Are teachers willing to carry guns in schools? 18% say yes

Being that you know nothing of guns, never used one in personal defense.

How would you know how effective guns are for personal defense ?

Because not counting my times as a Police Agent, I have always been 100 % Successful in defending myself from armed attacks with guns.

Smith & Wesson Revolvers, very reliable and carried loaded in a holster.

Current, Glock carried loaded in a shoulder holster, very reliable.

 

The concern that it won't be properly loaded or where it is supposed to be comes back to training.

As far as Murphy's Law goes, the idea is to apply that to the shooter. To the shooter, armed people fighting back are "whatever can go wrong."

 

I built C&B Revolvers from Original Vintage parts, Navy Revolvers, etc...
A few Remingtons, all sold very nicely as "parts" guns at private Auction.

I fired them extensively, oddly enough, they were reliable if you followed the established procedures for such guns.

I fail to see how someone sans gun experience or Technical knowledge, can make any objective pronouncements about the suitability of guns as far as personal defense.

 

you are right it is not a simple linear relationship but the discussion and research are well reviewed here

https://theconversation.com/factche...e-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836

 

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[44] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[45] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[46]

Any findings as to suicide are refuted by the historical previous research by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[47] at page 119, where after reviewing Australian statistics, he found that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[48] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[50] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[51]

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[52]

Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[53] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[54]

A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[55]

 

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[56]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[57]

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[58]

A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. The study,[59] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[60]

A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[61] A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets", and discussed the potential problem of people using 3D printers to create guns. NSW and Victorian police obtained plans to create 3D printed guns and tested to see if they could fire, but the guns exploded during testing.[62]

 

The united states is not a first world, developed nation. Therefore no comparison with such nations can actually be made.

 

Are you taking those from my resource or are you just throwing out incited papers?

Ooops no it is cherry picked from Wiki

Didn't quote the entire article did you? Especially not the section that supported the NFA

Bottom line firearm homicide rate is now less than 1 per 100,000 and our mass shootings, well, one with more than four deaths in 20 years and that was a family murder suicide

Something has worked

 

The ratio of the US homicide rate to the Australia homicide rate is the same now as it was in 1996, as our homicide rate has also declined. Your citizens still have about 200,000 banned weapons in their hands, along with 9mm handguns with 10 round magazines. Everything they need to commit mass murder is still available to them. Your citizens are allowed to own 5 shot .22 bolt action rifles and double barrel shotguns, and a shooter in the UK killed 12 and wounded 11 using those two weapons.

Perhaps Australians are different than Americans.

 

How many times must this flawed nonsense actually be addressed before it is no longer brought up?

The information presented by the site simply does not back up and verify the claims being made. The cite itself admits than since the start of the time period the data has been collected, the total number of wrongful deaths that can be attributed to those who hold concealed carry permits, there has been a grand total of one thousand, one hundred and twenty nine deaths in a period of ten years.

What this means is that, statistically speaking, there are one hundred and twelve wrongful deaths attributed to concealed carry holders per year. This amounts to less than three deaths per each state that was analyzed, per year. Why the remaining ten states were left out of the data is not known, when all states have some form of legal concealed carry on the books.

This is in a nation with millions of individuals who legally hold a concealed carry permit. The data simply does not fit the narrative being presented.

 

"
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[56]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[57]

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[58]

A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. The study,[59] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[60]

A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[61] A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets", and discussed the potential problem of people using 3D printers to create guns. NSW and Victorian police obtained plans to create 3D printed guns and tested to see if they could fire, but the guns exploded during testing.[62]"

This is from the US Department of Justice study "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies", 2010.

 

The attacks on John Lott are so frantic and focused it's obvious it's because the powers that be are horrified by the danger he presents to their agenda.

No. The only people who would claim the VPC has any credibility whatsoever abdicate any credibility they themselves have. The VPC's lies and manufactured statistics have been exposed over and over and over, but those who desperately want to believe their propaganda continue to dismiss it all, and expose themselves for the charlatans they really are.

 

I already know you have strange anti-American ideas. No need to remind me.

 

You refuse to see the point. I am not surprised.

 

The fact they ignore said sign says all that needs be said.

 

Better than the police officers present at the Parkland FL shooting.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

You said you banned all guns that could be used in a robbery.
How is this not a total gun ban?

 

Sorry, I find this whole line of thought/”discussion” stupendously hilarious; America could not get anymore dysfunctional. After decades of going after teachers and teacher’s unions, now the power structure’s answer to this society’s inherent penchant for violence is to arm teachers in school ostensibly to keep their children “safe”. Incredible. Sure, go ahead, let’s go with that, we’ve plenty of faux shock and surprise to roll out on demand. Thoughts and prayers to all.

 

So you don't have the guts to download Lotts data and examine it yourself.

Remember, Lott puts his data out for all to see. VPC and the gun banners do not, they hide their data.

Wikipedia is the reference of the lazy.

Mother jones is a rabid gun banner site, and highly political.

Once again, total FAIL.

 

LIE.

I have even given you the link to the AUS Bureau of Statistics crime data base, with all the data, so you can verify my numbers. You have posted plots from that sight so I know you looked at it. You are running from the truth. So sad the person who originally claimed to be a great researcher can't look at the data objectively.

As to your plot, more hiding and obfuscation. So sad you resort to such low tactics.

The chart presents numbers of deaths, not rate. It presents numbers because that's more sensational. The rate in 1996 base don your chart is 2.8, which for that time was low. And the trend was unaffected, its clear it was constant from your chart from 1988 to 2006. In 2006, the rate was 1.09, that's about as low as it can get.

But over the same period, AUS suffered a crime bubble (violent crime up 44% - that's from the official AUS govt ABS data base, you have the link) which started in 1996, peaked in 2001-2002, and many violent crime rates did not drop to pre-ban levels until after 2010.

Hundreds of women raped and people severely beaten in exchange for a slightly lower (in an already very low) gun homicide rate. Was it worth it? I'll bet the raped women don't think it was.

 

This was an opinion from our resident expert on firearms, no real hands on experience with firearms mind, however, much Googled information from unreliable sources and anecdotal evidence !

Good show !

Reminds me of older folks that claimed they walked 20 miles to school everyday, uphill both ways, exaggerating the hot and the cold weather, rain storms....

 

Then stop comparing the united states with various other first world, developed nations.

 

I have never disputed the source of the data just the representation of it

Shakes head at horrendous insight into stats

It would look more spectacular if it were not numbers and ti were rate as the population has increased over that time

And finally - no the claim that there has been a rise in crime is unfounded and one of those things that are cherry picked from the AIC Australia - and you also know very very well that we do not keep separate figures on rape

Not that prevention of crime was the reason for the national firearm regulations

 

How long will it be if we arm large numbers of teachers before deadly force is used in error and we have more dead children?

My guess that the time period would be less then six months given ten of thousands of teachers being arm nationwide.

If train police had used deadly force on a 12 years old playing with a toy gun in a public park placing the ability to killed children in the hands of thousands of teachers seems very unwise.

Should help the home schooling movement however.