Comments on: GunFacts Hasn’t Any (3)

by: Michael Hawkins

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:24:13 +0000

No, VTech demonstrated that the current way of courts declaring somebody psychologically unsound aren’t airtight.

by: Administrator

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:20:09 +0000

because it basically makes the states ensure they are following federal law by not allowing disturbed individuals from obtaining firearms, while at the same time, ensuring that the rights of a mentally sound person is not infringed.

Actually, it does not. VA Tech demonstrated about how effective NICS is.

by: Gregory Morris

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:40:54 +0000

“Common sense says most folks bent on mass shootings aren’t going to bother with going for the CCW.” We are certainly in agreement there. I am just as concerned about numerous “1 or 2″ shootings. That’s one of the reasons I’m glad the NICS improvement act passed, because it basically makes the states ensure they are following federal law by not allowing disturbed individuals from obtaining firearms, while at the same time, ensuring that the rights of a mentally sound person is not infringed. It won’t guarantee firearms can’t fall into the wrong hands, but it will prevent some easy access to firearms.

by: Michael Hawkins

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:10:35 +0000

“First, nobody on my side is claiming CCW will lead to mass shootings.”

Ex-cuse me?
The gunshine state? Bullet-dodge city? Warning people in airports, screaming that minor traffic incidents WILL turn into shootings?

by: Administrator

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:50:07 +0000

GM: I think Lott has been pretty much disavowed by most serious folks in the gun policy arena–on both sides.
…..
Then again, all “statistical studies” with “definitive” results do this.
.
Actually, a statistical study should never arrive at a “definitive” conclusion; what it should provide is a likely range or strong evidence one way or the other.
…………..
The important thing is that gun control laws don’t and can’t decrease mass shootings, and licensed concealed carry certainly doesn’t increase it.

Non sequitor.

First, nobody on my side is claiming CCW will lead to mass shootings. We’re more concerned about lots of 1 or 2 shootings.

Second, the logic doesn’t follow; if a disturbed person can obtain a firearm–the laws in many states will also permit him to obtain a CCW permit. Common sense says most folks bent on mass shootings aren’t going to bother with going for the CCW. Similarly, a CCW doesn’t prevent a disturbed individual from acting on his irrationality.

by: Gregory Morris

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:54:06 +0000

Well, Lott’s research may or may not be “good”. I suspect some of it is good and some of it uses selective data. Then again, all “statistical studies” with “definitive” results do this. The important thing is that gun control laws don’t and can’t decrease mass shootings, and licensed concealed carry certainly doesn’t increase it. The correct “Fact” for the Myth would be: “Citizens legally carrying concealed weapons have never perpetrated a mass shooting. Concealed carry laws have also not shown to positively decrease mass shootings.”

You are correct that certifiably insane people aren’t going to say “well, people at that mall have guns, so I’m not gonna shoot it up.” On the other hand, the shooter at the New Life church expected to be able to kill a lot more people than he was able to. Sure, that is only an anecdote, but it demonstrates that even minus the (arguable) deterrent effect of concealed carry, the reality of allowing individuals to stop mass shootings is proven.

by: Michael Hawkins

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:03:06 +0000

You’re right, it’s impossible to document the effects of anything on mass shootings,because there aren’t nearly enough of them to establish a trend without having standard deviations that (in relation to the number of shootings) go through the roof.

You’re also right about a mentally ill person being stopped by legslation, gun legislation has never stopped these gunmen, people like Assam have.