Matt Damon on Australia's gun confiscation...I wish that could happen in my country

So true!!!

The so called "gun free zones" were actually the brain child of the NRA in the first place and there is no wonder they are useless in a society where guns are so prevalent.

Bottom line America leads the world in school shootings



https://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/

 

For deep concealment, I keep a gun in a pocket holster in my front right pocket. Easy access and very concealed. Ankle holsters and bra holsters are other possibilities. I've carried for years in all kinds of social situations and nobody has ever seen my gun.

 

Gun free zones are useless anywhere where they can't be enforced.

Please define "school shooting" as used by this study, and quantify the number of victims. I bet it's considerably less than the number of school age children who drown in pools and bathtubs each year.

Please remember that any so-called solution that requires a reduction in the number if firearms in the US isn't a solution.

 

Is there a substitution effect with backyard drownings and gun deaths?

 

I wouldn't know, nor about drownings and deaths from school shootings, which is what your original post addressed. Given that we have 140,000 schools open for 180 days a year, and 300 million firearms, the actual numbers are quite low against the opportunities. Compare the 7.56x10^15 gun-school-day opportunities against those other countries for a more detailed picture.

 

Also, I've never seen your reply to my inquiries about your belief in the Kellermann study. Do you believe that having a gun in the home increases your chance of being murdered by a knife or by being strangled?

 

I guess we just have to accept that our children will die from guns since we have so many of them. That is just sad.

 

Is the number of guns the issue? Do you wish to reduce the number of guns?

Do you accept that we'll lose 2200 kids a year to car crashes?

 

Do the math and figure the odds that this is true.

 

The odds are much higher my kid will be shot at school than at any first world country

 

Name a country that can operate without cars

 

Prove it. Quantify that risk. And what is a first world country? Please compare racial demographics between those "First world" countries and all others.

Here's the list of school shootings in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

In the latest full year 2016, with 100,000 elementary and secondary schools and 40,000 colleges and universities, 9 people were killed and 26 injured in a shooting described as a school shooting. In 25 million student-days, there were 15 such incidents. Two had no deaths or injuries, and four of the victims were not students. Divide 31/25 million to quantify the risk of being shot at school each year. Divide 9 by 25 million to determine the risk of being killed by gunfire at school each year.

Your son has a higher risk of death just driving or being driven to and from school each day.

 

Are you suggesting that we live without guns?

 

I am suggesting we can have gun control and still have a normal society. In fact I would like gun control to be at least similar to auto control since you bring it up. Blah blah rights blah blah

 

Try measuring ten years. You get more accurate results

https://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/

 

A multiple of a tiny risk is still a tiny risk. I quantified it for you. 9/25 million per year. The population of school age children in the US is 49.7 million. The odds of being killed by gun fire at school is 9 out of 49.7 million. Meanwhile the odds of someone in that age group dying in a car wreck is almost 200 times higher each year. Of drowning, 30 times higher. Falling down the stairs, twice as high.

To worry about that particular risk merely reveals your bias and innumeracy.

 

Is the US ahead or behind in school stabbings?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/texas-austin-stabbing-attack.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/us/ut-stabbing/

 

That risk is much much higher than for other first world countries. The risk of a home invasion to you is very very low. And yet your worry about it reveals your bias

 

Yet the data shows us it's a negligible risk.

We have about 1 million home invasions per year in the US, with an injury or death occurring to a resident about 25% of the time. That's many, many times more often than a school shooting.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

I've never claimed to worry about a home invasion, so that's a strawman argument. I don't worry about a home invasion at my house.

 

Then you don't need a gun at your house. There. Problem solved

 

What problem? Why do you use the word "need"?

 

Look I have no problem with you owning a gun. You just have to prove you are law abiding, sane and trained. Nothing in the constitution prevents that

 

No, the government has to prove that I'm not law abiding and not sane. The only training requirement is for CCW, and that's in my wallet behind my driver's license.

 

Nope. We can make whatever laws we like. And leave it to SCOTUS to decide constitutionality

 

"We the minority" don't get to make laws.