid in a downstairs closet to surprise him or some such thing. The surprise turned out to not be as expected as, in the dark, he thought she was an intruder and killed her. I am willing to wager that there are more instances of innocent family members being shot by guns in the home than there are intruders. Should search for some stats on that.

AmerLisa

That's as bad as me saying that many Americans believe that every British citizen speaks with a thick accent that sounds like Eliza Doolittle (well the ones that have seen My Fair Lady.) Personally I'm a bit wary (especially since I've lived in the UK and my husband doesn't have a cockney accent.) But then again who am I to argue with people who have no knowledge of the US except what they've seen on CSI.

Steerpike

Damn - I guess I'll never get an answer to my question about how the teachers will actually handle the carrying of a gun in the classroom, from a 'security' perspective. I have visions of the teachers leaving their gun on their desk, sticking out of their bag, or hanging off their belt, and some adventurous 9 year old kid picking it up and 'playing with it' ... oh well ...

Bob

I think MA had almost that many on its own, or certainly very close, I know last year beat the record with about 3 months to spare.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Citing biased editorials from a Tier 4 law school review and the Torygraph is worth of criticism.

When I want crime data, I go to credible sources for crime data, rather than hide behind the op-ed pieces of fellow travelers inside the echo chamber. You can't hope to educate yourself if you only seek out those who are predisposed to agree with you, whilst ignoring the sources for the data itself.

The data is what is -- annual English and Welsh gun homicides are in the mid-double digits, while US gun homicides are in the high quadruple digits. The gap between these two well exceeds the difference in population, leading necessarily to the conclusion that the US murder rate that is attributable to firearms is vastly higher than that of England and Wales. You can't possibly refute this or rationalize it away.

Guns make it easier for criminals to be criminals and for the fence sitters to cross the fence. If guns didn't make the job of killing easier and more efficient, then there wouldn't be much reason for armies to bother to carry them in the first place.

Sally Redux

The logisitics of that scenario don't even bear thinking about. Teachers would have to maintain a certain level of physical fitness, be psychologically fit, undertake ongoing weapons training and practice, and so on. As a parent, I would not let my child go to a school doing this, and I would most certainly never have entered the teaching profession if it had been a requirement.

meauxna

heh.. there was a big kerfuffle here when a teacher, splitting with her abusive husband, got a restraining order against him. Someone was trying to use her as a test case so that she could carry concealed at the elementary school where she teaches. You know, in case the guy broke the RO and came after her at the school.
I'm not sure how she was planning to carry. Or even how it turned out.
How's that for a lame post?

chartreuse

And the meta-study from the National Academies is what?

For the second time - I neither know nor care what your beef is, but lay off the personal insults.

chartreuse

And you'd be free to make that choice.

That's the big difference between the two sides in this row. One side wants to expand freedoms, the other side seeks every opportunity to restrict them.

Do what now? Nobody has suggested that, but I guess it's understandable that folks whose world view is based upon the idea that everything which is not forbidden is compulsory and everything which is not compulsory is forbidden might jump to that conclusion.

How about we leave grown ups alone to make their own decisions? Not everything has to be micro-managed by dictat.

Bob

Simplification can only be a good thing, and consistency is also a good thing. That's not restricting people, not making anything harder or anything.

hastonian

To add to the variety of points made:

The local Sheriff is responsible for 'enforcing' the gun laws. This is where all breaks down - making sure people are responsible.

Mental Health, the system is more like, "not my problem."

-hastonian

chartreuse

OK, let's put that to the test. There are three types of state, when it comes to concealed carry permits:

The first, and largest group, are "will issue" states. That means, if you've got no convictions, mental illness etc, they have to give you a permit.

The second, are "may issue" states. That means permits are discretionary and, effectively, you only get one if you're well connected.

The third group is the few states where concealed carry is illegal. Period.

So, by your argument, it would be to the good for all states to become "will issue" states, right? Or is that not what you meant?

Steerpike

Complaining about personal insults ...
While hurling them in the same thread ...