Anti-gun movement comes to Kentucky

[KeithKSR]

The rub is that what would be good enough? One or two guards in a large building like a school isn't enough. How many do you place in there? Six? 12? 20? Are they patrolling all the halls and common areas? Stationed in or outside the classrooms? Are they questioning every visitor and random students or teachers/administrators?

One is sufficient to deter shooters. You will not find evidence of a mass murder in a school with an SRO. If you bothered to actual look you would find a lot of instances where SROs prevented the escalation of an event into a mass shooting.

You may think you know what works, I know what works. I know what works because we were in a position where people would have died, but the efforts of an SRO and deterrence that came from the SRO being armed resulted in an altered course. If not for the SRO I might not be alive today. The armed student walked within feet of where I stood watching from the unlocked cafeteria doors at our school. Behind me were 150 scared students in lockdown position but not safe because we could not lock the doors. The other two teachers in the cafeteria stood by two other doors.

Had Sandy Hook implemented some of the safety procedures we did after that day lives would have been saved. We changed the locksets on every door, which enable the doors to be locked from the inside of rooms.

Most people don't have a clue as to schools in the US today. We already have video surveillance in all common areas of the school, most schools have surveillance. Our entire student body goes through a metal detector. Items like purses, bulky notebooks, etc are searched every single day as students enter the building. People coming in from the outside have one way in. After Sandy Hook our office security was increased, learning by Sandy Hook mistakes.

[CitizenBBN]

Because the status quo isn't working. It's not good enough. I'm tired of reading about another shooting. You say the Founder's intended for us to be able to own any and all manner of firearms because they wanted the people to defend against a tyrannical state? I say that if they could have fathomed the likes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine, they'd understand the need for more drastic measures. You say the "rare" mass shootings aren't enough to justify extremely harsh standards for ownership of handguns and assault rifles? I say one shooting is enough.

If you are so concerned, and I don't doubt it and share your frustration, why wouldn't you be extremely focused on the effectiveness of the response and not just having some kind of response?

You are tired of them, I'm tired of them. In part they keep happening b/c every time one happens we go off on some political tangent and pin a "solution" to it that has absolutely no chance of helping much less preventing these events.

To solve any problem you have to look for things that actually address and solve it. Licensing and tracking the people least likely to commit a gun crime doesn't work. Complete bans in cities doesn't work. Why do we keep trying to go down the same road that has shown failure after failure and refuse to look at any other approach? Why do we let politicians off the hook like that, allowing them to pitch their ideologies on either side rather than proposing solutions?

Every shooting in modern times that's killed 3 or more people except ONE has been in a legally declared "gun free zone". So what's one proposal in many of these laws? Bigger signs to show it's a gun free zone.

Give the NRA some credit. Yes they are fighting all the gun law proposals, and I by no means agree with all of their positions, but at least they did suggest SOMETHING that had something to do with the problem that had a chance of helping without punishing 300 million innocent people.

As for "one is enough", I don't know if there's a more dangerous viewpoint to individual liberty or to public safety.

It's a nightmare for liberty. As Jazy laid out so well, the Founders saw this problem all too well, and giving up massive liberty for tiny (and in this case nonexistent) gains in safety is not worth the tradeoff. They actually faced a good deal of "modern" violence. Riots and mobs were far more commonplace during that period. People would march down and burn the local newspaper that they didn't like. There was a great deal of religious violence as well, and even from the start Franklin described us as more violent than our European "parents". We've always been a more violent nation, and Franklin and others were addressing exactly this kind of violence in their comments. So it's not like "times have changed".

1,000s of children are murdered every year over what amounts to the drug war, violence by those getting money to buy and those fighting over distribution rights. Let me suspend the rules against unreasonable search and seizure and I can save FAR more children than these laws. If one incident of 20 people is enough, isn't 2,000 EVERY year more than enough for you to support that solution?

If not you're being hypocritical, valuing a single horror over the ongoing stream of daily horrors of living in Chicago or Compton. Why are these 20 kid's lives more valuable? If you do agree, you see the horrible path you've chosen. The reason is simple why we have more violence and crime than other nations: we have more individual liberties. We have more protections of privacy, more limits on law enforcement, more freedom of movement.

If one of these incidents on average every couple of years is enough to justify reducing the liberty of 10s of millions in sheer hope something stops it, surely 10s of 1,000s dying annually would justify reducing liberty of fewer people to do something we know would help reduce that number.

It's not just a liberty loser though, it also reduces public safety. All we are doing with these gun laws is

a) diverting pressure for a solution from things that might work to things that won't, which means we've missed a chance to really improve public safety (like better school security), and
b) reducing the ability of millions to defend themselves and their families. We move the whole country closer to Chicago and DC, where criminals act with impunity on innocent people b/c they know they are effectively defenseless. These don't go that far but they do clearly at the margin reduce the ability to use guns to defend yourself.

So we monitor millions of people, reduce their liberties and choices as individuals, reduce their self defense options, and don't lower the chance of the next Aurora or Sandy Hook 1/1000th of a percent. That's a loser deal. You reject it and demand something better.

[CitizenBBN]

If someone really wants to get into a school and shoot a bunch of people, one guard isn't enough and security cameras are irrelevant to preventing a shooting. I just disagree that the solution to this problem is veritably locking down schools. Just like the answer to terrorists on planes isn't the TSA doing full body scans and pat downs of old ladies or children, the answer to school shootings isn't turning them into a fortress. It can't be. Because as un-American as it would be to take people's guns, every step we take toward a police state is just as bad.

So with security, that reduces no one's liberty and at least directly tries to address the problem in some way you demand proof it will make a substantial difference, but when the call is to reduce the liberty of all law abiding Americans and it has vastly less chance of being effective you think it's worth a try when there is a vast amount of empirical evidence it won't work?

Further, putting armed, readily identified security in public schools, akin to adding more police but stationing them in specific buildings instead of particular neighborhoods, is a "police state", but creating a national database of every handgun or modern rifle owner in the country and requiring them to submit to licensing and tracking of all weapons with undefined rules about who is eligible to have one is somehow less of one?

Your definition of police state and mine are two very different definitions.

FWIW you're taking Paul far out of context. He doesn't support EITHER option. He's a libertarian, and is following Franklin's view on the tradeoff between liberty and security that you have rejected. But if you wish to cite him as a source I'm thrilled:

Paul says registry first step to confiscation, considers it the most dangerous part of the proposals: http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/...ment-freedoms/

Paul is against doing much of anything, sticking very strongly to the line that one such incident is not enough to give up our liberties. Guarantee you Paul sees the gun laws you support as a FAR larger step to a police state than school security. Way far.

[CitizenBBN]

"Don't take my guns, just put an armed guard in every hallway of every building."

And I'm the one trading liberty for safety? Please.

Yes you are.

Even if it were "every building" (you dismiss one above then use this one?), they wouldn't be searching people on the streets, or preventing me from buying a gun to defend myself or to stockpile them if I thought the government were going to act against the People. My ability to defend from tyranny would be unimpeded, my ability to defend myself as I saw fit would be unimpeded. My choices as to how to pursue my happiness (like shooting guns) would be unimpeded.

So yes, you're the one trading liberty for safety. I can leave that security officer in a school till the Rapture and it wouldn't change a thing I'm doing as a gun owner for my defense or concern about preventing tyranny. Your proposals would wreak havoc on my current decisions and actions. Pretty simple case to show it's the less invasive solution.

[BigBlueBrock]

Paul says registry first step to confiscation, considers it the most dangerous part of the proposals: http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/...ment-freedoms/

Paul is against doing much of anything, sticking very strongly to the line that one such incident is not enough to give up our liberties. Guarantee you Paul sees the gun laws you support as a FAR larger step to a police state than school security. Way far.

And I say guards in schools are first steps to a police state. Because what about Aurora? What happens the next time if, instead of a school, its a crowded mall? Do we load malls up on armed guards? Do we post guards in any place where people gather in large numbers? Wal-marts? Theaters? Best Buy? How long before we've tripled every police force in the country in the name of not irritating legal gun owners?

[BigBlueBrock]

Our entire student body goes through a metal detector. Items like purses, bulky notebooks, etc are searched every single day as students enter the building. People coming in from the outside have one way in. After Sandy Hook our office security was increased, learning by Sandy Hook mistakes.

And I think that's too far.

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-killed-guns/

Which you already agreed were in the vast majority caused by illegally obtained guns used by criminals. Which means that dethbylt is not a factor in that data yet you want to regulate him, and those in that data won't be regulated by that law.

There's a LOT of gun violence in this country, and it sickens me. The thread on the Front Porch about the watch maker who was robbed 5 times and killed 5 criminals shows how bad it is, and it also shows the reason: the one guy who shot him FOUR times and lived was back on the streets in 5 years.

I desperately want this nation to be safer, but I know regulating dethbylt's choices (or mine or anyone else who would go get a license) won't do that so why on Earth would I support it as the response to gun violence?

What I'd recommend though is looking at that data in a more refined way, breaking those deaths down over time. You'd find that as states have liberalized gun ownership over the last 20 years gun violence has declined, not increased. States establish "shall issue" conceal carry so you can get your permit fairly easily and crime goes down. More people buy handguns for self defense seems to drive down violence.

that data is basically useless for policy. It makes a point, one with which I agree, but then we have to move past outrage to "what do we do" and all the data says we don't do what you're proposing. If anything we do just the opposite.

[CitizenBBN]

And I say guards in schools are first steps to a police state. Because what about Aurora? What happens the next time if, instead of a school, its a crowded mall? Do we load malls up on armed guards? Do we post guards in any place where people gather in large numbers? Wal-marts? Theaters? Best Buy? How long before we've tripled every police force in the country in the name of not irritating legal gun owners?

Most all the other places you list already have armed security. They're private businesses, not a public school. Most other public buildings got security long ago, like court houses, federal buildings, state offices. They've had security since 9/11 if not before.

Take down the "gun free zones" signs in those places and they'll have free armed security.

[BigBlueBrock]

Most all the other places you list already have armed security. They're private businesses, not a public school. Most other public buildings got security long ago, like court houses, federal buildings, state offices. They've had security since 9/11 if not before.

Take down the "gun free zones" signs in those places and they'll have free armed security.

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW it's interesting that data starts in 1960. What else happened in the 60s through early 70s that may have had an impact on those numbers?

Maybe the War on Drugs that created a Prohibition like situation driving massive crime in a battle over a black market profits? the War on Poverty that began to destroy the family unit and create a generational underclass with no hope of it changing?

We took the poor in this country and put them in public housing projects and government programs where you lose your benefits if you save a little money or get a job and set up organized crime with a multi billion dollar revenue base and we wonder why we have crime and gun violence problems since we started those efforts?

[BigBlueBrock]

I'm done with this discussion. We're going around in circles and it has become (if it didn't start out that way) an exercise in futility.

[CitizenBBN]

all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

Prove it.

That's the call of the anti-gun crowd every time a state liberalizes carry laws and it has yet to be proven the case in any state that does it. In fact just the opposite gun crime goes down and accidents do NOT go up. Carry permit owners almost never are involved in any public shooting that isn't a self defense situation and there is no evidence they harm bystanders at any greater rate than police in those situations. Statistically they are the safest people in the room.

Prove it.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm done with this discussion. We're going around in circles and it has become (if it didn't start out that way) an exercise in futility.

I quit too, but like Michael Corleone it pulled me back in.

In a way it is futility, but in a way it isn't. By both sides putting out facts and thoughts and points people do learn and think about the problem and it is a problem that needs as many people thinking and investigating and questioning as is possible. Obviously we need a lot more than our little group, but reasoned discussion is always a good thing, even if at the end of the day no one is persuaded to another position.

it's tiring, but it is still a good thing.

[dan_bgblue]

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

Recommended reading

"Beyond this Horizon" Robert E. Heinlein.

[BigBlueBrock]

Prove it.

That's the call of the anti-gun crowd every time a state liberalizes carry laws and it has yet to be proven the case in any state that does it. In fact just the opposite gun crime goes down and accidents do NOT go up. Carry permit owners almost never are involved in any public shooting that isn't a self defense situation and there is no evidence they harm bystanders at any greater rate than police in those situations. Statistically they are the safest people in the room.

Prove it.

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

[CitizenBBN]

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

That's not proving anything. I've seen a TV show set up thing in a college classroom that "proved" they were more dangerous than no guns at all.

The thing is millions in this country have their carry permits and carry. There are 100s of 1000s of uses of guns in defense situations annually. We have tons of sound empirical data from objective sources. we can do scientific studies with confidence intervals and statistical significance. we don't need to rely on a hypothetical set up by people who usually have a desire for a particular outcome.

that's evidence like me citing Dumbo as proof elephants can in fact fly.

Carry permit holders defend themselves daily in this country. The data says they are a net benefit to public safety by a wide margin.

[BigBlueBrock]

That's not proving anything. I've seen a TV show set up thing in a college classroom that "proved" they were more dangerous than no guns at all.

The thing is millions in this country have their carry permits and carry. There are 100s of 1000s of uses of guns in defense situations annually. We have tons of sound empirical data from objective sources. we can do scientific studies with confidence intervals and statistical significance. we don't need to rely on a hypothetical set up by people who usually have a desire for a particular outcome.

that's evidence like me citing Dumbo as proof elephants can in fact fly.

Carry permit holders defend themselves daily in this country. The data says they are a net benefit to public safety by a wide margin.

Then show me the data.

[CitizenBBN]

Even the Violence Policy Center, founded to lobby for restriction of firearms, shows that between 2007 and 2009 only 117 people were killed by carry permit holders, including suicides and long gun killings. Most of the 117 in fact occurred in the shooter's homes as suicides of some kind. They even included accidental discharge in the home like when cleaning a loaded gun. During the same time there were 25,000 firearm murders. Millions of people with permits who carried firearms were less than 1% of all firearms murders. Really less than one quarter of 1%. Yet there are many 1,000s of reported cases of those people successfully defending themselves with their firearm. So statistically they are not "more likely" to wrongly kill someone as successfully stop the attacker. They're many 1,000s of times more likely to be successful than hurt someone else in fact.

That's from one of the most anti-gun groups in the country. Even slanting the numbers as much as they did it still shows just how responsible carry permit holders are with their firearms.

[CitizenBBN]

Then show me the data.

First, you raised the assertion. Your burden of proof.

Second, I'm delighted to show mine. See last post citing the gun control lobby's own data. Google on John Lott, sort of at the epicenter of the debate. See the FBI statistics for states as they passed the laws.

I'll find lots more as time goes on. Most of my bookmarks for this are on another computer.

[CitizenBBN]

Slight aside, your data above on deaths since 1960 no doubt includes suicides, which usually run a little over 50% of all gun deaths in the US annually. So take those gun deaths and divide by half when talking about public safety. Also includes accidental deaths where you shoot yourself, several such areas that have nothing to do with a threat to public safety per se.

One of the favorite distortions of connotation used by the gun control crowd. It's "true", but it's not true like people think it's true.

[dan_bgblue]

Statistically, a significant number of gun owners have never had safety training. Statistically, they aren't trained marksman (especially with a handgun, which is even more difficult to aim). But there's a video (maybe a couple) where local law enforcement asked gun owners with CC to come in for a class and they were told that at some point, an officer would bust in at some random time as if he were coming in to shoot them. They were given unloaded pistols and asked to attempt to brandish and aim. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say the results weren't encouraging if you're hoping that a room full of people with guns will prevent a mass shooting. I'm looking for the video and will post it when I find it.

Whatever the video shows will be worthless from a statistical point of view. Hundreds of thousands of folks in this country with CC licenses and we get to see a handful of people on film? Honestly how does that prove anything except that the people chosen for the experiment were not capable of handling the situation? Are you wiling to take such a small sample size and extrapolate it to mean something relevant to the real world?

[BigBlueBrock]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

[dan_bgblue]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

Why not lobby for enforcement of laws that will put felons that use a firearm in the act of committing a crime in prison for a minimum of 20 years with no chance of parole?

[BigBlueBrock]

Why not lobby for enforcement of laws that will put felons that use a firearm in the act of committing a crime in prison for a minimum of 20 years with no chance of parole?

That's fine. I'd also like to make it much more difficult for the criminal (or potential criminal) and mentally unstable from getting the gun in the first place. I'd like to hold gun dealers more accountable for catching and preventing straw purchases. I'd also like to provide some basic gun owner's safety training to first time gun owners. I think there should be background checks required at gun trade shows. None of that should prevent a stable law-abiding citizen from purchasing a gun, but it might make the process a little lengthier/more arduous. And I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

[dan_bgblue]

OK, I get a "thats fine" comment, but that is where the real problem lies, not with more regulations and laws that only serve to regulate the honest citizen's opportunity to protect themselves from those that should be in prison.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, if a person uses a gun with deadly force in the act of committing a crime, I do not think they should live in prison or anywhere else. Let the courts decide guilt and innocence and if convicted of the crime, take them to the courthouse square and hang them that day.

When the jury knows that every crime of this nature is a death penalty case and they will be forced to watch the proceedings, they will be much more conscientious about rendering a verdict and prosecutors and defense will be more mindful of their tactics.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you about law-abiding people with guns. I don't care about that. I want the gun out of the crazy person's hand.

And your solution is to restrict law abiding people's ability to have guns.

[BigBlueBrock]

OK, I get a "thats fine" comment, but that is where the real problem lies, not with more regulations and laws that only serve to regulate the honest citizen's opportunity to protect themselves from those that should be in prison.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, if a person uses a gun with deadly force in the act of committing a crime, I do not think they should live in prison or anywhere else. Let the courts decide guilt and innocence and if convicted of the crime, take them to the courthouse square and hang them that day.

When the jury knows that every crime of this nature is a death penalty case and they will be forced to watch the proceedings, they will be much more conscientious about rendering a verdict and prosecutors and defense will be more mindful of their tactics.

Human beings are not infallible. Given that undeniable fact, it is possible that an innocent person has been and will be sentenced to death. As long as that possibility exists, I cannot support capital punishment.

[BigBlueBrock]

And your solution is to restrict law abiding people's ability to have guns.

As long as they ultimately have the ability to own the gun they want, then a few more hoops for law-abiding citizens is more than reasonable.

[dethbylt]

Malls, theaters, and Wal-Marts in Kentucky do not have armed security. And if you take down "gun free zones," all you end up with is a crowd full of people with guns that don't know how to use them and are as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person as they are to shoot the bad guy. Don't buy it. More guns isn't the answer.

I understand what you are trying to say with this, but it is a direct slap in the face to me. I don't disagree that some gun owners are irresponsible, but dang I have been trained. FWIW, I am not opposed to better training for CC permits. Not everyone has a military or LEO background that affords them proper training.

[CitizenBBN]

I understand what you are trying to say with this, but it is a direct slap in the face to me. I don't disagree that some gun owners are irresponsible, but dang I have been trained. FWIW, I am not opposed to better training for CC permits. Not everyone has a military or LEO background that affords them proper training.

As you know Kentucky does require some, but it's not much. I think the section on grip helps some people who are very handgun inexperienced. The law section is really the class, but it helps on safety too b/c people know when they may be justified and when they're going to prison.

I've probably instructed 80 or so people in the ccdw class and I've only had one person shoot what I'd call bad, and most drill the bowling pin or center mass without much if any effort. That includes a dozen who have never shot a handgun before. None have shown a reckless attitude about safety. I've had to correct a few things, but none of it was major. They're doing this to protect themselves and others, not to feel powerful or play Rambo.

No doubt there are going to be some accidents, but there are also a lot of lives saved and rapes prevented. It's a huge net gain.

I'm glad Kentucky has the class. Even the basic marksmanship helps some, but the section explaining when you are being negligent and when you have the law on your side clarifies a lot of things for people. Answers a lot of questions and helps encourage responsibility.