Security always a concern at a Central Florida theme parks

Not sure that people are necessarily saying we shouldn't try to reduce the number of guns because it would be difficult to do so (though as noted as a matter of reality, it would be). The issue is would such a reduction actually reduce gun violence. There is a lot of evidence out there which calls that into question (despite how logical the conclusion may seem on its face). Violent crime has been decreasing in the US for the past 20 years or so while the number of guns has steadily increasing. Certain parts of the country with higher gun ownership rates have lower violent crime/murder rates than parts of the country with lower gun ownership rates.

Seems to me its the case that reduced number of guns plus some other undetermined factors may lead to reduced gun violence. Without knowing what those other undetermined factors are and taking steps to make sure they apply, reducing guns (be it easy or difficult to do) won't necessarily produce the desired reduction in gun violence. Other undetermined factors combined with reduced numbers of guns may well lead to increased gun violence.

Jeff said:

(And by the way, I'm not saying I advocate total bans, I'm saying I hate the conversation stopping "that will never work.")

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I don't see why looking at a problem, considering solutions and then throwing away ones that seem illogical, futile, ineffective or unworthy is a bad thing. You don't try everything just because you can.

Of all the potential solutions, I believe "we need to make it harder to get guns" is far and away the worst. It's a ton of effort that will likely result in no benefit.

The argument is predicated on the notion that anything other than instant results is failure.

It's not predicated on instant results, it's predicated on a lack of results.

It's funny, because I often think I'd love for some strict gun restriction/legislation to go into effect just to see what everyone does when they realize nothing has changed. Problem is I suspect they likely won't admit it's a bad plan, they'll just think they didnt go far enough. At what point does "this isn't working immediately" become "this isn't going to work at all"?

I realize the US has a lot of unique challenges, but I can't accept, "It works elsewhere, but this is not elsewhere."

I don't have a problem with the idea that our situation is completely unlike any "elsewhere" - it just is. No country has every had as many guns, as many guns per capita, such a long history with guns and a constitutional right to own them in the way that we have for hundreds of years. It's a different situation than any other "elsewhere' you can point to.

I don't think America's reputation for being a place where gun violence happens is because of the number of guns we have. Everywhere has guns. It doesn't matter if you have one gun, ten guns or a million guns they all kill just the same. It's the people, the culture behind those guns, that make the difference.

As an aside, I see stats on guns per capita and gun violence per capita but never a stat on the number of gun violence incidents per gun. Does that exist? That'd be interesting and go a long way towards proving or debunking that it's the number of guns a population holds that determines how likely there is to be violence. I just can't get past the idea that it doesn't matter how many guns I own if I choose to use one to kill someone. It just doesn't matter. As long as that number is greater than zero, then gun violence is possible. That's why I don't buy the stricter regulation or numbers reduction arguments.

I realize this is comedy, but the FBI math doesn't exactly align logically with the "good guy with a gun" rhetoric.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/w2bq3a/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noa...-gun-pt--2

I didn't think it was possible for the daily show to ever get unfunnier. Thank you Trevor Noah (or more accurately, whoever the guy doing the piece was) for proving me wrong. That was painful. But I forced myself through the 6 minutes just for this:

Just to play devil's advocate, I think it doesn't really prove any math. Perhaps I missed it, but I believe their stats apply to all active shooter situations - not active shooter situations where someone is armed to retaliate. I mean, someone with a gun can't stop an active shooter if no one has a gun.

How often is an active shooter stopped specifically when someone involved is armed?

That was the point of the training demonstrations. Without proper training, probably not very often.

"Probably not very often" is purely anecdotal.

The whole point of this seemed to be to exaggerate the training piece, use barely related numbers (that arguably don't apply) and mock those who think being armed in these situations is helpful in the process.

I'm all about having conversation, but this is ****ing useless.

I totally disagree. "Gun up the good guys" is such a ridiculous over-simplification of a solution. Yes, the point of that piece is comedy, but I think the part where the guy comes in and instantly "kills" him, or he "kills" a student, after his 8 hours of training, make a solid point. These guys are experts who say in no uncertain terms that handling the situation requires a ton of training. I commend them for not getting involved in the politics, but simply suggesting point and shoot for everyone with a pulse is ridiculous and irresponsible.

I generally agree. (there's some sweeping generalizations there, but point taken)

But this bit sucked at making that point and came across as biased, one-sided political punditry disguised as comedy. All I really have to do is link to that "12 times mass shooting were stopped..." article and I've instantly offered as much real world information as the daily show dude being all slapstick comedy with the gun.

Again, it's focusing on one side. Much in the same way the FBI math includes all the mass shootings where no "good guy" had a gun. If it's so dangerous, then show me real world examples of all the times a "good guy with the gun" was useless or measurably made things worse.

You're right - it's a ridiculous over-simplification. Both on the initial claim and especially on this "comedy" bit.

It adds nothing more to the conversation than anyone bellowing, "Gun up the good guys!"

Of course it was biased and one-sided... it's The Daily Show.

Fair enough. :)

One variable with the good guy has a gun theory is will the good guy be mistaken as a shooter by the cops or is it likely that the cops will know the good guy is fighting back at the shooter? Seems like it would be a very tricky situation for police to analyze and the good guy could easily get himself shot by police mistaking him as a shooter.

I would be willing to bet most scenarios in which an active shooter is confronted by a CCW permit holder are resolved before police even arrive.

That's sort of the point of me wanting to carry. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

And really, being shot by police is a risk I'm willing to take over the alternative, which is not being able to defend myself at all in an active shooter scenario. The "what ifs" can be discussed ad nauseam, but I probably have a greater chance of being swallowed by a sinkhole than ever being in a gunfight with an active shooter, much less getting shot by police during said gunfight.

The idea that I should have to be able to defend myself, or that we all should, strikes me as so completely absurd in a civilized society. And when I bring that up, I'm told that I'm naive, stupid, etc. We are not, by any stretch of the imagination or hard data, in more danger just walking around than we were at any time in the past.

Jeff said:

We are not, by any stretch of the imagination or hard data, in more danger just walking around than we were at any time in the past.

I think Vater understands that:

Vater said:

The "what ifs" can be discussed ad nauseam, but I probably have a greater chance of being swallowed by a sinkhole than ever being in a gunfight with an active shooter, much less getting shot by police during said gunfight.

Perhaps the best way to understand the mentality is likening it to insurance?

You hope to never have to use it, and very well may never have to, but you're sure glad you had it when/if you do need it.

I shouldn't have to lock my doors at night in a civilized society, either.

Edit: Gonch nailed it. I don't want to ever have to use my gun...ever. But it's nice to know it's always on me just in case.

Jeff said:

We are not, by any stretch of the imagination or hard data, in more danger just walking around than we were at any time in the past.

Is the world becoming more dangerous or is the attention these types of events get making us think that way? It's more likely the latter. If there's one thing that American media excels at, it's manipulating us into thinking differently. Is increasing security really making us safer? As has been said before anybody who is determined enough will find a way. And you are far more likely to die falling down the stairs at home than being shot at a theme park.

The media doesn't "do" anything. There is no massive conspiracy of people behind cameras having secret meetings about how they're going to manipulate anyone. They give the sheep exactly what they want, and they want to be scared and fearful.

There's no conspiracy.

But if scary news gets ratings, then scary news is run more often and made to look as scary as possible. (whether or not that's manipulation is debateable, but you can certainly present something in a myriad of ways)

If the sheep want to be scared, business sense says scare the people. For better or worse, media is business.

I don't think it's intentional in the sense that you're saying, but it doesn't mean it's not happening indirectly. I think with so many outlets, we do hear this kind of news more often which, like it or not, perpetuates a public attitude. Then people want to hear more about the scary and the 'media' obliges.

You end up with a feedback loop of stupidity.

"Ohh, look how scary it is. I want to know more!"

"Today in the scary news..."

"See!? I told You! Look at this scary news! That's so scary. I'm fearful and would like to know more."

"Today in more scary news..."

Repeat ad nauseum.

Like most things, I don't think it's as black and white as "people are mindless sheep" or "the media manipulates us" - but I do think a little from Column A and a little from Column B and suddenly the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

This is also why dumb stuff like parents getting arrested for leaving their children play by themselves happens. Perception becomes reality.

Yeah, you're missing the point. It's not a chicken-egg problem. You're completely right it's a business, giving the customer what it wants. What it is not, is people being victims of that business. People bare the responsibility for being stupid. They created the business, the business didn't create the stupid.

I don't think business/media creates the stupid, but it validates it to some degree.