Gunman Opens Fire During "The Dark Knight Rises"

[Jeff OTMG]

I thought that I might need to come back for this. I have not been around in awhile and it looks as though Kevin is keeping things up. For those of you who don't know me or don't remember, I was active in this thread many years ago.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...highlight=otmg

My immediate concern is that many of you seem to believe what the media tells you without question. The shooter was not wearing body armor. He was not a tea party member. The media, in its quest for ratings, will broadcast anything and everything that they have heard without trying to verify the accuracy just so they can have exclusive information.

It amazes me the number of people who are dancing in celebration that they have an excuse to trumpet the gun control cause. You hear me Bloomberg? I see some of you calling for police and military to be allowed firearms, yet the last mass shooting was by an Army Major in 2009 at Ft Hood, TX. He killed 13 people. More than in the theater. If that is going to happen, why exempt members of the military? This shooting was an anomoly. With gun control becoming more lax over the last 18 years and concealed carry permits now available in 49 states, violent crime, including murder, is down to record lows. If you put these deaths and the situation in perspective, 14 innocent people were killed today, more than in Colorado, when a pickup truck had an accident in Texas. Those people were doing nothing more than riding down the highway, yet they died. There is no call to ban pickup trucks, but using gun control logic the tool is to blame. The deaths of innocent people at the hands of others is going to happen. You can't stop it. Death, horrible death, is a fact of life, look at the drug wars in Mexico, and we all just hope and pray that it doesn't strike to close to our friends and family.

My prayers go out to everyone touched by the tragedy in Colorado.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

In the state of Arizona, which has concealed carry AND some of the most lax gun laws in the country, death by gunshot wound is more common than death by motor vehicle crash. This only happens in 3 states in the union. That is astounding since nationwide motor vehicle crashes account for the majority of deaths of people ages 4-34. Homicide is #2 in the 4-24 group, but that includes all types of homicide. That is a lot of gun violence in Arizona that has not been improved by concealed carry or putting more guns in law abiding citizens hands. More guns does not equal less death by guns.

This is from a report by Josh Sugarman. He is the executive director of the VPC, an anti-gun group. I will not quote information from the NRA because it is biased. According to Sugarman's article in 05/12, there are 10 states where 'gun related deaths' exceed motor vehicle deaths (not motor vehicle related deaths) Arizona: 856 gun deaths, 809 motor vehicle deaths. A motor vehicle 'related' death would be if a car fell off blocks and crushed the guy working on it. If it rolled through a parking lot and ran someone over. If someone started the car and sat in it while in a closed garage committing suicide. Those numbers are probably small, but they are tabulated under other categories, home accident, suicide, etc. What Sugarman doesn't mention is how many of the gun deaths are suicides. According to the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention 36,909 people committed suicide in 2009 and firearms are used in 50% of suicides.

Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseac...135c3a70de1fda

Sugarman fails to mention that of those 856 deaths, about 425 of them were suicides. He conveniently leaves that out because it doesn't help the issue that he is promoting. So homicide, justifiable homicide, and accidental gun deaths in Arizona are about one half of the motor vehicle death rate.

Do not attempt to equate guns with suicide because the suicide rate in Japan is double that of the US and there are not any guns to speak of in Japan, so claiming that suicide rates are related to a prevelance of guns is simply not true.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

This is from a report by Josh Sugarman. He is the executive director of the VPC, an anti-gun group. I will not quote information from the NRA because it is biased. According to Sugarman's article in 05/12, there are 10 states where 'gun related deaths' exceed motor vehicle deaths (not motor vehicle related deaths) Arizona: 856 gun deaths, 809 motor vehicle deaths. A motor vehicle 'related' death would be if a car fell off blocks and crushed the guy working on it. If it rolled through a parking lot and ran someone over. If someone started the car and sat in it while in a closed garage committing suicide. Those numbers are probably small, but they are tabulated under other categories, home accident, suicide, etc. What Sugarman doesn't mention is how many of the gun deaths are suicides. According to the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention 36,909 people committed suicide in 2009 and firearms are used in 50% of suicides.

Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseac...135c3a70de1fda

Sugarman fails to mention that of those 856 deaths, about 425 of them were suicides. He conveniently leaves that out because it doesn't help the issue that he is promoting. So homicide, justifiable homicide, and accidental gun deaths in Arizona are about one half of the motor vehicle death rate.

Do not attempt to equate guns with suicide because the suicide rate in Japan is double that of the US and there are not any guns to speak of in Japan, so claiming that suicide rates are related to a prevelance of guns is simply not true.

However, based on your own evidence. Lives could be saved by stricter gun laws and gun control, regardless of whether they be homicide or suicide, lives could be saved.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But I do have a problem when, in the wake of an incident such as this, we start hearing claims that if only concealed weapons were allowed/allowed more freely/carried more widely, someone could have prevented this or stopped it sooner. Maybe or maybe not. That person with the concealed weapon mIight have helped or they might have made things worse. They're so many variables that I think it's impossible and unrealistic to simply assume a better outcome.

You bring up an interesting point. We cannot know without a doubt that the presence of a concealed permit holder would have changed the outcome. What we can do it look at where it DID make a difference or might have.
1. In 1991 Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a great lady that I have had the opportunity to meet, was in a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, TX when someone drove into the restaurant and killed the people dining there, including her parents. Dr Gratia-Hupp had left her firearm in her car due to Texas law at the time. She was not given the chance to defend her parents. Would it have made a difference? We will never know.
2. It did make a difference in Austin, TX in 1966 when a shooter went to the top of the tower on the university campus and began shooting people. 16 people were killed that day, but the count would have been higher had the people of Austin not taken up arms and began shooting back to keep the shooter's head down. It was three police officers and one armed private citizen who assaulted the tower and killed the shooter. This was the event that was the impetus that created SWAT teams across the US.
3. It did make a difference at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. In 1997 a student walked into school and killed two students after having killed his mother at home, but the assistant principal retrieved a .45 auto pistol from his car and subdued the shooter, holding him for police.
4. It did make a difference in 2002 at Appalachian School of Law. Three people were killed when a former law student went to the campus and started shooting. When he came out of the building there were two armed private citizens who had gone to their cars to retrieve their guns. The shooter surrendered.
5. It did make a difference in the town square in Tyler, TX in 2005 when the shooter opened fire on his son and ex-wife. His ex-wife was killed as was a concealed permit holder who was credited for slowing and distracting the shooter by his intervention until police could arrive in force.
6. I saved my girlfriend from an abduction in progress at a gas stop while we were returning from a trip for Thanksgiving in 1989. Five people were dragging her to their car, but when they saw me approaching with a firearm they left before I could close the gap enough to shoot them accurately.
In only one of these situations were shots fired by the licensed citizen, but their presence lowered the casulty rate considerably.

So although we cannot predict what would have happened with certainty, we can look at past similar situations and may venture a hypothesis that it probably would have reduced the casulty count as it had in the past.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

3. It did make a difference at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. In 1997 a student walked into school and killed two students after having killed his mother at home, but the assistant principal retrieved a .45 auto pistol from his car and subdued the shooter, holding him for police.

I understand that especially in different areas of the country and in different political areas, that gun presence and acceptance may be different, but there is no reason for school staff be it administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, custodians, etc. to have a firearm on property of the building. There are procedures in place, or there should be, especially after Columbine, to lock down schools for such situations without school faculty drawing weapons with the possibility of injuring coworkers or students.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

However, based on your own evidence. Lives could be saved by stricter gun laws and gun control, regardless of whether they be homicide or suicide, lives could be saved.

Where did you get that guns were have a causal effect on homicide or suicide? I specifically was addressing suicide and showed that absolutely no causal effect based on the complete absence of firearms in Japan yet having a suicide rate DOUBLE that of the US.

As far as homicides go, there are countries with no guns, or very few guns, with homicide rates MUCH higher than here. Remember that we are the third most populous country in the world and have nearly one gun for every man, woman, and child here, about 300 million!!

In 2007 there were 12,632 homicide deaths due to firearms. Let's assume that a different gun was used in each homicide. That is something like a .00004% (that's 4 100,000ths of 1%) misuse of firearms. The only reason that the deaths look large is because there are over 300,000,000 people in US.

Again, from my post, where did you see that my statements supported the idea that gun control would help?

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

I understand that especially in different areas of the country and in different political areas, that gun presence and acceptance may be different, but there is no reason for school staff be it administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, custodians, etc. to have a firearm on property of the building. There are procedures in place, or there should be, especially after Columbine, to lock down schools for such situations without school faculty drawing weapons with the possibility of injuring coworkers or students.

It doesn't do any good to lock the doors after the cow gets out. Shooters generally pick 'gun free zones' to do the shootings. You don't ever hear of a robbery at a gun show and I only know of one that was attempted at a gun store. It did not go well for the robber. It is legal in Texas for a teacher to carry a firearm at school after meeting certain criteria. The Flight Deck Officers Program for airline pilots is going very well allowing airline pilots to carry a gun while flying commercial airliners. Teachers in Thailand and Israel have carried firearms to protect the students for decades.

Having armed good guys around is a tremendously effective deterrent against bad guys. It is what the police do only we don't wear a uniform so nobody knows who has a gun. Frankly I am amazed that nobody in the theater was armed. I have been to a movie with friends and there were seven of us in one row that were armed.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

Where did you get that guns were have a causal effect on homicide or suicide? I specifically was addressing suicide and showed that absolutely no causal effect based on the complete absence of firearms in Japan yet having a suicide rate DOUBLE that of the US.

As far as homicides go, there are countries with no guns, or very few guns, with homicide rates MUCH higher than here. Remember that we are the third most populous country in the world and have nearly one gun for every man, woman, and child here, about 300 million!!

In 2007 there were 12,632 homicide deaths due to firearms. Let's assume that a different gun was used in each homicide. That is something like a .00004% (that's 4 100,000ths of 1%) misuse of firearms. The only reason that the deaths look large is because there are over 300,000,000 people in US.

Again, from my post, where did you see that my statements supported the idea that gun control would help?

You were using a 50% firearm suicide rate as argument that firearms cause fewer deaths than simply homicides. If this isn't what you were arguing, then I don't see all the suicide rate statistics as necessary. As an educated individual with 2 strictly mathematics and statistics degrees, I can divide, thanks.

The bottom line is, extra guns floating around can cause extra deaths. In Texas you can use a student ID as valid ID to purchase a gun, but it isn't valid as ID to vote.... there's something wrong with gun control laws when this is the reality of our nation.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

ETA: I know people have commented that, on an everyday basis, there's no reason for civilians to carry guns, but "no reason" doesn't equate to "ban guns."

It is unfortunate, but obviously there is a reason. Think of it as insurance. You have insurance on your car, you have health insurance, you have life insurance. You may have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. You hope that you don't need any of them and never have to use them, but it sure is nice to know that it is there if you need it. Concealed firearms are the same way. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[sigmagirl2000]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

It is unfortunate, but obviously there is a reason. Think of it as insurance. You have insurance on your car, you have health insurance, you have life insurance. You may have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. You hope that you don't need any of them and never have to use them, but it sure is nice to know that it is there if you need it. Concealed firearms are the same way. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Better to have something that someone else has the possibility of getting out of your possession and using against you? or using against someone else? young children perhaps? yeah, clearly this is a great idea. Just because SOME people who go through raining and classes are responsible, doesn't mean that EVERYONE who goes through these actions is responsible or emotionally balanced enough to deserve to carry. Carrying on school grounds is still ridiculous and a good reason to never educate in Texas.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

It is unfortunate, but obviously there is a reason. Think of it as insurance. You have insurance on your car, you have health insurance, you have life insurance. You may have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. You hope that you don't need any of them and never have to use them, but it sure is nice to know that it is there if you need it. Concealed firearms are the same way. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

No. Bad analogy.

And opinions are opinions. Unlike insurance and fire extinguishers, data does not suggest that it is better to have a gun and not "need it" ("need" is relative) than to need it and not have it. Rather, the data finds that owning or having access to a gun increases likelihood of victimization among law abiding civilians and the rate of offending for certain offenses. "Having it and not needing it" does not reduce the likelihood and rate of victimization.

As for what someone said about suicide and gun access, gun access does increase the rate of lethal violence in cultures in which lethal violence is correlated (not caused) with gun access. For example, men have a higher rate of suicide than women and men have a higher rate of gun suicides than women. This gender dynamic in completed and attempted suicides is associated with a number of factors including the higher likelihood of men to have access to and therefore use guns whereas women use devices that they tend to have greater access to such as prescription drugs and razors/knives. Again, there is a correlation which means that guns make lethal violence "quicker", "easier", and more permanent.

The higher rate of suicide in Japan as compared to the United States of America has been studied in comparison with other forms of lethal violence such as homicides and vehicle deaths. Yes, Japan has this higher rate of suicide without the gun access. That is only a testament to people using whatever means necessary in the absence of "easier" means. If Japan was a culture in which gun access was more highly regarded, and they lacked proper social control mechanisms in a similar fashion as the United States of America, they would most likely have a homicide rate more comparable to the United States of America (we have the highest rate among "industrialized nations"). The suicide rate in Japan could possibly increase in line with the greater access to quicker and more lethal forms of harm if, again, guns were thrown into the equation without the proper control mechanisms. It would also shift suicide attempts to completed suicides. There is absolutely no debate that guns truly are the "quickest" and "easiest" form of harming oneself and others for those who are motivated to engage in such behaviors.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No. Bad analogy.

And opinions are opinions. Unlike insurance and fire extinguishers, data does not suggest that it is better to have a gun and not "need it" ("need" is relative) than to need it and not have it. Rather, the data finds that owning or having access to a gun increases likelihood of victimization among law abiding civilians and the rate of offending for certain offenses. "Having it and not needing it" does not reduce the likelihood and rate of victimization.

As for what someone said about suicide and gun access, gun access does increase the rate of lethal violence in cultures in which lethal violence is correlated (not caused) by gun access. Men, for example, tend to have a higher rate of gun suicides than women. Again, there is a correlation which means that guns make lethal violence "easier". The higher rate of suicide in Japan as compared to the United States of America has been studied in comparison with other forms of lethal violence such as homicides and vehicle deaths. Yes, Japan has this higher rate of suicide without the gun access. That is only a testament to people using whatever means necessary in the absence of "easier" means. If Japan was a culture in which gun access was more highly regarded, and they lacked proper social control mechanisms in a similar fashion as the United States of America, they would most likely have a homicide rate more comparable to the United States of America (we have the highest rate among "industrialized nations"). The suicide rate in Japan could possibly increase in line with the greater access to quicker and more lethal forms of harm if, again, guns were thrown into the equation without the proper control mechanisms. It would also shift suicide attempts to completed suicides. There is absolutely no debate that guns truly are the "quickest" and "easiest" form of harming oneself and others for those who are motivated to engage in such behaviors.

Thank you.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I guess it depends on how you define "doesn't really matter". I'd also want to know how many deaths were suicides, accidents, police shooting suspects, etc.

Anyone have the stats on Switzerland?

It doesn't matter because you are already given a comparison...the number of motor vehicle deaths which happen to be the de facto #1 cause of death in every other state in the union. Per capita data is just comparison data. You don't need to points of comparison. One really will suffice. The breakdown of types of gunshot causes might be interesting to talk about for prevention (the whole point of bringing up the need for discussing the change in #1 cause of death in these states), but suicide and accidents can't be removed from those numbers as they are valid types of preventable gun violence.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Thank you.

If this discussion must occur, it must be an accurate discussion.

On a more interesting note:

Violent theater scene to be cut from "Gangster Squad" movie

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

You were using a 50% firearm suicide rate as argument that firearms cause fewer deaths than simply homicides. If this isn't what you were arguing, then I don't see all the suicide rate statistics as necessary.

No, I was saying that 50% of the gun deaths were suicides when comparing them to vehicle fatalities and that you can't count suicides because firearms do not cause suicide. It is because Sugarman needs those numbers included to make a point and makes in sound like there are more firearms homicides than vehicular deaths. It is about 50/50 but it tends to cheat more to the suicide and is closer to 55/45.

Originally Posted by sigmagirl2000

The bottom line is, extra guns floating around can cause extra deaths. In Texas you can use a student ID as valid ID to purchase a gun, but it isn't valid as ID to vote.... there's something wrong with gun control laws when this is the reality of our nation.

Not true. There are hundreds of thousands of new firearms entering into the general population every year yet the crime and murder rate is down, so extra guns 'floating around' (I don't know that term) do not cause extra deaths.

As far as ID's go, the required ID for purchasing a firearm is set by federal law. One thing that a student ID will show is a residency requirement set under federal law. Voting laws are controlled by indiviual states and you must be a citizen to vote. There are foreign exchange students who have student ID's, but are not allowed to vote. Under certain circumstances they may me allowed to purchase firearms. The federal law regarding foreign nationals changed under the Clinton administration.