Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Here is the thing I have been thinking about regarding this incident and the gun debate.

During the Conn shooting the kid shoots his mom (with HER Gun) then shoots his way into the school kicking away the glass and crawling through the window. He shoots the 2 who approach him and try to stop him. Then shoots kids and teachers until he hears sirens then shoots himself.

In this instance someone having a hand gun in the glove box of their car is not going to have time to run out there get it and get back, chances are he would have likely been killed fleeing to his car or unable to get back into a building in lock down.

Trying to control guns is not the only answer, nut jobs will find other ways to carry out their plans as has been pointed out here.

The teachers having guns on site means they need to be trained how to use them and have the courage to kill someone else trained to use guns who is crazy and hell bent on death and mayhem, I don't see this working either. Plus if a citizen was packing and did return fire that only complicates the situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.

So I spent all weekend thinking about all these senarios and what would make me feel safer as a parent who is dropping his kids off at school, and I got my answer. Monday morning my daughter had seen the news and we talked about what happened and what she would do if the same thing should happen at her school, she was scared, she hugged me at least 3 times and gave me kisses and you could tell it was hard for her to muster the courage to go to school.

The thing is when we got to her school the principal was out there standing next to a policeman, and suddenly I didn't feel as concerned and I asked my daughter when I picked her up if she felt better have the officer there which she did.

I don't think having a dude(or more) sitting in the hall of every grade and middle school for the whole school day is the solution but having more police on the street, checking in at all public areas (schools, malls, churches, etc...) is a better option than arming the public.

I don't want to pack heat, it would hurt me physically to fire a round due to my disablity, I don't want to go through the training or target practice. I hate guns. I am tired of hearing about kids finding a gun in their house or their friends house and getting hurt or killed. I am tired about hearing of the shooting epidemic in the drug riddled areas of cities like Chicago. I am tired of hearing about multiple armed robberies in my town, which is far from the drug riddled areas of Chicago. I would rather have someone who has been trained and sworn to protect citizens, who knows what to do in shooting or hostage events, do what they were trained and prepared to do.

We will never have a way to stop crime or mass shootings, people have been going nuts and killing masses of other innocent people ever since men have walked the Earth. I think adding to our police and training them to act in events like this give us a better chance to live in a safe and free society. We haven't had armed robberies in our town in the 14 years I lived here and over the summer we had 3, the response was a larger police presence in the locations of the robberies.

The suburb I live in has 30,000 people, it is staffed with only 55 sworn officers, most of them have management roles or are in special roles like drug enforcement, etc... THere are 2 Traffic cops, 2 beat cops, and 29 other officers protecting us 24/7/365. There is one sworn officer to about every 550 citizens, it takes 15 minutes to drive from one end of my village to the other, maybe 6 if your in high persuit and don't get stuck by a train.

I am not sure how long the response time was from the 1st 911 call in Conn to the time the killer shot himself but the killer had enough time to shoot his way into the school, be confronted then kill the principal, then make his way into multiple class rooms killing 20 people along the way before turning the gun on himself. I read in this very thread that most of the people who pull killings like this usually turn the gun on and kill themselves once they hear sirens of approaching police. I really think having more police patroling and interacting with the community would reduce the carnage and possibly stop other events like this.

The shooter had a plan, he knew he would encounter no resistance for at least 3-5 minutes if not more. If you reduce the window nutjobs have to pull off their plan and make them account for the possiblity that the school might have an armed officer checking in at the time or being less than 90 seconds away I bet at the least the body count would be lower. Plus there is the ancillary benefit of other types of crime or confrontations being reduced.

Every year we hear about a police force being reduced or in financial trouble. I would pay more tax to increase our police presences so I can feel safe going to a movie or dropping off my kids at school or even driving late at night and not worrying about drunk drivers.

No one who has guns are going to give them up, if you want to pretend it is still 1776 and you want to hunt and eat what you kill or you think that the movie Red Dawn will come true or the Zombie Apocalypse will happen and you feel safer having a gun then fine. Keep it locked up and away from where kids, criminals, or mentally ill can find it. Make it harder to get a gun, document who comes into the store and inquires about buying a gun and report anyone who leaves because they can't get a gun before the waiting period. If it is true that the shooter walked into a gun store, wanted to buy a gun then left because he had to wait for it then shame on us.

In the meantime put more trained professionals on beats that take them into schools, malls, libraries, business parks, anywhere there are large amounts of people going about their lives. Let criminals and killers see our sworn protection out in places they haven't seen them before and maybe they will think twice about wrecking havoc on innocents.

I volunteer every week at my daughters school in the computer lab, making it harder for me to get in and help is not solving anything when there are nut jobs willing to shoot their way into a building. Increase the police presence and allow them to interact positively with the public and maybe our kids and their kids will have a chance to live their lives and learn in an environment that id less fortress and more fun, caring and nurturing.

While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by houghtam

While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

And there is the rub...

It requires money somewhere. More money on access to and quality of mental health. More money on police, patrolling and in the schools. More money on metal detectors. More money enforcing current gun laws. More money on enforcing new gun laws (and there will be some). No matter which side you fall on, there is a cost to your proposed solution.

Yet the same folks who wont even think about thinking about having a discussion where gun regulation changes are the ones most violently opposed to any more government spending. That is the definition of a self feeding cycle.

[oubronco]

It almost happened in my hometown

http://examiner-enterprise.com/secti...g-planned.html

http://examiner-enterprise.com/secti...gun-notes.html

12:05 pm - December 18, 2012 — Updated: 12:24 pm - December 18, 2012

BPD search turns up gun, notes

By Tim Hudson
thudson@examiner-enterprise.com


A return of search warrant filed Tuesday in Washington County Court reveals a list of items — including a weapon and notes with a “graveyard drawing” — were found during a search of the home of a local teen accused of planning a mass shooting at Bartlesville High School last week.

Eighteen-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after police received reports that the BHS senior was planning a mass shooting at the school. He currently faces charges of planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence and is being held at the Washington County Correctional Facility on a $1 million bond.

Following the arrest, police served a search warrant at a home on Adeline Street in west Bartlesville, where Chavez reportedly resides with his mother.

According to the “search warrant return” filed Tuesday morning, police found a “Marlin model 99 M1, .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with stock cut off and made into pistol grip type rifle” as well as two swords. Additionally, police report finding a red, white and blue wallet that contained a “RIP Graveyard” drawing, another drawing referred to as “suicidal Timmy,” a love letter and a recipe for homemade alcohol.

Police also say they found a spiral notebook that contained 59 pages of writings from April of 2011 through September of this year. Additionally, they say there were two handwritten notes in the home.

The findings appear to at least somewhat substantiate weekend reports from social networking sites that police were in possession of a notebook detailing Chavez’ plan. Police had previously been reluctant to confirm the existence of such notes.

The document states that police also found a “small black photo album” containing photos of seniors that had been cut out of an Examiner-Enterprise insert about 2012 graduates.
Marijuana and drug paraphernalia were also reportedly found.

The affidavit for the search warrant also indicates that Chavez’ mother told police that her son had recently checked the movie “Bowling for Columbine” out from the Bartlesville Public Library. The documentary focuses on the gun control debate centered around shootings by two students at a school in Columbine, Colo., in 1999 in which 13 people were killed.

Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after a student reportedly told authorities that he had been in the cafeteria on Dec. 12 and that Chavez “tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school cafeteria where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” a probable cause affidavit states.

Chavez reportedly said that if the students that were assisting him did not do as they were supposed to do “he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.” Police say he planned to “place bombs by the doors so when the police arrived he would detonate the bombs, killing the police as they entered the building.”

Authorities contend that Chavez had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the building. Chavez had reportedly told a teacher that “he had recently purchased a Colt .45 handgun and spent the weekend shooting it.”

Police say Chavez had performed Internet searches for a “.22 caliber rifle on a machine gun platform” on school computers as recent as Nov. 30, as well as information on “how to build pipe bombs” and information on “the Columbine High School Massacre.”

Police presence at all Bartlesville Public School District campuses was increased beginning Monday in response to the alleged threat, and counseling is available to any high school student wishing to speak with someone, BPSD officials said this week.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by houghtam

While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

I agree, I think the whole issue of having to pay for more officers is too political to happen which is sad because it is really the only thing that could lessen the impact of a madman on the loose. By the time some nutjob has committed to his killing spree it is too late for gun laws to make any type of impact and vigilante justice is not the type of climate I want to raise my kids in.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.
.

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by oubronco

It almost happened in my hometown

http://examiner-enterprise.com/secti...g-planned.html

http://examiner-enterprise.com/secti...gun-notes.html

12:05 pm - December 18, 2012 — Updated: 12:24 pm - December 18, 2012

BPD search turns up gun, notes

By Tim Hudson
thudson@examiner-enterprise.com


A return of search warrant filed Tuesday in Washington County Court reveals a list of items — including a weapon and notes with a “graveyard drawing” — were found during a search of the home of a local teen accused of planning a mass shooting at Bartlesville High School last week.

Eighteen-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after police received reports that the BHS senior was planning a mass shooting at the school. He currently faces charges of planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence and is being held at the Washington County Correctional Facility on a $1 million bond.

Following the arrest, police served a search warrant at a home on Adeline Street in west Bartlesville, where Chavez reportedly resides with his mother.

According to the “search warrant return” filed Tuesday morning, police found a “Marlin model 99 M1, .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with stock cut off and made into pistol grip type rifle” as well as two swords. Additionally, police report finding a red, white and blue wallet that contained a “RIP Graveyard” drawing, another drawing referred to as “suicidal Timmy,” a love letter and a recipe for homemade alcohol.

Police also say they found a spiral notebook that contained 59 pages of writings from April of 2011 through September of this year. Additionally, they say there were two handwritten notes in the home.

The findings appear to at least somewhat substantiate weekend reports from social networking sites that police were in possession of a notebook detailing Chavez’ plan. Police had previously been reluctant to confirm the existence of such notes.

The document states that police also found a “small black photo album” containing photos of seniors that had been cut out of an Examiner-Enterprise insert about 2012 graduates.
Marijuana and drug paraphernalia were also reportedly found.

The affidavit for the search warrant also indicates that Chavez’ mother told police that her son had recently checked the movie “Bowling for Columbine” out from the Bartlesville Public Library. The documentary focuses on the gun control debate centered around shootings by two students at a school in Columbine, Colo., in 1999 in which 13 people were killed.

Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after a student reportedly told authorities that he had been in the cafeteria on Dec. 12 and that Chavez “tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school cafeteria where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” a probable cause affidavit states.

Chavez reportedly said that if the students that were assisting him did not do as they were supposed to do “he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.” Police say he planned to “place bombs by the doors so when the police arrived he would detonate the bombs, killing the police as they entered the building.”

Authorities contend that Chavez had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the building. Chavez had reportedly told a teacher that “he had recently purchased a Colt .45 handgun and spent the weekend shooting it.”

Police say Chavez had performed Internet searches for a “.22 caliber rifle on a machine gun platform” on school computers as recent as Nov. 30, as well as information on “how to build pipe bombs” and information on “the Columbine High School Massacre.”

Police presence at all Bartlesville Public School District campuses was increased beginning Monday in response to the alleged threat, and counseling is available to any high school student wishing to speak with someone, BPSD officials said this week.

I saw this in the paper the Saturday after the Conn, shooting.

Check out what the Police can do, I really think the real answer to this problem is more Police in our communities.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.
.

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

outstanding post..

that said so many morons are so anti gun they do not have a clue on gun safety or conceal carry license and the training one has to go through to get it..

but then what do you expect from a lib..

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

Why not put more trained professionals out in the communities. They should be a visible deterrent to anyone trying to break a law or pull off some other heinous act. I am at the point where I don't care if others want to waste their money on guns, I want to see police on beats that take them into public spaces often enough that people will not have the time to shoot their way into a building then take 27 lives.

I felt more safe seeing that officer standing out side my kids school than I would have if I had a gun on me.

[misturanderson]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

Well there is one real (and I use the term "real" loosely since the Mississippi shooting was not actually stopped by the principle, the gunman was just stopped from driving away) example in this thread and one fabricated example of a mass shooting being stopped by an armed citizen. Methinks your "success stories" have been vastly overstated by sites, especially social networking sites, that pander to tea party members.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

Are you willing to apply that same argument to idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?

That's already part of the equation.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Why not put more trained professionals out in the communities. They should be a visible deterrent to anyone trying to break a law or pull off some other heinous act. I am at the point where I don't care if others want to waste their money on guns, I want to see police on beats that take them into public spaces often enough that people will not have the time to shoot their way into a building then take 27 lives.

I felt more safe seeing that officer standing out side my kids school than I would have if I had a gun on me.

Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

Okay, first of all...weren't you the one bemoaning all of those evil liberals' lack of knowledge about gun laws? And now here you are saying you can't own a gun in Chicago.

Secondly, we always hear about "ohhhhh but what if someone breaks into your home??" Now I know you conservative types either don't understand or don't believe in statistics, but let's take a look at some facts anyway, just for thrills. Does having a gun in the home really make people safer?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

- Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries.

- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

- For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments. [10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.

- When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.

- Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide. More than a dozen case-control studies have examined the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in the United States, and all find that firearms in the home are associated with substantially and significantly higher rates of suicide.

- These and other studies indicate that individuals have especially high risks of suicide if they live in homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns. (So if you keep it locked and unloaded, what good is it to you during a break-in?)

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- (Here's a one especially for Bronco Fanatic, who mentioned the Kennesaw law in an earlier thread) The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes. Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime. Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.

- One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gun ownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.

- Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.

- Police reports: One study examined Atlanta police department reports of home invasions during a 4-month period. Researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling when someone was at home. [90] In 32 instances, at least 1 of the offenders was known to have carried a gun. In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.

- Many private surveys have asked questions directly about self-defense gun use. Some general conclusions from these surveys are the following: ( a) more people report a self-defense gun use against an animal (eg, snakes, dogs) than against a human; ( b) police report more total self-defense gun uses than all civilians combined; ( c) there are far more illegal gun uses against people than self-reported self-defense uses by them; ( d) most reported self-defense gun uses do not occur at home, and relatively few protect children; ( e) most of the self-reported self-defense uses are either ambiguous or socially undesirable.

- The evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

That's just from the first three pages of the published study. I won't pull a lonestar and quote the whole thing, but...well, there ya go.

Science!

[Heyneck]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Okay, first of all...weren't you the one bemoaning all of those evil liberals' lack of knowledge about gun laws? And now here you are saying you can't own a gun in Chicago.

Secondly, we always hear about "ohhhhh but what if someone breaks into your home??" Now I know you conservative types either don't understand or don't believe in statistics, but let's take a look at some facts anyway, just for thrills. Does having a gun in the home really make people safer?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

- Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries.

- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

- For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments. [10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.

- When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.

- Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide. More than a dozen case-control studies have examined the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in the United States, and all find that firearms in the home are associated with substantially and significantly higher rates of suicide.

- These and other studies indicate that individuals have especially high risks of suicide if they live in homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns. (So if you keep it locked and unloaded, what good is it to you during a break-in?)

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- (Here's a one especially for Bronco Fanatic, who mentioned the Kennesaw law in an earlier thread) The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes. Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime. Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.

- One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gun ownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.

- Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.

- Police reports: One study examined Atlanta police department reports of home invasions during a 4-month period. Researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling when someone was at home. [90] In 32 instances, at least 1 of the offenders was known to have carried a gun. In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.

- Many private surveys have asked questions directly about self-defense gun use. Some general conclusions from these surveys are the following: ( a) more people report a self-defense gun use against an animal (eg, snakes, dogs) than against a human; ( b) police report more total self-defense gun uses than all civilians combined; ( c) there are far more illegal gun uses against people than self-reported self-defense uses by them; ( d) most reported self-defense gun uses do not occur at home, and relatively few protect children; ( e) most of the self-reported self-defense uses are either ambiguous or socially undesirable.

- The evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

That's just from the first three pages of the published study. I won't pull a lonestar and quote the whole thing, but...well, there ya go.

Science!

BOOM!!! There goes the dynamite!!! Great rebuttal!!!

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

I wonder how many died from alcohol related accidents.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Heyneck

BOOM!!! There goes the dynamite!!! Great rebuttal!!!

That reminded me of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Sometimes you just can't regulate crazy.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I wonder how many died from alcohol related accidents.

I don't think bringing up alcohol makes the point you wish it did. Afterall, we do, in fact, have restrictions on alcohol use and possession as it applies to putting others in danger (DUI and open container laws, for instance).

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

That reminded me of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Sometimes you just can't regulate crazy.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes you can't regulate crazy. But sometimes you can. The truth is that you don't know that this (or any other) shooter would have resulted to a different method of killing. And in fact, from a criminal psychology perspective, it takes a different kind of person to use a gun than it does a knife or a bomb. Also I love how when we have 20 mass shootings in less than 12 months, the best argument you can come up with is that 80 years ago a guy used explosives to kill a bunch of people.

But in truth, your argument is somewhat of a separate argument than what the study is making. The study only briefly touches on mental illness, but is rather pointed in its rejection of many of the common misconceptions (and arguments) held by the gimme-my-guns-at-all-costs crowd.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I don't think bringing up alcohol makes the point you wish it did. Afterall, we do, in fact, have restrictions on alcohol use and possession as it applies to putting others in danger (DUI and open container laws, for instance).

Are you insinuating it was lawful to carry loaded weapons to a school, break and enter through security and start firing in the direction of other people?

[Meck77]

What I meant was own a concealed weapon. You can't in Chicago.

Houtam...I don't really care if you don't like guns, want to control them, or don't want to own them. I have plenty of them. Love to hunt, love to target shoot, and enjoy the right to carry one.

If you want to protect your family with a steak knife go ahead.

If you think regulating the 300 million people and the 300 million guns out there is going to make it safer for you go ahead. Personally I'm not one to leave things to chance, to the police, or the government.

I own a rural ranch in a community where there is no crime. Hasn't been a murder in decades. There are no robberies. People do not lock their doors. However, there is something in common you will see out there. The clerks at the local gas station visibly wear guns. People at the hardware store often have a pistol on their hip. We drive our trucks around town with guns. We use our guns to protect our livestock, we hunt with them, and well if some jackass acts like a fool in this town he won't last but 10 seconds because either me or some old cowboy will drop him.

In fact there really isn't even a sheriff in our town. He spends his time in the other community in the same county as there isn't anything for him to do in ours. Besides he knows the rest of us have our town covered.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Are you insinuating it was lawful to carry loaded weapons to a school, break and enter through security and start firing in the direction of other people?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that folks like you wish to seperate the guns themselves from the equation. But we don't do that with alcohol. We makes protective laws not based on harm caused to others, but based on the potential of harm that could be caused to another. And no one argues against those laws, because it's obvious that a drunk driver is a danger to others on the road. It's similarly obvious that someone possessing, say, a semi-automatic rifle, poses an increased danger to those he/she encounters.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Of course not. What I'm saying is that folks like you wish to seperate the guns themselves from the equation. But we don't do that with alcohol. We makes protective laws not based on harm caused to others, but based on the potential of harm that could be caused to another. And no one argues against those laws, because it's obvious that a drunk driver is a danger to others on the road. It's similarly obvious that someone possessing, say, a semi-automatic rifle, poses an increased danger to those he/she encounters.

No. You've declared the car an "alcohol-free zone" to little effect. Sound familiar?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

No. You've declared the car an "alcohol-free zone" to little effect. Sound familiar?

Are you actually arguing against DUI/open container laws?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Meck77

What I meant was own a concealed weapon. You can't in Chicago.

Houtam...I don't really care if you don't like guns, want to control them, or don't want to own them. I have plenty of them. Love to hunt, love to target shoot, and enjoy the right to carry one.

If you want to protect your family with a steak knife go ahead.

If you think regulating the 300 million people and the 300 million guns out there is going to make it safer for you go ahead. Personally I'm not one to leave things to chance, to the police, or the government.

I own a rural ranch in a community where there is no crime. Hasn't been a murder in decades. There are no robberies. People do not lock their doors. However, there is something in common you will see out there. The clerks at the local gas station visibly wear guns. People at the hardware store often have a pistol on their hip. We drive our trucks around town with guns. We use our guns to protect our livestock, we hunt with them, and well if some jackass acts like a fool in this town he won't last but 10 seconds because either me or some old cowboy will drop him.

In fact there really isn't even a sheriff in our town. He spends his time in the other community in the same county as there isn't anything for him to do in ours. Besides he knows the rest of us have our town covered.

Unless his name happens to be Marvin Heemeyer.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

Do you actually believe that someone that has little experience or actually training is capable of performing effective CQC without increase risk to other innocent bystanders in chaotic environment? I have watched trained experience professional make mistakes in training that would have resulted in death of their squad mates or innocents and they know what they are doing.

There is reason that the military and law enforcement spends hundred of hours training and train some more to handle the kinds of situations. We as country need to give up the myth that bystander with a gun is going make the right decision in very fluid stressful environment.

I have no problem with gun ownership or use, but we need stop lying to ourselves in believing that concealed weapons carriers are the solution to this problem.