SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > Americas

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-07-2013   #21
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

I've seen enough mad teachers who might do something in the heat of the moment which they would regret later. Some of them are ripe for retirement before they're 50, including anger management problems.
Fuchs is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #22
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I've seen enough mad teachers who might do something in the heat of the moment which they would regret later. Some of them are ripe for retirement before they're 50, including anger management problems.
We've all seen angry teachers. Very few of us have seen teachers who were criminals or who would be inclined to be so no matter how angry they got.

What does your second sentence have to do with anything?
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #23
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

I wouldn't want a person with anger management problem with a gun in a room full of loud, annoying children - 200 days a year, thousands of them. This #### would be bound to hit the fan.

The "arms for defence" line typically ignores that for every crime prohibited or interrupted thanks to a firearm, there's also a risk for one or maybe more suicides and crimes to happen (or become more severe and final) because a firearm is easily available for use.

For example, Americans have a high rate of 'success' with suicide attempts. It's much easier to kill yourself with a gun than with a blade (especially as long as video producers keep showing the wrong technique for the latter).
Fuchs is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #24
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Fuchs:

I wouldn't want a person who is unable to control their anger in any classroom under any circumstances. I do want stable middle aged people, a description of most American teachers, to have the option of having the means to effectively defend their students and themselves if they so desire. It has worked.

The 'arms are going to cause crime and suicide' line first ignores that people have the natural right to defend themselves. And since most people aren't physically powerful, that means in order to exercise that right, they must have recourse to arming themselves with an effective weapon. They didn't call Colt's revolver the 'Equalizer' for nothing.

That line also ignores the fact that availability of firearms has no effect on suicide rate. Japan has a suicide rate almost double that of the US and they have draconian gun control over there, basically no weapons at all. I grant you that Americans may kill themselves more often with a gun than the Japanese do but more Japanese kill themselves gun or not.

That line also ignores the fact that violent crime went up substantially after Britain implemented severe gun control. In the US a burglars striking an occupied home doesn't happen often and when it does, it is a huge crime. The cops take notice. In Britain, most burglars hit when the homes are occupied because they know they don't chance facing an armed homeowner.

The 'arms for defence' line recognizes that the right of the law abiding to defend themselves trumps the possibility that criminals will use a weapon in their crimes.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #25
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Having grown up steeped in the US gun culture and then left the country, I do notice a real and possibly significant change in the outlook and emphasis within that culture. My memory is that gun life in my youth revolved around hunting and the outdoors... competitive target shooting was a presence but was widely seen as preparation and training to be a more effective outdoorsman. Stalking and woodcraft were seen as goals equal to marksmanship. On the range bolt action rifles with telescopic sights dominated, and the goal was minute of angle accuracy. There was also a faction devoted to light, handy, brush rifles, with a fair bit of debate. Shotguns were for bird hunting. I don't recall ever seeing a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a magazine above 3 rounds on a range or even in a shop.
You do pretty much picture the world of hunting in which I grew up. Shooting was just a very small part of it. Today I hunt within a community of roughly 70+ active hunters and most meet on May Day to check the zero of rifles. Most use a single bolt-action rifle with telescopic sight with the rest shooting with break-open rifles. So far I never saw a semi-automatic rifle used in all those years. Keep in mind that we are in an area not yet affected by the growing numbers of Sus scrofa. All in all I would say that the weapons are well suited for their tasks. Of course quite a few are based on military weapons of days gone by.

Quote:
Nowadays it seems like the culture revolves around actual or imitation military weapons. The adjective of the day is "tatical", and everything from your flashlight to your underwear is expected to be "tactical". The word, as far as I can tell, seems to have little meaning beyond intent, actual or pretended, to be used in killing people.
School shootings and gun spress have certainly happened before this development. I became a bit curious what those criminals used after reading some posts here. Of course this is nothing scientific but just browsing through Wiki handguns are by a fair margin the most common murder weapons in Schools and universities. Short shotguns, mostly pum-guns come second followed by semiautomatic rifles. Bolt-action ones are quite rare.
The British ban on handgun seems to reflect in part the fact those weapons were used in almost all such shootings.

At last it is important to remind ourself that despite the rather unique US gun culture other countries suffer from much more gun violence per capita. A stable, peaceful state and society are much more important in safeguarding the people against crime and violence then any gun law. Of course the latter can have a positive impact on violence and it's consequences.
__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
Firn is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #26
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Perhaps one reason 'tactical' is fashionable now is that we have been involved in active war for the last going on twelve years. Because of that gear perceived to be military may have a certain cachet. Gear perceived to be associated with 'spec ops' would have even more since for most of that time the media has been in love with spec ops and constantly highlight spec ops this and spec ops that.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #27
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,095
Default

Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?

Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #28
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carl View Post
Perhaps one reason 'tactical' is fashionable now is that we have been involved in active war for the last going on twelve years. Because of that gear perceived to be military may have a certain cachet. Gear perceived to be associated with 'spec ops' would have even more since for most of that time the media has been in love with spec ops and constantly highlight spec ops this and spec ops that.
I think there is something to that. Crockett's clothes(original Miami Vice) were basically Vietnam jungle fatigues ....... except they were pastel. Watch reruns of the first two seasons and I think you will see a strong connection. have no idea what that means, if it means anything but I think carl is on to something.

Take a look,link to Miami Vice images.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miam...w=1366&bih=641

Last edited by slapout9; 01-07-2013 at 07:18 PM. Reason: Miami Vice Stuff
slapout9 is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #29
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?
I don't think so. The first guys on the scene will be uniformed patrol officers, who look like uniformed patrol officers. Swat guys would almost certainly show up later and with plenty of radio notice that they were coming. Even if in the very unlikely event that a costumed up Swat guy was around quickly he would radio the hell out his location, what he was wearing etc.

At any rate if they did incorporate that into their planning, that would pre-suppose that they wanted to give themselves an advantage in a fight. They don't want to fight. They want to kill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?
It wouldn't be arming teachers. It would be allowing teachers who choose to do so to arm themselves. Basically you would be going back to what was before all the 'weapons free zones' nonsense took hold. If a teacher wanted to keep a weapon in the car they would be free to do so, as they were.

If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Last edited by carl; 01-07-2013 at 07:54 PM.
carl is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #30
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carl View Post
If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.
Yes, volunteer teachers should be screened and trained and weapons could be secured at certain strong points all through the school so that they could get to them if need be. That would also be pretty cost effective compared to some of the things being suggested. I don't think anybody is talking about teachers walking around with shoulder holsters....well maybe the left wing media nut jobs think that way but nobody else does.

Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.

The head shrinkers need to start figuring this out and do something that could really be usefull as oppsed to this namby pamby guns are bad and grow wings and fly around all by themselves and hurt people bull stuff that will not solve anything.
slapout9 is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #31
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.
Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.
Fuchs is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #32
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.
Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Old 01-07-2013   #33
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

You are at a disadvantage as you just don't understand violent American nipple hate....it is based on video games and is becoming epidemic.
slapout9 is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #34
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carl View Post
Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.
May the warm rays of wisdom enlighten you my friend .

I did now read a bit more in the Wiki - how shocking and lazy - and the following bits have catched my eyes:

Quote:
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[42] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[43] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[44]


Keep in mind that the US population has grown a lot so the recent downward trend has been remarkable.

Quote:
The General Social Survey (GSS) is a primary source for data on firearm ownership, with surveys periodically done by other organizations such as Harris Interactive.[64] In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home and in 1997, 40% of Americans reported having a gun in their homes. At this time there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This meant that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm. These owners possessed 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns.[65] The number of American homes reporting have a gun in their homes was down from 46% as reported in 1989.[66] Cook suggested that increased numbers of female-headed households may have been a factor in declining household gun ownership.[26] A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted in 1994, indicated that Americans owned 192 million guns: 36% rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% other types of long guns.[67] Most firearm owners owned multiple firearms, with the NSPOF survey indicating 25% of adults owned firearms.[67] In the United States, 11% of households reported actively being involved in hunting,[66] with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons. Throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the rate of gun ownership in the home ranged from 45-50%.[66]
The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high. If we consider that there are actually more rifles then handguns in the US the ratio is 1:20! Obviously among the category rifles are typical bolt-action hunting rifles and semi-automatic carabines, both center- and rimfire.

All in all the percentage of homicides per captia, while high compared to other advanced countries is very low I dare to say if we compare it to some 'primitive' cultures. Phillip S. Meilinger on the SMJ has remarked on this, and I remember quite a good amount of sometimes scholarly aricles I read on the issue of violence in similar cultures.

So we are doing pretty well despite the Internet, violent video games, highly effective weapons, economic crisis and high unemployment, urban life & so forth and despite having almost certainly quite violent ancestors. Of course our massive advances in medicine, organisation, infrastructure and technology ( phones) have helped a great deal to reduce the numbers of deaths after violence.
__________________
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

Last edited by Firn; 01-08-2013 at 01:18 PM.
Firn is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #35
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #36
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carl View Post
Firn:

I am warmer already.

But anyway, your point is...?
I aassume he merely wanted to inject some more facts. Very on-topic.
Fuchs is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #37
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,809
Default

More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?
slapout9 is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #38
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
More people are killed in auto accidents then in the other so called "weapons" events combined. So should we ban Cars?
First go after the tobacco companies.


Seriously, why so polemic now? Desperate for arguments? For that's what it signals.

It should be self-evident that non-linked topics need to have their costs and benefits looked at separately. One may argue the marginal rate (kind of "benefits per one accepted death") should be identical across the board, but such a mathematical view doesn't help in practice. Philosophy and other researchers have not delivered the means to pulls such a comparison off anyway.

So the state of the art is to look at separate topics separately, and to settle on an opinion of the optimum balance of costs and benefits based on preferences.
Fuchs is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #39
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn View Post
The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high.
If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.

I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.
__________________
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline  
Old 01-08-2013   #40
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 2,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
If you broke the data down with an urban vs rural distinction you might see that explained. I'd expect to see much higher rates of both homicide and handgun ownership (as opposed to rifle ownership) in urban areas.
Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
I'd be curious about how often guns owned for protection (and thus kept loaded and conveniently accessible) end up being used to settle domestic or neighborhood disputes.
Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror) Peter Dow OEF - Afghanistan 39 03-21-2014 01:56 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation