• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

These are the best statistics available because Republicans won't allow the subject to be studied closer. Apparently, they're afraid science will as usual prove them wrong.

There is nothing to stop CDC or anyone else from collecting data. There is no data that would allow the further restriction of rights merely based on data.

What is the numeric value of the intersection of the sets {lawful gun owners} {without training}{who carry guns in public}{deaths caused}. That's the question at hand.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

What is the numeric value of the intersection of the sets {lawful gun owners} {without training}{who carry guns in public}{deaths caused}. That's the question at hand.

So basically you're restricting the data down to such a rare scenario that it's unlikely we have any data worth talking about. The lawful and without training aspects of your query make it worthless. What we do know is that at least 120 children under the age of 15 die in accidental shootings. We do know that even supposedly well-trained people can have accidents...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_84wgkZa-dw

So the question becomes... what are your odds of actually being in a robber in a given year? I believe we calculated those odds earlier to be around 0.0251 or something ridiculously small like that. Then you figure the actual number of people who have a gun ready to use for defense in those incredibly rare situations, and then you factor in the reality that having a gun maybe gives you a 50/50 chance of survival whereas not having a gun may actually improve your odds, and then you add in the accidental deaths on top of that and it quickly becomes clear that they aren't worth it.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

That is a terrible analogy. While training certainly is good, I do not agree no one should have a self defense firearm unless they regularly shoot a million bullets like you do.

Well over 90% of the time the mere presence of a firearm is all it takes - and for most of the other situations once a shot is fired the assailant/criminal(s) is running away, even if also armed.

While some shooting familiarity is a good idea, it is more important the person 1.) truly understand gun laws including usage in self defense, safe storage, and other practical information and 2.) with this knowledge pre-decide what they will do in various situations before it happens.

we have no disagreement
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

So basically you're restricting the data down to such a rare scenario that it's unlikely we have any data worth talking about. The lawful and without training aspects of your query make it worthless. What we do know is that at least 120 children under the age of 15 die in accidental shootings. We do know that even supposedly well-trained people can have accidents...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_84wgkZa-dw

So the question becomes... what are your odds of actually being in a robber in a given year? I believe we calculated those odds earlier to be around 0.0251 or something ridiculously small like that. Then you figure the actual number of people who have a gun ready to use for defense in those incredibly rare situations, and then you factor in the reality that having a gun maybe gives you a 50/50 chance of survival whereas not having a gun may actually improve your odds, and then you add in the accidental deaths on top of that and it quickly becomes clear that they aren't worth it.

you use of statistics destroy your desire for more gun laws.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

So basically you're restricting the data down to such a rare scenario that it's unlikely we have any data worth talking about.

It's the exact scenario that jet57 is complaining about - that without mandatory training, law abiding lawful owners of guns without training can carry them legally in public. I'm just asking someone to quantify this problem.

The lawful and without training aspects of your query make it worthless. What we do know is that at least 120 children under the age of 15 die in accidental shootings. We do know that even supposedly well-trained people can have accidents...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_84wgkZa-dw

Yes, even trained gun owners can be negligent. CDC data does tell us that for the 17 and under demographic that unintentional firearm death rate has fallen 78% since 1990.

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

So the question becomes... what are your odds of actually being in a robber in a given year? I believe we calculated those odds earlier to be around 0.0251 or something ridiculously small like that. Then you figure the actual number of people who have a gun ready to use for defense in those incredibly rare situations, and then you factor in the reality that having a gun maybe gives you a 50/50 chance of survival whereas not having a gun may actually improve your odds, and then you add in the accidental deaths on top of that and it quickly becomes clear that they aren't worth it.

Your calculations aren't realistic, as you use 50/50 as odds for surviving a gunfight when training and practice have an influence on those odds, and you only include self-defense as a positive reason to own firearms. Feel free not to own any.

Do you drive rather than take mass transit?
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

"Her" rules and thank you.

They were very precise and specific.

The uninformed just dont know any better.

Lol. Sorry. I’m using a phone. I can’t see the little symbols well. :)
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You're giving me all the evidence I need by not denying what I've said about your agreement to guns and no training. And, as a gun owner -- why would I want to ban guns?

Because you are an in incrementalism. You believe whatever you are told to believe and don’t bother with facts.

And yes. Requiring training for guns is wrong. Period. You are acting as if that matters? It doesn’t. You don’t need training for any other right. Period.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Right; so you're fine with people who know nothing about how to use weapons carrying them around in public.

Got it.

I just posted what you need to know. Do you believe that most adult Americans cant remember it? Or dont know it?

And just how many Americans are walking around in public, with their firearms, accidentally shooting other people? 1 or 2? Gee. And millions can carry in public. Seems pretty darn safe to me.

Let's see some sources that dispute that? That show how unsafe people carrying in public are.
 
Actually, I think if you could ask them they'd have much rather been able to duck into a classroom with a bulletproof door and lock themselves inside. I work for a defense contractor and it is mandatory that we receive active shooter training on a yearly basis. This is a building that is brimming with ex-military personnel. Still, no weapons are allowed inside. The active shooter training tells us that upon realizing there is an active shooter your first goal is to escape. If you can't escape, goal number two is to hide. Get to an interior room, lock the door and stay low.

Trying to confront the intruder is the absolute last possible option. In fact, it tells us that if you escape, don't go get a gun out of your car and go back in. You're risking your life unnecessarily and when the police show up they may not know who the shooter is.

I've been in the military. I have had firearms training. I have also pulled out my concealed weapon and diffused a situation which could have turned deadly had I not introduced a factor the aggressor was not expecting. Nobody got hurt. If I had been one of the the administrators sitting in the office of a school which was broken into by an armed shooter with murder on the brain I would have chosen a personal weapon over a deadbolt any time.
 
I would have chosen a personal weapon over a deadbolt any time.

Not just a deadbolt mind you, but a solid metal door. Either way, you would be decreasing your own likelihood of survival. The best case scenario is that you might be able to save some other lives by risking your own.

The second aspect of this is that it's a mass shooting scenario in an enclosed building. The odds that the shooter is actually trying to kill you and not just rob you are significantly higher and the odds that a pistol would be useful for defense are a bit better than they would be in many other situations.

But let's just run some standard numbers for you. In the United States of America, there are approximately 99,000 public schools. Since Columbine, there has been an average of 10 school shootings per year. I couldn't find numbers on average deaths per shooting, but let's put it at 10 per shooting for 100 deaths in school shootings per year. Now let's pretend we put 5 armed teachers and or security guards at each school in America. So you now have around 500,000 people walking around every school in America every day for around 9 months out of the year. If you had an accidental death rate of only 0.0001% from those 500,000 people that would lead to 50 deaths per year purely from accidents caused by the fact that you have all these loaded guns laying around. That's all it would take 0.0001%. Seem reasonable? That's roughly one deadly accident per 10,000 loaded guns.


Now, let's ask yourselves how many of the 100 shooting deaths do you think these armed gunmen would actually prevent? You have to assume that a gunman knows his school fairly well, and would pick a spot and a time where he knows those gunmen aren't nearby. He's likely going to get off a decent number of shots before any of those guards even know what's going on or have an opportunity to get in position to take a shot. Worse yet he may surprise a guard and use him as the first victim before the guard knows what's going on, and potentially get access to that guards gun.

I would say that in the best case scenario having 5 armed teachers and or guards at every school in America would break even on the number of casualties. You'd see 50 fewer deaths from mass shootings, but they'd be offset by roughly 50 additional casualties from accidental discharges.
 
But let's just run some standard numbers for you. In the United States of America, there are approximately 99,000 public schools. Since Columbine, there has been an average of 10 school shootings per year. I couldn't find numbers on average deaths per shooting, but let's put it at 10 per shooting for 100 deaths in school shootings per year.
There are 130,000 K-12 schools. It took less than 5 seconds to find a record of the schools shootings in the US. Rather than the made up numbers you have, the actual numbers are included in the link below. If we look at homicide deaths by firearm of K-12 students, it's an average of 9 deaths per year since 2010, with the modal death rate of zero and the modal injury rate of 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Now let's pretend we put 5 armed teachers and or security guards at each school in America. So you now have around 500,000 people walking around every school in America every day for around 9 months out of the year. If you had an accidental death rate of only 0.0001% from those 500,000 people that would lead to 50 deaths per year purely from accidents caused by the fact that you have all these loaded guns laying around. That's all it would take 0.0001%. Seem reasonable? That's roughly one deadly accident per 10,000 loaded guns.


Now, let's ask yourselves how many of the 100 shooting deaths do you think these armed gunmen would actually prevent? You have to assume that a gunman knows his school fairly well, and would pick a spot and a time where he knows those gunmen aren't nearby. He's likely going to get off a decent number of shots before any of those guards even know what's going on or have an opportunity to get in position to take a shot. Worse yet he may surprise a guard and use him as the first victim before the guard knows what's going on, and potentially get access to that guards gun.

I would say that in the best case scenario having 5 armed teachers and or guards at every school in America would break even on the number of casualties. You'd see 50 fewer deaths from mass shootings, but they'd be offset by roughly 50 additional casualties from accidental discharges.

We have states with armed staff now. How many accidental deaths have we had, ever, from armed staff?
 
We have states with armed staff now. How many accidental deaths have we had, ever, from armed staff?

I'm not sure there are official statistics on the subject since it's only a handful of states and a handful of schools it's probably low, but even with that, it seems as though they are happening...

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17120046/school-shooting-accidental-california-virginia-gun-control

So with very few armed personnel in schools today you're already seeing a handful of accidents. Thankfully, none appear deadly, but if you put 10x this number in schools it's obvious where that will lead.

an average of 9 deaths per year since 2010

this makes the logic of having guns in schools even worse than I thought. This indicates that the vast majority of school shootings already result in 1 or 2 deaths already. It's even less likely then that an armed teacher would be able to get there in time to stop one of these shootings. This would indicate that the accident rate could be even lower than I originally estimated and still be higher than the total average deaths.
 
I'm not sure there are official statistics on the subject since it's only a handful of states and a handful of schools it's probably low, but even with that, it seems as though they are happening..

this makes the logic of having guns in schools even worse than I thought. This indicates that the vast majority of school shootings already result in 1 or 2 deaths already. It's even less likely then that an armed teacher would be able to get there in time to stop one of these shootings. This would indicate that the accident rate could be even lower than I originally estimated and still be higher than the total average deaths.

Stricter training requirements could reduce the accident rate, but statistically school shootings are not a high risk. School continues to be about the safest place for kids. It's certainly safer than being at home, in cars or walking around.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

He's not making that claim.

What I read him saying is that unless a person goes thru regular training they are as incompetent as having a knife to do surgery but having no medical training. I fully disagree. Merely having a firearm serves its self defense purpose the overwhelming majority of the time even if the person has never fired a firearm in his/her life.
 
Stricter training requirements could reduce the accident rate, but statistically school shootings are not a high risk. School continues to be about the safest place for kids. It's certainly safer than being at home, in cars or walking around.


While TV is showing training of standing at a gun range carefully aiming, the real decisive training has little to do with that. Safety training certainly should be at the top of the list.
 
I'm not sure there are official statistics on the subject since it's only a handful of states and a handful of schools it's probably low, but even with that, it seems as though they are happening...

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17120046/school-shooting-accidental-california-virginia-gun-control

So with very few armed personnel in schools today you're already seeing a handful of accidents. Thankfully, none appear deadly, but if you put 10x this number in schools it's obvious where that will lead.



this makes the logic of having guns in schools even worse than I thought. This indicates that the vast majority of school shootings already result in 1 or 2 deaths already. It's even less likely then that an armed teacher would be able to get there in time to stop one of these shootings. This would indicate that the accident rate could be even lower than I originally estimated and still be higher than the total average deaths.

People tend to think the only issue and reality is limited to what the MSM and politicians say it is. In fact, crime overall in schools, including the most violent of assault, rape and murder - are as high or higher than the general public - with children the most defenseless and there involuntarily under the care and control of the government. These safety officers are NOT there JUST for potential crazed school shootings. They are also there to try to stop the crime wave in schools, with lower costs than police in all schools.

I think we should pay the costs of trained, certified and experienced full police officers, though I prefer anything and anyone else over nobody to protect the children at all.
 
Not just a deadbolt mind you, but a solid metal door. Either way, you would be decreasing your own likelihood of survival. The best case scenario is that you might be able to save some other lives by risking your own.

The second aspect of this is that it's a mass shooting scenario in an enclosed building. The odds that the shooter is actually trying to kill you and not just rob you are significantly higher and the odds that a pistol would be useful for defense are a bit better than they would be in many other situations.

But let's just run some standard numbers for you. In the United States of America, there are approximately 99,000 public schools. Since Columbine, there has been an average of 10 school shootings per year. I couldn't find numbers on average deaths per shooting, but let's put it at 10 per shooting for 100 deaths in school shootings per year. Now let's pretend we put 5 armed teachers and or security guards at each school in America. So you now have around 500,000 people walking around every school in America every day for around 9 months out of the year. If you had an accidental death rate of only 0.0001% from those 500,000 people that would lead to 50 deaths per year purely from accidents caused by the fact that you have all these loaded guns laying around. That's all it would take 0.0001%. Seem reasonable? That's roughly one deadly accident per 10,000 loaded guns.


Now, let's ask yourselves how many of the 100 shooting deaths do you think these armed gunmen would actually prevent? You have to assume that a gunman knows his school fairly well, and would pick a spot and a time where he knows those gunmen aren't nearby. He's likely going to get off a decent number of shots before any of those guards even know what's going on or have an opportunity to get in position to take a shot. Worse yet he may surprise a guard and use him as the first victim before the guard knows what's going on, and potentially get access to that guards gun.

I would say that in the best case scenario having 5 armed teachers and or guards at every school in America would break even on the number of casualties. You'd see 50 fewer deaths from mass shootings, but they'd be offset by roughly 50 additional casualties from accidental discharges.

The factor you completely leave out is how many shootings would not occur - and we would never know what might have happened - if there is a police car parked in front of the school and it known there are one or more armed police officers inside? You assume this would make no difference to a disturbed person acting on insane, murderous impulses. It is not a reasonable assertion.

The reason anti-gun statistics never work is there is no way to count all the tragedies and crimes that didn't happen at all because of the fear of or the presence of a firearm.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

So basically you're restricting the data down to such a rare scenario that it's unlikely we have any data worth talking about. The lawful and without training aspects of your query make it worthless. What we do know is that at least 120 children under the age of 15 die in accidental shootings. We do know that even supposedly well-trained people can have accidents...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_84wgkZa-dw

So the question becomes... what are your odds of actually being in a robber in a given year? I believe we calculated those odds earlier to be around 0.0251 or something ridiculously small like that. Then you figure the actual number of people who have a gun ready to use for defense in those incredibly rare situations, and then you factor in the reality that having a gun maybe gives you a 50/50 chance of survival whereas not having a gun may actually improve your odds, and then you add in the accidental deaths on top of that and it quickly becomes clear that they aren't worth it.

Do you live your life and make your decisions "by the odds" and what other people do?
 
Not just a deadbolt mind you, but a solid metal door. Either way, you would be decreasing your own likelihood of survival. The best case scenario is that you might be able to save some other lives by risking your own.

The second aspect of this is that it's a mass shooting scenario in an enclosed building. The odds that the shooter is actually trying to kill you and not just rob you are significantly higher and the odds that a pistol would be useful for defense are a bit better than they would be in many other situations.

But let's just run some standard numbers for you. In the United States of America, there are approximately 99,000 public schools. Since Columbine, there has been an average of 10 school shootings per year. I couldn't find numbers on average deaths per shooting, but let's put it at 10 per shooting for 100 deaths in school shootings per year. Now let's pretend we put 5 armed teachers and or security guards at each school in America. So you now have around 500,000 people walking around every school in America every day for around 9 months out of the year. If you had an accidental death rate of only 0.0001% from those 500,000 people that would lead to 50 deaths per year purely from accidents caused by the fact that you have all these loaded guns laying around. That's all it would take 0.0001%. Seem reasonable? That's roughly one deadly accident per 10,000 loaded guns.


Now, let's ask yourselves how many of the 100 shooting deaths do you think these armed gunmen would actually prevent? You have to assume that a gunman knows his school fairly well, and would pick a spot and a time where he knows those gunmen aren't nearby. He's likely going to get off a decent number of shots before any of those guards even know what's going on or have an opportunity to get in position to take a shot. Worse yet he may surprise a guard and use him as the first victim before the guard knows what's going on, and potentially get access to that guards gun.

I would say that in the best case scenario having 5 armed teachers and or guards at every school in America would break even on the number of casualties. You'd see 50 fewer deaths from mass shootings, but they'd be offset by roughly 50 additional casualties from accidental discharges.

One student at the Parkland school was gunned down because he could not get in a locked door with other students on the inside. Steel doors were no help ther, and neither were security officers with guns.
 
Run, hide, fight. I'd prefer that the last resort be a bit more effective than throwing office supplies. I work in a large, open office, and none of the conference rooms have locks. We also have had active shooter training, and two items stand out from that training. One, the training was hosted by the head of corporate security from California (I work in a Colorado location). At the beginning of the training he asked who in the room had ever fired a gun or had heard one fired. Every hand went up. He looked surprised, and said that in California maybe three hands out of a hundred would have been raised. The other item was from the training film, where one scenario had small group of employees in a conference room react to an active shooter in the building. They barricaded the door and "armed" themselves with whatever weapons they could improvise from items in the conference room. One women grabbed a large potted plant to try to bash the shooter with.

The next week the company removed all large potted plants from the facility.

I work for a campus police department as non sworn "security" (we aren't called security and we aren't supposed to respond to anything but rather observe and report). Since it's a campus, I can't have a firearm near me legally. However, I bring mine and keep it in my vehicle and there's a police vehicle with a patrol rifle in it and there's also a spare key to it.
 
So with very few armed personnel in schools today you're already seeing a handful of accidents. Thankfully, none appear deadly, but if you put 10x this number in schools it's obvious where that will lead.

By that logic you could say that police shouldn't carry guns since that can lead to accidents.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You're fine with no one carrying guns in public, even with SEAL level training, unless they can show a need based on your opinion and can provide sufficient campaign funding to the country sheriff to be convince him to issue a permit.

Just what is the annual death toll from untrained people lawfully carrying legally owned guns in public?

Yeah, I'm fine with that; it's California law.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Because you are an in incrementalism. You believe whatever you are told to believe and don’t bother with facts.

And yes. Requiring training for guns is wrong. Period. You are acting as if that matters? It doesn’t. You don’t need training for any other right. Period.


Wrong again. I'm smart on the gun issue and what we need to do about it. Your paranoia is your problem.
 
Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Yeah, I'm fine with that; it's California law.

So even though someone has the requisite training and has a need for self defense in public, you support the sheriff not allowing them to do so based upon political donations?

Shall issue and open carry without training is the law in plenty of other states. I presume by your statement above that you support it because it's the law?
 
Back
Top Bottom