77 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
facts and statistics?
So they have facts and valid statistics they are ready to present from a database of schools which have and which do not have armed staff? We have death and injury numbers already? And the NRA knows of these statistics but won't reveal them? You sure about that?
Facts and statistics.....
.....about the increased risk of being shot if there's a gun on the premises (in general), yes. It's true in your own home too. You're something like five times more likely to be shot if there's a gun in your house than if there isn't.
Of course one is more likely to be shot if there's
a gun in their house. That's why crooks carry them when they break in. I'm not one to advocate passing out pistols to school staff but I wouldn't fabricate some reason that involves the NRA as trying to block an attempt to keep genuine statistical data from school administrations so as to affect their decisions. Any data about homes with and without guns in them is readily available with a few clicks of a mouse.
But but Josh "That is
what the left wing conspiracy wants you to believe ! " (tm) (R)
Sarcasm mode off...
The stats have also been available in the UK for decades. Also Canada, most of Europe, Asia, the list goes on.
People in my old hometown of Pinner (a suburb of Greater London) had weapons at home that were used for hunting primarily, secondary home defence. Every once in a long while someone would discharge said firearm whilst cleaning or just drop a rifle with the safety off and perhaps incur bodily harm. It was not often, and nowadays most folk keep their shotguns,rifles,etc. at a Club (hunting or trap and skeet,etc.) Point being, even though one can be careful accidents do happen - and while the UK's murder rate is sorta high with knives and other weapons used, GSW's are very low. Go figure....
Rick (yes it's been ages since I even checked in here) [choco-bunny] Jones
Insurance companies will use any excuse
to kick rates up. Josh believes the increased possibilities of harm from a gun in the home is worse than the certitudes of victims who have no gun when attacked in the home. You could have 100 homes with guns in them and family violence caused a death from gun in two of them, but the violent crime rate dropped from 10 to 5 in the same period, and two of those perps were shot and caught, ending their criminal career. The question then becomes, rejoice over the reduction in crime and the increase in perps punished, or lanquish in apoplectic misery over the two homes in which the gun was misused, instead of them using something else, like kitchen butcher knife, or baseball bat, or axe, or.....
They're talking about denying coverage
That doesn't do the insurance company any good financially. They deny coverage when they feel the risk is too high. Obviously they believe the risk of someone getting shot will increase with armed school employees.
The numbers are there, James. If there's a gun in your house, you're a lot more likely to get shot than if there isn't one there. Period.
gonna toss all your knives away too?
Actually since gun control happened in Britain, now to continue their foolishness, in the view of increased knife attacks, they are doing knife control laws. What sort of nation restricts all it's citizens due to the bad actions of some of it's citizens? A foolish one. The proper course is to exact justice in proper measure, which is where they all fail lately it seems.
Not that tired argument again
That's like saying we shouldn't try to cure cancer since we'll all just die of something else instead.
Homicide rates, accidental death rates and probably even suicide rates overall are lower in countries with sensible gun laws. That is also a fact.
we've done this statistics dance before
I gave you a long list of countries where guns were banned and yet the murder rate was higher than in the US, yet you point to anomalies like maybe England and a few others. The number of unarmed countries with higher murder rates actually outstripped those countries with lower murder rates than the US, all proving other things are at work in individual countries than just gun control. When the murder rate for blacks in this country was discounted, the statistics for the US dropped BELOW even those countries with smaller black populations but strong gun control laws. In fact, as I recall the rate was similar when comparing just the white murder rate between Britain and the US. Like it or not, ethnic or racial groups have dissimilar murder rates and some of those apply across international borders.
but with that logic, should one just move to a place where, perhaps, the "ethnic or racial" groups are not?
Good luck, as Bob Dylan would say...
there are places
If it wasn't so cold, Idaho might be on my list of places to end up at.
Idaho would suit you well
Lots of white supremacists out there for you to commiserate with.
Lower suicide rates are the result of gun laws?
Ok, so you might eliminate one quick and easy method in which to take ones own life. Those laws, however, do NOTHING to take away that persons desire to die. Neither do they do anything to take away another person's desire to rob or kill. It's these desires that at the root of the greater danger.
Laws make it more difficult
Perhaps we should just throw the entire criminal code out the window since anyone who wants to _______ badly enough will find a way?
but your approach is to
,...punish the one who owns a tool, instead of the one who misuses it. You've made that quite clear even when given the comparison to vehicles used properly, or deliberately used to kill or maim. You judge unrighteously.
"You judge unrighteously"
When you shoot somebody, you are using that "tool" to do what it was designed to do.
It isn't about punishing anyone; it's about common sense and safety. I don't want my daughter going to school in an armed compound. That's not only not the solution, but as the insurance companies have now also made clear, it's more likely to increase the chances of someone being shot. Or some of those armed teachers being jumped and their guns being stolen. Or both.
"the insurance companies have now also made clear" isn't a fact. It's their ASSUMPTION or SPECULATION.......which is something you and others here in SE yell at ME about all the time, but because it goes along with YOUR assumptions and speculations, it must be God's truth.
No, Toni, it is not speculation
As I said in my original post, they base their coverage decisions on facts and statistics, not speculation. The only way this would be comparable to your posts would be if the insurance companies were making up "statistics" out of thin air and wishful thinking.
There can't be many
facts and statistics, Josh, since most, if not nearly all, of the schools in the USA didn't have/don't have armed security in them before Sandy Hook. That would be like me saying that I'm a non-smoker and should qualify for lower insurance rates when I've only stopped smoking a week ago.
How far back do those facts and statistics for the insurance companies go with regard to armed security? Do they also tell you that information? If not, then everything they are saying is all based on assumptions and speculations.
I've seen tests done in a college classroom
with people having paint guns. Several students were given a paint gun and a gunman came charging in and the friendly fire got more students than the gunman did.
where are these facts and statistics
on schools protected by armed teachers or administration personnel? I didn't realize there was so much data on that collected somewhere.
But your OP is a swipe at the NRA
claiming that they're wanting to keep alleged insurance cost increases away from the public. What price is too much to pay for children's safety at school? You think taking all the guns from the criminally minded will be cheaper?
Those gun buybacks are great aren't they?
Get money for a broken or worn out gun, add more to it, and get the gun you really want. Makes better guns available to be stolen too. I guess those buybacks are intended to up the standards.
I've wondered just how many of those buybacks
were stolen. A longtime B & E crook might accumulate more guns than he could want and maybe get more with a buyback than from a fence. I don't know how those programs work but I'd wonder if some SN check would be made to see if the gun had been reported as stolen.
No, what they want to keep from the public....
.....is the fact that more guns increase the likelihood of gun violence, where they keep claiming the opposite.
It seems to me that the only one saying
that the NRA 'doesn't want you to know that' is you, Josh........That article you posted doesn't even hint at that. And if we had House and Senate leaders in 2009 and a prez that was interested in LOWERING insurance rates, for BOTH healthcare and everything else, we would have passed tort reform along with Obamacare, doncha think? It can still be done as a separate bill though, and should be, and make it mandatory across the entire country instead of having states like Texas having to do it alone within their state. As your article states....the market will figure it out and resolve the insurance issue for armed security in the schools.
The article I posted isn't about the NRA
You keep insisting that
the article points to facts; however, there are no statistics OR facts that they can point to and neither can you. Your links are all speculation, assumptions, and opinions, Josh. Just because they SUPPORT one side doesn't make non-existent facts or stats true.
I suspect your gun violence assertion is correct
and I could also say that more baseball bats would increase the likelihood of baseball bat violence. What needs to be considered is whether or not the number of guns out there increases the likelihood that violence of any kind will occur. Do you have that answer?
BTW, I'd suggest that armed robbery counts as gun violence even if no shots are fired. I'd also suggest that a would-be robber's reluctance to enter a home for fear of being shot would count as a reduction in gun violence.
But that's exactly the point
The NRA keeps claiming that more guns will reduce gun violence. It's an absurd argument, as you just acknowledged.
I just spent a couple of minutes trying to find links that answer your broader question. Didn't find much, but did note that around 55% of homicides in this country were shootings. Sure, some of those people may have been killed by other means if a gun wasn't available, but I have to think that the number would be lower than it is now. Gun deaths are often heat-of-the-moment type things, where all you have to do is point the thing and curl your finger. You don't have to physically attack someone with a gun, where you do with pretty much any other weapon. That homicide rate also includes accidental shootings (like the recent cases involving toddlers). It's pretty hard to accidentally stab someone.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)