So how many.....

[gcarter]

I don't want to raise the ire of The Harbormaster, nor does this need any kind of conclusion. In fact, I even deleted the final conclusion of the author so that you can reach your own.
But, here's some interesting data provided by none other than the FBI:

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html), the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11), there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html) each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.




http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

[BUIZILLA]

George, interesting story, and yes, I read it elsewhere already ;)

IMO, the report should have included ALL style firearms (pistols, revolvers, rifles, bazooka's, whatever...) the same way it included ALL style hammers and clubs (tire irons, bricks, mailbox's, etc.)

that would be more accurate

[Carl C]

George, interesting story, and yes, I read it elsewhere already ;)

IMO, the report should have included ALL style firearms (pistols, revolvers, rifles, bazooka's, whatever...) the same way it included ALL style hammers and clubs (tire irons, bricks, mailbox's, etc.)

that would be more accurate

Exactly. That makes the whole report pretty much worthless.

[gcarter]

OK, so here's the FBI data file for 2010:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls

Less than half were w/hand guns, and a small fraction was w/rifles.
The significance of rifles is important because that's the weapon certain members of Congress is targeting.

[gcarter]

Another interesting point in the data is that arguments accounted for 7K deaths of all types.

The lesson here is don't get into an argument.

[dsparis]

Data
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=youtu.be

[Offset]

Isn't the old saying "statistics never lie but liars work with statistics". I think there probably is a case to show any numbers in a positive light if that is what you want to achieve.

[gcarter]

Some more statistics.............

[Ghost]

From a statistical perspective it is also important to consider that a HUGE chunk of the homicide stats are drug-prohibition-based fights over territory and such. These drug killings are just like those during alcohol Prohibition: large numbers of murders that have virtually zero probability of occurring to the average person. If you're in the game, it's a huge risk. If you're a citizen, very little risk. With two clear implications:


If you want to assess the real risk of murder (with a gun or otherwise) it is FAR, FAR lower than even the stats that George cited. For the same reason that citizens here have almost zero liklihood of being killed in overseas combat, and thus that those homicides would be terribly misleading if included in notions of typical murder risk.
If you want to save a lot of time, lives, and squandered-resources that drag down the economy, and if you recognize that alcohol prohibition was a total disaster...

[gcarter]

Mike, I was thinking that if the tobacco, alcohol, drug, and medical accident rates went up a bit more, it'd probably have a tendency to lower our Medicaid costs!


I'm only kidding...................

[woobs]

Some more statistics.............

Consider Drug abuse, Tobacco and alcohol abuse as long term suicides.
The rest are accidents except...

Homicide. It is deliberate and not self inflicted, therefore a different category than the others and the only relevant one. (so as not to cloud the issue)

A punk with a gun is much more brave than a punk without a gun. Make them harder to acquire, and reduce the number of total guns and you WILL see a drop in gun homicides. (I would assume woundings would go up). Still, it's hard to kill 30 people at one event in a knife or baseball bat rage all on your onesies.

Pull all the stats you want, and muddy the waters as you may but, deny this and you are just kidding yourself.
Just get rid of the guns.

...and here it comes.... 3, 2, 1....

[Just Say N20]

Woobs,

Easy to predict a response when your logic is flawed.

This says it better than I could, so I will simply paste it below.

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced."

[Ghost]

Mike, I was thinking that if the tobacco, alcohol, drug, and medical accident rates went up a bit more, it'd probably have a tendency to lower our Medicaid costs!


I'm only kidding...................


LOL. :)

Quick aside, I DO wonder what the real effect of smoking is on the overall healthcare costs. My guess is that dying early, quickly, and simply is ideal in the eyes of the actuarials. To the extent that smoking increases heart attacks, I suspect it might be better for society, if one views things through the warped prism of "greater good" rather than the crisp lens of individual freedom.

I suppose if they mandate smoking eventually, we'll know. Or not, given the incompetence...

[gcarter]

Maybe Sean, but again, maybe not.
Firearm related homicide is only 68% of non-firearm related homicides.
And it's only 0.5% of medical accidents (Am I missing some outrage here?)

If you look at a country like England (referenced above) where there are no privately owned firearms (handguns), and the violent crime rate is 3.5 times the US.
Obviously, guns themselves aren't the problem. Maybe broken families, education, and other inner city problems are the issue.
Why don't we start there?
Bad people are going to get guns, (I suppose even in Canada, a determined person can get one) so those homicides relating to bad people probably won't change.

[Just Say N20]

Something also to consider, because people continually attempt to demonstrate something about violence/crime/guns by comparing the USA to other countries.

Another cut/paste that brings up some interesting points to consider.

I agree that there is a very strong argument that gun control has not made other countries safer, but that whatever the results in other countries they cannot be directly compared to the US for a variety of reasons.

The United States is unique in its cultural, legal, and historical attachment to firearms. The right of private citizens to bear arms has been entrenched in our culture for nearly a quarter of a millennium, nowhere else is that the case. A gun ban like the ones enacted in the UK or Australia will have very different results because:

1. The people here see the 2nd amendment as one of the most important checks and balances on government power. Trying to gut it would have similar results to the president dissolving congress, the supreme court being abolished, the right to vote being restricted, etc. Many people would see it as a very big red line that had been crossed. One possible (and somewhat likely) result would be a civil war resulting in millions dead on both sides.

Even if this did not occur, people would not comply with the buyback or confiscation to the same degree they have in other countries. It is culturally ingrained from a young age that gun ownership is a right that the government has no right to curtail. You would have a much higher instance of people claiming to have “lost” their guns, hiding them in creative places, and otherwise actively working to undermine the confiscation. Even in the absence of open rebellion, many millions would passively resist on a scale many times greater than other nations. If you don’t believe me on this then ask yourself why Americans buy so many millions of guns and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition every time the politicians start talking about a ban. Would they be buying weapons and ammo in anticipation of a potential ban if they had any intention of complying with it? Who buys something just to go and turn it back in? The shelves in gun stores across the country are empty. The intent to resist, in force or in spirit, any gun control measure is palpable here.

2. There are over 300 million guns in this country already. Guns do not go bad. I’ve shot firearms made in the 19th century and ammunition manufactured before my grandparents were born. If properly stored, guns and ammunition last virtually forever. Even if you banned them all tomorrow and grabbed every one you could find, they’d still be turning up in basements across the country for the next 200 years in perfect working condition. The number of existing firearms coupled with the cultural resistance described above would create a situation unseen in other nations that have implemented bans.

3. The US has a porous southern border through which a tremendous amount of contraband flows. If they cannot stop 12 million illegals and however many millions of tons of drugs, how are they going to stop weapons? Australia and England are basically islands, they share none of the border problems the US has.

Regardless of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of having a “gun free” society, that is not an option in the US. There is no way, short of a full police state, to implement it here. Any attempt at doing so, even assuming it didn’t start a bloody conflict, would fail miserably to disarm criminals to an extent even greater than similar programs have in other countries. Arguing for gun control in America “because it worked in country X” is like arguing that we should grow sugar cane in Antarctica because it works so well in other places. I wish foreigners, and those who praise their programs, would consider these things before demanding that America follow their “enlightened” example.

[Carl C]

The baseball bat is the most common murder weapon...
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww45/simons77_photos/beatdeadhorse5.gif

[joseph m. hahnl]

LOL. :)

Quick aside, I DO wonder what the real effect of smoking is on the overall healthcare costs. My guess is that dying early, quickly, and simply is ideal in the eyes of the actuarials. To the extent that smoking increases heart attacks, I suspect it might be better for society, if one views things through the warped prism of "greater good" rather than the crisp lens of individual freedom.

I suppose if they mandate smoking eventually, we'll know. Or not, given the incompetence...


You should only have to wonder how smoking affects you.But you now how it goes with employment insurance. They'll bleed everybody, even if only one person in your group where sick from resipatory or heart disease. Add a little age to the mix. And presto,Your group will pay out the wazu.

Tobacco, is a high dollar industry accross the boards, and to be frank the government only really cares that children don't smoke. Don't fool yourself thinking that it would ever be, illegal to sell or buy. Politicians are banking on those deaths related to Tobacco, so they don't have to pay out the Social Security benefits. Guaranteed that, that death rate is figured into there equation on when SS will run out.





The baseball bat is the most common murder weapon...
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww45/simons77_photos/beatdeadhorse5.gif

That's because you don't have to wait seven days to buy one, no FBI background check, and you don't have to reload

[mattyboy]

throwing someone into the path of an oncoming number 7 has been seen lately in NYC

[Carl C]

That's because you don't have to wait seven days to buy one, no FBI background check, and you don't have to reload

Well, since baseball bats kill people we may have to revisit that policy. I think there should be a waiting period to buy one and they should have serial #s and be registered. Might have to outright ban the aluminum ones since they are obvious killing machines.

[hardcrab]

If theres someone in my house in the middle of the night,

it becomes the bottom of the 9th with two outs.

[harbormaster]

Nancy pelosi's law will make more criminals out of normally law abiding citizens.

So instead of having registered firearms, you will have a majority of these weapons hidden from view that are not on the government radar. A new illegal underground black market will be created which will create even more danger and criminals.

I will never give up my firearms to be destroyed. Some of you out there may want to be herded like cattle but i choose to not be.

[Marlin275]

Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it?

The FBI is concerned that 57 police officers were slain by their own weapons grabbed from them during the 1990s.

"Law-abiding, responsible gun owners who choose to have a gun to protect their families would rather have a gun that was safer," Lowy said.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-21/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-smartgunsbre8bj18e-20121220_1_smart-gun-technology-gun-advocates-gun-policy

TriggerSmart (https://gust.com/c/triggersmart), an Irish company, has patented a childproof smart-gun. One feature is a “safe zone” that can be installed in schools and acts as a force field, disabling any TriggerSmart gun that enters a designated area. Robert McNamara, the company’s founder, has been trying to persuade gun makers to adopt the technology. He isn’t having much luck. “One gun manufacturer told us if we put this technology in one particular gun and some kid gets shot with another gun, then they will have to put them in all guns,” he said.

[Ghost]

Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it?

The FBI is concerned that 57 police officers were slain by their own weapons grabbed from them during the 1990s.

"Law-abiding, responsible gun owners who choose to have a gun to protect their families would rather have a gun that was safer," Lowy said.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-21/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-smartgunsbre8bj18e-20121220_1_smart-gun-technology-gun-advocates-gun-policy

TriggerSmart (https://gust.com/c/triggersmart), an Irish company, has patented a childproof smart-gun. One feature is a “safe zone” that can be installed in schools and acts as a force field, disabling any TriggerSmart gun that enters a designated area. Robert McNamara, the company’s founder, has been trying to persuade gun makers to adopt the technology. He isn’t having much luck. “One gun manufacturer told us if we put this technology in one particular gun and some kid gets shot with another gun, then they will have to put them in all guns,” he said.


Setting aside the massive reliabilty problem it introduces for the law-abiding gun owner...

And the problem of hacking...

And the problem of allowing the government to disable the guns of the law-abiding at it's own whim, when the highest purpose of those guns is to allow the law-abiding people to protect themselves from that government...

From an engineering perspective, how hard do you think it would be for a criminal to de-triggersmart a gun? And thus to make the "force-field" into yet another incredibly expensive waste of taxpayer money? The mass-shootings we've seen have usually been planned for some time. Just add de-triggersmarting to the checklist for the mentally-ill would-be mass-murderer.

[BUIZILLA]

you could add a fingerprint lock pad to the stock..

bank safes use this

so do home gun cabinets

[Ghost]

you could add a fingerprint lock pad to the stock..

bank safes use this

so do home gun cabinets


Definitely preferable (to get rid of hacking and government disabling) but again, from an engineering perspective, how hard does anyone think that would be to disable?

And adding anything electrical, which requires power of course, creates a HUGE drop in reliability and ruggedness.

[Marlin275]

Setting aside the massive reliabilty problem it introduces for the law-abiding gun owner...

And the problem of hacking...

And the problem of allowing the government to disable the guns of the law-abiding at it's own whim, when the highest purpose of those guns is to allow the law-abiding people to protect themselves from that government...

From an engineering perspective, how hard do you think it would be for a criminal to de-triggersmart a gun? And thus to make the "force-field" into yet another incredibly expensive waste of taxpayer money? The mass-shootings we've seen have usually been planned for some time. Just add de-triggersmarting to the checklist for the mentally-ill would-be mass-murderer.

Mike what do you think might help the problem?

[Ghost]

Mike what do you think might help the problem?

GREAT question.

Answer: Step 1: define the problem SPECIFICALLY, such that we can DEFINE prospective solutions for evaluation. Then we can examine specific pros and cons, and decide what, if anything, would be an improvement.

To do anything else is the time-tested wrong answer to almost everything: "ready, fire, aim." (Or, perhaps more likely, "ready, fire.")

[f_inscreenname]

The 2 main issues with "safer guns" are to great at this time.
1st, a gun with a trigger lock or some sort of chip in it needs some sort of key open it. A ring or bracelet or even an implanted chip. I wear a wedding ring but its on my left hand and I'm right handed and I don't wear any other jewelry. To be honest I 'm not even a fan of the wedding ring being it tore my knuckle off a few years back. And I'm not having chips implanted.
2nd, most folks don't have a clue on how many "dumb" guns there really is out there. If every new gun sold was a smart gun dumb guns would still be around a 100 years from now.

[Marlin275]

GREAT question.

Answer: Step 1: define the problem SPECIFICALLY, such that we can DEFINE prospective solutions for evaluation.


A member of your family was one of the victims of these incidents.
Do you feel the need to find an answer to help prevent it again?

[Ghost]

A member of your family was one of the victims of these incidents.
Do you feel the need to find an answer to help prevent it again?


First, I ask that you don't remind me that one of my family had her life taken in one of these incidents. I mentioned that before ONLY because I didn't care to be accused of somehow "not caring," either implicitly or explicitly. (Ironically, only to have someone do exactly that immediately afterward.) So, let's agree to drop that. The point is that nobody needs to run around accusing anyone of not caring about victims in this discussion, it is beneath all of us. (After all, if anyone believed that about someone he's talking to, I think we could all agree that such discussion would be fairly pointless.)

As for what I feel the need for, that's a bit of a moot point in my view. I feel the everpresent need to make sense. I feel the need to think problems through logically rather than take foolish or dangerous actions based on panicked reflex.

Which leads back to my question: what is the SPECIFIC problem you wish to address, such that we can consider the SPECIFIC pros and cons of any possible courses of action?

[Ghost]

A member of your family was one of the victims of these incidents.
Do you feel the need to find an answer to help prevent it again?


First, I don't need any reminding of my family's loss. I mentioned it once, only because I did not wish, explicitly or impliciitly, to be accused of "not caring" about the victims. (Ironically, only to have someone do exactly that.) So let's drop that discussion. Besides, I think we can all agree that if anyone truly believes he's talking to someone who doesn't care about the victims, the discussion has little point. (In fact, I will go a step further. As much as the previous discussion was far more civil than many we have seen, I don't care to go any further with this discussion unless it stays a good bit more civil. Just a waste of time and energy otherwise.)

As for what I feel the need to do? Short version is I feel the everpresent need to make sense. I feel the need to think through potential courses of action rather than adopting measures out of panicked reflex. And I feel the need to stick firmly to the default of the null hypothesis over any others, as does anyone who is being scientific and reasonable.

Which brings us back to the question: SPECIFICALLY, what problem is it you wish to address, such that we may evaluate the pros and cons of potential courses of action? Let's start with that, it seems the sensible place.

[Marlin275]

As much as the previous discussion was far more civil than many we have seen, I don't care to go any further with this discussion unless it stays a good bit more civil. Just a waste of time and energy otherwise.)

and nothing
but civil . . .



As for what I feel the need to do? Short version is I feel the everpresent need to make sense.

I agree . . .


I feel the need to think through potential courses of action rather than adopting measures out of panicked reflex. And I feel the need to stick firmly to the default of the null hypothesis over any others, as does anyone who is being scientific and reasonable.

I posted that, as serious scientific study has been held up from the 90s because of . . .
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

I am open to any scientific study you find.



Which brings us back to the question: SPECIFICALLY, what problem is it you wish to address, such that we may evaluate the pros and cons of potential courses of action?

I have given three answers to help prevent it again . . .

not releasing murderers names, making them F A M O U S for killing John Lennon or anyone else
reducing gun shootings and murder to the lowest level ever recorded - NYC style
and now smart gun tech that preserves EVERY legal owner's rights

[Ghost]

Timeout, we're putting the cart before the horse. Let's not skip to people's proposed solutions, what is the specific definition of the problem? Proposed solutions should come later. Bear with me on this, it's not pedantic as it may sound--there's good reason to define the problem well first.

[gcarter]

I'm not being callous, but, things need to be in perspective.
When a full school bus has an accident and 20-50 folks lose their lives, it quickly becomes apparent there aren't agendas (not many anyway) that demand banning school buses. The statistics don't separate deaths due to school bus accidents, they're lumped in w/auto accidents (I suppose), but there're 35K people killed every year. I think I read about 50% of auto accidents involve someone using alcohol, and drinking and driving is illegal. So where's the outrage about changing everyone's lives when auto/school bus accidents happen.
As mentioned earlier, there're 200K annual deaths caused by medical accidents. Why is there no outrage against doctors and nurses that take the lives of 1,000,000 people every five years?

My point is there're people who fundamentally want to change our constitution and country.
This really isn't about safer guns, bad people owning guns, registration of guns, or types of guns.
It's about anyone owning guns. When it's obvious the removal of guns won't really significantly reduce the number of homicides, or that the President's official residence city has a significant percentage of the annual gun related homicides, yet absolutely NOTHING is done about those homicides, it's obvious there is another agenda involved.

[Carl C]

When Scot closes a thread because it has become a little too political does that mean that you start a new one. No one is ever going to agree on this.... :bonk::smash::propeller::cartman::banghead::boggle d::lightning:rolleyes::kyle::stan::uzi:

[Marlin275]

what is the specific definition of the problem?

reducing shootings and mass murders

A poll conducted by the coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, showed that 69 percent of self-identified NRA members favor closing the gun show loophole
which allows persons to purchase assault weapons without a background check.
The release of this poll by Republican pollster Frank Luntz has the NRA leadership fuming.

[Ghost]

When Scot closes a thread because it has become a little too political does that mean that you start a new one. No one is ever going to agree on this.... :bonk::smash::propeller::cartman::banghead::boggle d::lightning:rolleyes::kyle::stan::uzi:



Scot's pretty sharp. As I recall, he didn't stop it because it was too political, he stopped it when it started getting a bit heated and it appeared there was little else to say. This has a slightly different bent, and Scot has joined in the discussion rather than stopping it. So, I'd leave it to him to make the call. I, for one, am trying to keep it from being heated in any way. I intend to show more discipline than I did in the last thread, in an attempt to make it a better discussion.

[Ghost]

reducing shootings and mass murderers or

A poll conducted by the coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, showed that 69 percent of self-identified NRA members favor closing the gun show loophole which allows persons to purchase assault weapons without a background check.
The release of this poll by Republican pollster Frank Luntz has the NRA leadership fuming.

Can I ask that you wait on proposed solutions until we agree on a specific definition of a problem? So, let's hold off on the mayors or whatever. Reducing the number of shootings and reducing the number of mass murders are different things. Do you want to pick one, or do you have two problems you are trying to solve?

[Marlin275]

Reducing the number of shootings and reducing the number of mass murders are different things.
Do you want to pick one, or do you have two problems you are trying to solve?

NYC has one policy to solve all gun murder and shootings.

A dedicated, never ending commitment to doing everything possible to stop gun violence.

New York City recorded 414 homicides for 2012 and if NYC had Baltimore’s murder rate
it would have a total of more than 2,870 murders last year.

Guns remained the leading cause of murder in NYC again in 2012.
Of the 414 homicides for 2012, 237 were by firearms.
This is 61 fewer gun related murders than last year, a decrease of 20 percent.

They are preventing crimes before someone is killed and before someone else has to go to prison for murder or other serious crimes.
They are also forging new alliances with advocates for public safety in every corner of the city.

The city credits the NYPD's Operation Impact program, which focuses on "violence-prone areas"
and has been in effect (http://gothamist.com/2007/12/27/with_new_york_c.php) since 2003, with the lower statistics.

[VetteLT193]

I'm with Ghost on this one as I solve problems the same way... Heck, my job can be defined as a problem solver and I'm darn good at it. First thing to do is figure out exactly what the problem is. Once I know what the problem is I can figure out a way to solve it.

I can't solve people's feelings or knee jerk reactions.

I have 2 young kids in school. My heart sank over the children that died that day in Newton. However, the thought that my kids are any less safe/unsafe in school never crossed my mind. I was actually annoyed when my daughter's principal sent a message after the shooting about about them tightening security. Anyone with half a brain knows you can get into a school if you have a gun. My daughters' school has glass doors and glass walls throughout the building 'for security' (it is a brand new school with the latest in technology). Anyone could shoot their way in or simply drive a truck straight into the building, through 2 sets of glass doors and one glass wall, and drive into the kindergarten section. I can tell you that if that happened no one would be trying to outlaw trucks.

If memory serves the nutjob from the Colorado movie shooting had rigged his house with a bomb so he was capable of creating his own form of destructive device that he could have used if he didn't have access to guns. The Oklahoma City Bombing included the use of a Ryder truck to store and move the bomb... car bombings have been around for a century yet there is no knee jerk reaction against cars. Why not force all cars and trucks to be see through to eliminate this problem? It's certainly possible but no one would present the idea because it's insane.

[Ghost]

Mike what do you think might help the problem?


GREAT question.

Answer: Step 1: define the problem SPECIFICALLY, such that we can DEFINE prospective solutions for evaluation. Then we can examine specific pros and cons, and decide what, if anything, would be an improvement.

To do anything else is the time-tested wrong answer to almost everything: "ready, fire, aim." (Or, perhaps more likely, "ready, fire.")


Do you feel the need to find an answer to help prevent [another of "these incidents"] again?


As for what I feel the need for, that's a bit of a moot point in my view. I feel the everpresent need to make sense. I feel the need to think problems through logically rather than take foolish or dangerous actions based on panicked reflex.

Which leads back to my question: what is the SPECIFIC problem you wish to address, such that we can consider the SPECIFIC pros and cons of any possible courses of action?


I posted that, as serious scientific study has been held up from the 90s because of . . .
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

I am open to any scientific study you find.

I have given three answers to help prevent it again . . .

not releasing murderers names, making them F A M O U S for killing John Lennon or anyone else
reducing gun shootings and murder to the lowest level ever recorded - NYC style
and now smart gun tech that preserves EVERY legal owner's rights


Timeout, we're putting the cart before the horse. Let's not skip to people's proposed solutions, what is the specific definition of the problem? Proposed solutions should come later. Bear with me on this, it's not pedantic as it may sound--there's good reason to define the problem well first.


reducing shootings and mass murders

A poll conducted by the coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, showed that 69 percent of self-identified NRA members favor closing the gun show loophole
which allows persons to purchase assault weapons without a background check.
The release of this poll by Republican pollster Frank Luntz has the NRA leadership fuming.


Can I ask that you wait on proposed solutions until we agree on a specific definition of a problem? So, let's hold off on the mayors or whatever. Reducing the number of shootings and reducing the number of mass murders are different things. Do you want to pick one, or do you have two problems you are trying to solve?


NYC has one policy to solve all gun murder and shootings.

A dedicated, never ending commitment to doing everything possible to stop gun violence.

New York City recorded 414 homicides for 2012 and if NYC had Baltimore’s murder rate
it would have a total of more than 2,870 murders last year.

Guns remained the leading cause of murder in NYC again in 2012.
Of the 414 homicides for 2012, 237 were by firearms.
This is 61 fewer gun related murders than last year, a decrease of 20 percent.

They are preventing crimes before someone is killed and before someone else has to go to prison for murder or other serious crimes.
They are also forging new alliances with advocates for public safety in every corner of the city.

The city credits the NYPD's Operation Impact program, which focuses on "violence-prone areas"
and has been in effect (http://gothamist.com/2007/12/27/with_new_york_c.php) since 2003, with the lower statistics.


The closest you've come to answering the question about what SPECIFIC, measurable problem or problems you wish to solve is:


reducing shootings and mass murders

But when asked to clarify what that means, you've not done so and have jumped back to putting the cart before the horse, offering "solutions" to a still-undefined problem or set of problems. Did you mean "reducing the number of shootings" or "reducing the number of innocent people who are shot and/or killed?" I don't care a lick how many innocent people shoot and kill would-be rapists/murderers/thieves. I'll happily trade every violent crime for a shooting death of the perpetrator of that violent crime. Further, did you actually mean "mass murders" or did you mean "mass shootings?" Or did you mean reducing the total numbers of PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLED and WOUNDED in mass-shooting incidents?

The two "problems" at which you have hinted (they are as yet hopelessly undefined) are DIFFERENT THINGS. It is absolutely illogical to assume a particular "solution" to one would not make the other one worse. Moreover, it is absolutely illogical to consider only presumed benefits without weighing them against the negatives. If one seeks "a dedicated, never ending commitment to doing everything possible to stop gun violence" then one is clearly ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Want to end all "gun violence" in the USA overnight? Let's nuke ourselves. It's absurd, just as is any attempt to manipulate a statistic without regard to the consequences.

So, last time, what SPECIFIC problem or problems are you trying to solve? As noted before, without defining the problem there is no such thing as a solution.

[Marlin275]

what SPECIFIC problem or problems are you trying to solve?

Reasonable answers to reduce criminal violence.

[dsparis]

Thats petty vague

[Marlin275]

Thats petty vague

Guns are the biggest part of that question but the Oklahoma City massacre lead to real results.

Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives
so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.

In 2008, Honeywell announced that it had developed a nitrogen-based fertilizer that would not detonate when mixed with fuel oil.

[dsparis]

Marlin lets try it this way. What do you propose that will STOP mass shootings/killings. Please be specific.

[Marlin275]

What do you propose that will STOP mass shootings/killings. Please be specific.

not releasing murderers names, making them F A M O U S for killing John Lennon or anyone else

reducing criminal gun shootings and murder to the lowest level ever recorded - NYC style

smart gun tech that preserves EVERY legal owner's rights

closing the gun show loophole which allows persons to purchase assault weapons without a background check

[VetteLT193]

Guns are the biggest part of that question but the Oklahoma City massacre lead to real results.

Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives
so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.

In 2008, Honeywell announced that it had developed a nitrogen-based fertilizer that would not detonate when mixed with fuel oil.

You realize that the CO. shooter had rigged his house with a Bomb right? It's pure luck that it didn't get set off. He set up a trip wire inside to set it off AND he set up a loud stereo outside with a R/C car remote next to it. If someone took the R/C car remote and tried it... like say, a kid, ....boom.

If someone gets in the mindset that they are going to kill people they will find a way to kill people. Guns or no guns. Build a bomb, drive a car into people, set a fire, you name it.

As a society we live with destructive devices every day. It's one of the things we teach our children as they grow... what to stay away from, what to respect, and how to handle these things. This could be anything from guns, gasoline, lawnmowers, boats, chainsaws, even a stove in someone's kitchen. A normal person learns to respect all the things in the world and understands the risks associated to each thing. Someone without the basic meaning of life itself though can use any of those things and a whole lot more to cause damage. The tool is not the issue and is not the fix. The crazy person will just move on to the next readily available tool.

[Ghost]

(Quick aside, post 44 above, however, is jumping toward proposed solutions again, which is why I'm skipping that stuff entirely, along with the subsequent Marlin/dsparis sub-thread. That's fine for those who want to go that route, but for reasons I've stated, I think it is putting the cart before the horse to talk about "solutions" without defining the problem. So, I'm going to continue with problem definition until we settle on that.)


Reasonable answers to reduce criminal violence.

I think this is actually moving a LOT closer to the right answer. It's big step forward. It still misses the mark in some absolutely critical ways, but it is serious progress. And as was noted, the statement above is VERY vague, but it turns out even though that makes things harder in some ways, it's actually good. It also illuminatss part of what I've been getting at: focus in too closely on one thing and you miss the real big-picture problems and goals, and risk messing up lots of other things you glossed over when you picked a tree and missed the forest.

"CRIMINAL" IS THE WRONG WORD
Looking more closely, I think it should be easy to agree that 'criminal' is the wrong word for sure. Because 'criminal' just means in conflict with the law and there is plenty of horrendous law and there will always be the potential for lots more. Most of us support the American Revolution, but the colonists' actions against the British were all absolutely criminal in the eyes of the law. Thinking, talking and meeting to even CONSIDER rebellion were all criminal acts. Slaves escaping or rebelling were criminal acts by those slaves. Harboring an escaped slave was criminal. Aiding an escaped slave was criminal. Failing to report escaped slave sightings was criminal. Etc.

(In fact, it's kind of sneaky until you see it, but when we discuss what the law SHOULD BE, 'criminal' CANNOT be part of a sensible definition. Because by definition, criminal will be WHATEVER is outside the bounds of ANY law we consider, rightly or wrongly. Pick any arbitrary law, no matter how absurd, and 'criminal' will simply be anything that defies it, right or wrong. If slapping is outlawed, then slapping a rapist is criminal violence. Even more so if rape is legalized.) So, we absolutely need to get rid of the 'criminal' part of the phrase and replace it with something more suitable. More on that in a sec.

WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE A "PROBLEM" SUCH THAT WE CAN THEN DEVISE SOLUTIONS
The phrase "Reasonable answers to reduce criminal violence" is really a set of solutions, not a definition of a problem. But no biggie, that's semantic and it is easy to strip out by the way it is written. The PROBLEM noted in the phrase is "criminal violence."

Though, we just pointed out that 'criminal' is clearly wrong, and it needs to be replaced with something that reflects a distinction of ethical right vs. wrong, rather than legal vs. illegal, which is inherently blind to ethics and subject to any unjust law. Fixing this gets us to a problem definition more like 'unjust violence' or 'violence used against the innocent.' This is really getting somewhere now, I think. Though I still see one more big hole in it.

'VIOLENCE' DOESN'T QUITE COVER IT
Violence alone is too narrow to cover the problem. If your local mobster comes to your door and smiles, and asks you to give him money, and asks about the health of your wife and children, he's not technically committing an act of violence by most people's definition. He's THREATENING violence, however. And if you pay him, and he leaves you alone until it is time for the next payment, the violence itself never happens. But you're still being robbed.

So 'violence,' in its usual definition, kind-of requires that the actual act of violence occurs Whereas 'force' is more broad in the way most use it. The mobster is 'forcing' you to pay even if you do pay, and the threatened violence doesn't take place. Force is broad enough to cover both violence that is threatened and violence that takes place. That gets us to a problem definition more like 'unjust force' or 'force used against the innocent.' And now, I believe, we're cooking.

Probably a good time to pause, for anyone with other suggested refinements to the problem definition to chime in...

[Just Say N20]

Guns are the biggest part of that question but the Oklahoma City massacre lead to real results.

Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives
so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.

Not to cloud the issue, but it would appear that you feel these are "real results.". How does requiring chemical taggants do anything at all to prevent illegal bomb making? It might help you catch the bad guy after the fact, but it won't do anything at all to prevent him from making the bomb and killing a bunch of people.

I'm only asking because we have been discussing things that could be done to PREVENT mass killings by bad guys.

[Marlin275]

Not to cloud the issue, but it would appear that you feel these are "real results.". How does requiring chemical taggants do anything at all to prevent illegal bomb making? It might help you catch the bad guy after the fact, but it won't do anything at all to prevent him from making the bomb and killing a bunch of people.

I'm only asking because we have been discussing things that could be done to PREVENT mass killings by bad guys.


KNOWING that you have an excellent chance of getting caught
might help prevent SOME incidents.

[gcarter]

Keep in mind that in most of the rest of the world, explosives are the weapon of choice.
It's probably only because guns ore so readily available here in the US that we don't see many explosions.
Let's face it, you can make a bomb out of practically anything (I've read). Imagine Chicago w/o any (illegal) guns......on a good weekend, maybe half the city would be burning.

[gcarter]

I mean, you don't need nitrate fertilizer to make a fire bomb.
Gasoline, natural gas, butane, propane can all be used to start fires.......

[Phil S]

"A poll conducted by the coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, showed that 69 percent of self-identified NRA members favor closing the gun show loophole
which allows persons to purchase assault weapons without a background check."

Whose gun was it Marlin ? The kid didn't buy the gun from what I understand....but the owner of the gun was apparently the first one shot in the face with it.

I have no idea where she bought it, but let's say it was at a gunshow with no FBI check....she didn't kill anyone with it. Let's say she bought it at a place where an FBI check was required, and she passed. Again, she didn't kill anyone with it. Your newly-passed law closing the loophole for background checks at gun-shows sure seems to have provided a very effective solution. "Assault-weapons" ? Come now. Four loaded pistols, with no "high-capacity" mags, that require no reloading, what would you call that ? Something less than "assault-weapons" ?

Let's pass some more laws for crying out loud. Our illegal immigration laws are working like charm. Let's see, our elected members of congress are required to pass a budget every year...hasn't happened since 2009. Your's & my federal tax dollars are funding Planned Parenthood which....

Kind regards,

Phil S.

[Marlin275]

Whose gun was it Marlin ? The kid didn't buy the gun from what I understand....but the owner of the gun was apparently the first one shot in the face with it.

A smart gun solution or a big assed lock would have helped that problem.

The FBI is concerned that 57 police officers were slain by their own weapons grabbed from them during the 1990s.

Law-abiding, responsible gun owners who choose to have a gun to protect their families would rather have a gun that was safer.

Radio frequency identification technology implanted in everything from key cards to house pets,
is essentially instantaneous and virtually fail-safe, according to RFID Journal founding editor Mark Roberti.

"These systems are very reliable," said Roberti, adding his car has never failed to start as a result of a fault in chips now standard in car keys.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...tes-gun-policy (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-21/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-smartgunsbre8bj18e-20121220_1_smart-gun-technology-gun-advocates-gun-policy)

[gcarter]

OK, let me try this again, I just calculated the percentage of gun related homicides compared to all US deaths (except for, I guess, natural causes).
All gun related homicides (even those for self defense) come to only 1% of all US non-natural deaths. So, if the perfect solution sere found to make all guns safe (even the illegally owned guns), what would we lower that percentage to?
Maybe 0.7%?

If you look at some of the other categories for deaths in the US, it would be much easier to lower those numbers significantly, maybe by 10% or just over 100,000 folks per year.

In the mean time, folks in Congress and activists everywhere are trying to fundamentally change the Constitution.

[Phil S]

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/20516693/armed-guards-start-at-some-spartanburg-elementary-schools-monday


It's a shame our world has come to this.

CIA protects our President, and many, many other elected officials. Our tax dollars fund this protection....often times for the rest of their life. You and I, nor our children warrant this type of federally funded protection. One can't walk into any federal, state, or county office without seeing armed personnel, at least in my state. Boarded a plane since 9/11 ? Been scanned, frisked?

Loughner ?...life sentence. Why are my tax dollars going towards his sustenance ?....really. Let me save a bunch of tax dollars with the joke of a human at the theater as well....you're done....just as quickly as you ended other's lives. No attorney's fees earned or awarded here, no tax dollars further spent...the evidence is overwhelmingly there.

Marlin, feel free to go ahead and start suggesting changes to the 5th Amendment as you continue to suggest to others....I am all ears and please feel free to legislate away.

Kind regards,

Phil S.

[Marlin275]

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/20516693/armed-guards-start-at-some-spartanburg-elementary-schools-monday


It's a shame our world has come to this.

Phil that was the answer from the NRA, "put armed guards in every school".



CIA protects our President, and many, many other elected officials.

Secret service does that as the CIA charter contains categorical yet undefined prohibitions against "police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.



Loughner ?...life sentence. Why are my tax dollars going towards his sustenance ?....really. Let me save a bunch of tax dollars with the joke of a human at the theater as well....you're done....just as quickly as you ended other's lives. No attorney's fees earned or awarded here, no tax dollars further spent...the evidence is overwhelmingly there.

Agree . . .



Marlin, feel free to go ahead and start suggesting changes to the 5th Amendment as you continue to suggest to others....I am all ears and please feel free to legislate away.

Good police work and getting illegal guns off the street has made NYC the safest big city in America.
Didn't need to touch any Amendment to do that . . .

Amen

[Phil S]

Phil that was the answer from the NRA, "put armed guards in every school".



Secret service does that as the CIA charter contains categorical yet undefined prohibitions against "police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.


Good police work and getting illegal guns off the street has made NYC the safest big city in America.
Didn't need to touch any Amendment to do that . . .

Amen



I am so sick of seeing make-shift crosses along my tax-funded highways, marking the sickening slaughter of innocent lives. Marlin, this is completely unacceptable....what law, if any, would you suggest we pass that will immediately remedy, not only this slaughter of lives, but much less the separation of church and state ?

Something should be done about this don't you think ?

Phil S.

[joseph m. hahnl]

Imagine Chicago w/o any (illegal) guns......on a good weekend, maybe half the city would be burning.




Poor choice of words:kaioken: seeing as how it was:kaioken:

[Marlin275]

I am so sick of seeing make-shift crosses along my tax-funded highways, marking the sickening slaughter of innocent lives. Marlin, this is completely unacceptable....what law, if any, would you suggest we pass that will immediately remedy, not only this slaughter of lives, but much less the separation of church and state ?

Something should be done about this don't you think ?

Phil S.


M.A.D.D.

A Mad Mother against anything
is the law . . .

The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driving,
support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.

[Phil S]

One can only hope they live long enough for you to make a point that has any relevance to any discussion in which you contribute.

Phil S.




M.A.D.D.

A Mad Mother against anything
is the law . . .

The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to stop drunk driving,
support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.

[Marlin275]

One can only hope they live long enough for you to make a point that has any relevance to any discussion in which you contribute.

Phil S.

I'll drink to that . . .

as they all point to how to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people . . .

[Phil S]

I'll drink to that . . .

as they all point to how to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people . . .


Surely, you have the solution.....so, what laws are you proposing to "Optimize" the safety of INNOCENT people...?

Let's pass a law that says "it is against the law" to bury any innocent person.

All ears to your version of the necessary Amendments. 2nd ? 5th ? Come now....

Phil S.

[Marlin275]

Enforce EXISTING laws
Don't need to change Amendments

Open to any solutions you might have . . .

[Phil S]

Surely, you have the solution.....so, what laws are you proposing to "Optimize" the safety of INNOCENT people...?

Let's pass a law that says "it is against the law" to bury any innocent person.

All ears to your version of the necessary Amendments. 2nd ? 5th ? Come now....

Phil S.


We can't "legislate" our way out of what I truly believe is more of social problem than anything else. I was asking you more for solutions, to a problem in our society, than I could expect any one individual to answer, and I apologize. I don't know the answer. I don't think there is any one answer. I don't expect you to know the answer either.

Here's one thing I suspect. We have all been affected in a very large way by this, and our thoughts and feelings have been, and are being "vented". Nothing wrong with that.

Sorry if I pissed someone off. Sorry if you're pissed off at me.

Sorry Marlin....nothing meant by "it" personally. This shtuff pisses everyone off.

Kind regards,

Phil S.

[Marlin275]

I am learning a lot from all this
One or two, then three of these massacres of innocent civilians, now what more of the same . . . until today . . . not again . . . if possible

I have read everything I can
to find ANY solution that makes sense
Like the criminals here that fought the law
and NYC won . . .

You can't piss me off
as this tragedy has shaken the country
and changes us again . . .

[dsparis]

@Marlin, Like Duck Hunter and Ghost I give up. If you can't define the problem you can't come up with a solution.

[Marlin275]

If you can't define the problem you can't come up with a solution.

How to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people.

[Just Say N20]

Here is a link to another school situation where a 62 year old man, armed with 2 handguns entered a school. His intentions were unknown. He was met at the entrance of the school almost immediately by an ARMED SECURITY GUARD. The article says that within 2 minutes, 2 armed police showed up. He would not give up his weapon, so he was shot to death. The article is dated August 31, 2012.

I find several things interesting about this. 1. It is an actual event (not some theoretical “thought experiment” which tries to predict what MIGHT happen) in which a properly trained armed person on school property prevented an armed intruder at the school from shooting anyone. 2. This armed person prevented any innocent people from being killed. 3. The gunman was killed after being given the opportunity to hand over his weapon. 3. If a friend had not passed this link to me, I would have never known about it. 4. I have to assume that it did not get any national news coverage because it could not be spun to fit the anti-gun agenda. A trained person with a gun prevented anyone from being killed by an armed intruder.

In short, like has been said a jazillion times, a good guy with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun, once again proving MORE GUNS ≠ MORE INNOCENT DEATHS.

http://www.tricities.com/news/articl...372591713.html

[BUIZILLA]

apparently, we need to ban or better regulate NYC ferry's after today too...

[SanDogDewey]

Here is a link to another school situation where a 62 year old man, armed with 2 handguns entered a school. His intentions were unknown. He was met at the entrance of the school almost immediately by an ARMED SECURITY GUARD. The article says that within 2 minutes, 2 armed police showed up. He would not give up his weapon, so he was shot to death. The article is dated August 31, 2012.

http://www.tricities.com/news/articl...372591713.html

They moved the link.

http://www.tricities.com/news/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.html

Looks like the police shot him although she kept him at bay.

But it was all over in minutes, Anderson estimated. One hundred and twenty seconds after Cowan drew his gun, two deputies, Lt. Steve Williams and Sam Matney, arrived. They entered through separate doors and met Cowan and Gudger – still in a moving standoff – as they reached a science pod behind the cafeteria. Cowan wavered; he jerked his gun from Gudger to the other deputies then back again. The three officers told him, again, to drop his weapon. He wouldn’t.

So they opened fire. Some students counted five shots, others counted six. Anderson would not say how many rounds hit the gunman.

[Ghost]

I posted this yesterday (and now am re-entering from memory) at about 3:30--it would have been post 46 or so, but it appears to have vanished into the ether or gone into the bit bucket. (I did get the message about pending moderator approval when I hit "Submit Reply" but it seemed to flash in kind of an odd way, so who knows where it went. Anyhow, here goes again, more or less.

But first, there is another sub-thread that started at post 44ish and has gone on to discuss prospective solutions. And that's fine by me, but to me that is putting the cart before the horse and that's why I'm not addressing any of that. Recall, we were seeking a specific definition of the problem.


Reasonable answers to reduce criminal violence.

This is a huge step forward. It still suffers from some fundamental shortcomings as a problem definition, but it is definitely a major improvement. As was noted before, it is very vague. And while that makes things harder in some ways, that's actually good, because anything that zooms in on a tree ignores the consequences to the forest.

'CRIMINAL' IS THE WRONG WORD
Clearly, however, the word 'criminal' doesn't fit. The problem is that there have always been plenty of bad laws. While I suspect most of us support the American Revolution, all of the actions of the colonists against the British were criminal acts. Even speaking and meeting to discuss grievances and potential courses like revolution were criminal acts. (I gather that for a long time, even imagining the king was dead was a criminal act punishable by death.) When slavery was the law, it was criminal for a slave to escape, to defend himself from his master, or to revolt. Harboring or otherwise aiding an escaped slave was criminal. Even failing to report sighting an escaped slave was criminal.

In fact, it's a bit sneaky but it jumps off the page when you see it: so long as we are discussing what the law SHOULD be, the word 'criminal' CANNOT be part of the sensible definition. Because 'criminal' simply means in conflict with the LAW. If slapping is outlawed and rape is legalized, then so much as slapping a rapist is 'criminal violence.' So we need to lose 'criminal' and plug the hole. More on that in a minute.

THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY A PROBLEM DEFINITION
The phrase "Reasonable answers to reduce criminal violence" is actually a solution, not a problem definition. But no biggie, because the way it is worded, the solution part strips right out. The PROBLEM is just "criminal violence." But as noted above, 'criminal' doesn't work, since laws can be good or bad and 'criminal' is blind to that by definition. Instead, we need something that reflects the ethical distinction between right and wrong, not the arbitrary distinction between lawful and criminal.

This gets us to a problem definition more like "unjust violence" or "violence against the innocent." (And it is key that in that case, 'innocent' DOES NOT mean innocent before the law but instead means innocent before a higher standard.) We're making real progress, but there's at least one big shortcoming to tackle.

'VIOLENCE' DOESN'T QUITE COVER IT
When your local mobster comes to the door smiling and asks for money while inquiring about your kids' health, he's not technically committing an act of violence, by most definitions. He's threatening violence, but most would say no violent act has yet been committed. And if you pay and he leaves you alone until the next collection, there still hasn't been a clear, violent act. So we need to cover not simply violent acts but also coercion--THREATS of violent acts. The word 'force' does a much better job of handling this. He is forcing you to pay when he threatens you, and he is using force against you if you say no and he breaks your legs. So I think 'force' covers the critical element of threats as well as the actual acts of violence, where when using the word 'violence' alone, many folks would get confused over how to handle threats.

Which makes for a problem definition like "unjust force" or "force employed against the morally innocent." Now we're cooking. And I like keeping them both and stating that they both mean the same thing. This way one clarifies the other, and one is very short and easy to use where the other is wordy. (BTW, not that it matters, but I've added the word 'morally' today to my missing post yesterday, as a reminder that we're not talking about innocence in the eyes of the law, but rather, a form of ETHICAL innocence. That keeps one more key nuance we've discussed from getting lost.)

I think this moves the ball forward a lot. Now is a good time to pause and discuss, for anyone who's interested.

[hardcrab]

apparently, we need to ban or better regulate NYC ferry's after today too...


and yet ANOTHER collapsed rooftop crane in NYC today

- bundle them in too.

[Tidbart]

I have stayed out of this but today I say a post on Yahoo that gets right to the root of some of the gun issues. I hate to cut and paste but, why type when you don't have to.:wink:

"AMERICAN1975

WAKE UP!!!!!-I'm reposting this from earlier to EXPOSE this FACT, and HOPEFULLY get some more debate on the SOURCE of the PROBLEM:In 1957 there were over 500,000+ institutionalized in State Mental Institutions and we had reasonable involuntary commitment laws. We had no modern "gun control" laws, could buy your M1 Carbine through the mail along with all the 30 round magazines you wanted- yet mass random shootings NEVER HAPPENED!!! Was 1957 America a police state? Doctors and judges made the decision who to keep in the loony bin, and they could not get out until they were no longer a threat to self or a public threat. You still had the rights to a lawyer and judge to prove your sanity and get out if there was no basis for the decision.

Today we have emptied and closed the State Mental Institutions, created the homeless population, made involuntary commitment impossible until AFTER you commit a crime- and then try and blame guns for the actions of the mental patients!!! Jared Laughner- parents tried to get him help at least twice but were turned down for la#$%$ insurance, neighbors said he would ride around on his bike talking to himself, school said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been institutionalized long before he shot Gabby based on his obvious illness! Virginia Tech- school teachers said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been institutionalized based on his obvious behavior!!! Colorado- His college psychiatrist was so alarmed by Holmes that she had him banned from the campus, but nothing else. In the PAST- she could have had him involuntarily committed BEFORE he hurt anyone!!! What was even the POINT of him trying to get help from the psychiatrist when all she did was ban him from the school???!!! Even Charles Whitman in 1966, the first of these crazed m#$%$hooters warned authorities before hand by seeking help from Texas University's school psychiatrist- repeatedly! He had severe migraine headaches and extreme anger that HE knew was irrational, turned out he had a BRAIN TUMOR- discovered AFTER his death!!! He even told his psychiatrist he was fantasizing about shooting people from the tower!!! If his school psychiatrist had remotely done his job he would have gotten the help he sought. To this day Texas University won't release all of Whitman's medical records, claiming the deceased "right to privacy"- so the school won't be SUED!!!! Newtown CT- Mother was so scared of her son she told sitters not to turn their ba#$%$ on him even if they went to the bathroom, but with him not having committed a crime involuntary commitment is virtually impossible and there is no where to send him. 40 years ago he would have been institutionalized in a State Mental Institution based on his behavior. You know where the largest State Mental Institution in Connecticut is? NEWTOWN- its been CLOSED for DECADES! This is NOT a "gun control" issue!

Reply, don't just give me a mindless "thumbs down" if you disagree "

[Ghost]

Two parts:

1. any comments on the subject of defining the problem?

2. I think Tidbart's dead on.

sidebar: just another data point that won't get much attention: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/wisconsin-grandmother-draws-gun-robber-18182386 (Funny to see how many "non-mainstream" sources have it already, where the only big-boy I found was this ABC link.)

[Marlin275]

Two parts:
1. any comments on the subject of defining the problem?


Start here as this is how you defined it:

"The argument we are having SHOULD BE about how to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people."

[Ghost]

Start here as this is how you defined it:

"The argument we are having SHOULD BE about how to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people."


That was a phrase that has been overcome by far better ones, offered at a time when we were jumping ahead to solutions when we hadn't defined the problem. And even if we do start there, we quickly get to the same place, for the same reasons.

As before, that statement doesn't define a problem definition but a mission or goal.

But more important, no one inherently needs to be concerned about any sort of safety, or how to optimize it, unless there is some sort of threat to that safety. In a perfect world, there are no threats and thus no need to be concerned, no reason to have the goal of "optimizing safety." The problem we need to define only arises when safety is threatened. And what is ''safety" anyway?

In my long post yesterday, it broke all that down. The threat, the problem, is violence against the innocent and coercion of the innocent by the theat of violence.

So, if we start with the quote Marlin cited above, it leads right back to the problem definition of "unjust force" or "force employed or threatened against the morally innocent." I added 'threatened' for the same reason I added 'morally.' It keeps that nuance from being lost. That's the best I have so far. Gives a short way to say it, but the longer one keeps a couple of nuances clear. (That violence can be either perpetrated or threatened, and that innocence is not defined as legal innocence but rather, moral innocence.)

[Marlin275]

That was a phrase that has been overcome by far better ones,

What are they?


But more important, no one inherently needs to be concerned about any sort of safety, or how to optimize it, unless there is some sort of threat to that safety.

So your approach is to avoid actually choosing anything to optimize,
and thus avoiding any logic that addresses what does or does not accomplish that.

[Ghost]

So your approach is to avoid actually choosing anything to optimize, and thus avoiding any logic that addresses what does or does not accomplish that.
Oh no, not at all. My approach is as we have discussed, to define the problem first, and then move on to discussing potential solutions, to weigh their pros and cons. We just never settled on a problem definition. But I think we have a good one now. I offer it as below, for any discussion or refinement.


What are they?
Succintly, the definition of the PROBLEM is "unjust force." More explicity and completely, the PROBLEM is "force employed or threatened against the morally innocent."

(Thus it covers coercion and threats of violence as well as acts of violence, and it makes clear that innocence is an ethical concept, not simply whatever the law says at a given time.)

Is everyone who is interested good with that, and thus ready to move on to considering how best to deal with the problem?

[Ghost]

That's odd, has moderation been turned back on for this thread? Testing now with this one to see what happens...

[Ghost]

And now it seems to be off again...I will re-post my reply, just a sec...

[Ghost]

And now back...there must be something in the text that trips it. Hmmmm...

[Ghost]

Weird, so far I haven't figured out the rule. When I just put in something like this, it seems to go in. When I post content, it says it is awaiting approval. I tried some tests on keywords and such, but so far I'm confused on what it sees differently, other than post length...

[Ghost]

M^rlin said:
So your approach is to avoid actually choosing anything to optimize, and thus avoiding any logic that addresses what does or does not accomplish that.

REPLY: Oh no, not at all. Just trying to close the loop on the definition of the problem before consider the pros and cons of any proposed solutions. Good news is I think we have a very good problem definition, as below. (stopping now, to see if this much goes in...)

[Ghost]

M^rlin said:
What are they?

REPLY: Briefly put, the PROBLEM is "unjust force." More completely and expl1citly, the PROBLEM is "force employed or thre^tened against the morally innocent."

(This gives a quick way to say it, but keeps a further definition to retain some of the key nuances. Namely, that the problem includes not only v1olence but also coercion by thre^ts of v1olence. And it makes it clear that 'innocence' is an ethical concept, to be distinguished from mere legal guilt or innocence, which is morally arbitrary and subject to the whim of bad laws as well as good.)

So, is everyone good with this definition of the PROBLEM, so we can move on toward potential solutions?

[Ghost]

And as an aside, apologies to Scot if he got flooded with Moderation requests. Maybe it was the word e x p l i c i t...one more test on that coming.

[Ghost]

the word of the day is explicit

[Ghost]

Oh well, I'm tired of looking for the rule. Good news, I think a good problem statement is up. Everyone cool with it?

[harbormaster]

Holy crap Mike. What are you doing?

[Ghost]

Holy crap Mike. What are you doing?

LOL, sorry, you can delete all of those. I ran into something odd which I haven't figured out. For some reason, those posts were getting routed through moderation. But simple stuff was not. So, I kept trying to figure out if there was a word, like 'violence', or 'threat', or 'explicit' that was tripping somethign. Or quoting, or using screen names. So, I kept changing things slightly and re-posting. Eventually I broke it into two pieces and it went through sans moderation. I never did figure out the rule, unless it was number of characters or something.

Hence my note above apologizing for the mess it probably put in your inbox. Sorry for that, but you can delete all the stuff from the last couple hours. I got it posted in two pieces.

[Ghost]

And, it looks like Scot approved one of them.

For anyone following the discussion, Post 79 above is all you need to read of mine. And if the problem definition there looks good, yell. If it needs something, please discuss.

Sorry for all the hassle--I still don't know what the server didn't like.

[dsparis]

The definition of the problem seems to be like obamas stance on gay marriage "evolving".

[Ghost]

:) LOL, true, but that was the goal, to refine it until it was right. I think it's right now.