Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by originalsocal View Post


    Yeah, lets only tackle one problem at the same time. That's all we can handle.

    And...yes, obesity and alcohol kill, but they don't indiscriminately kill an entire class room of kids in a 30 second time period. So there's that.
    Why are those lives more precious than those killed by DUIs, kidney disease or heart disease or diabetes?

    We have limited resources and the costs of eliminating all guns, even if legal would be cost prohibitive. We have so many more pressing problems without the money to tackle them all. This is simply on TV; that is why you care. If I showed DUI death after DUI death you would care about that and sue beverage makers. This is emotional, not rational approach to public policy.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Topper View Post
      You must be sad that a semi-automatic wasn't used to fit your narrative. What will happen when a car or bomb is used?
      Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
      the fuck are you talking about?
      Yeah, what are you talking about Top? Don't you know that AR-15's were use in every major mass shooting since Aurora? You need to check Snopes:

      CLAIM

      AR-15 rifles were used to commit every major mass shooting in the United States since a 2012 attack in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater.

      RATING

      MOSTLY TRUE
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/we...ooting-aurora/

      Nevermind the other mass shootings.... They don't count.
      "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
      "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
      "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CardiacCoug View Post
        OK so I think all thinking people can agree is that part of the problem is that there are way way too many guns “in circulation” in the United States. When you get a kid who is troubled and capable of killing in a “one in a million” type of way, in the USA that kid is likely be able to get his hands on guns fairly easily. If it takes an overlap between a troubled kid and a gun to cause this issue then that overlap exists in the USA more than other countries because there are so damn many guns.

        So what’s the solution? Definitely one approach is like the Lieutenant Governor of Texas this morning to just say we will never have less guns so let’s focus on arming teachers, making all schools more like federal building with a ton of security and limited access. Let’s just give up on ever having less guns.

        But in my mind it still makes sense to get as many guns as possible off the street. These school shootings are a disease and a necessary component of the disease is guns so let’s get rid of as many guns as possible.
        Just briefly, I agree it would be nice to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but I don't know of any proposal that would effectively accomplish that. Some laws might make it slightly more difficult, but at a substantial cost to the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and with a negligible benefit. I know 'negligible benefit' is arguable, but my point with that phrase is that people who are crazy enough to commit mass murder will find ways to do it. Given the number of guns owned by the public, it will likely be with a gun, and virtually no law short of an Australian solution would substantially reduce these events. I believe that the last guns we will confiscate are the guns that would potentially be used in a crime. Guns used for recreation and protection would be the guns coming "off the street" in most scenarios short of outright confiscation, leaving plenty of legal and illegal guns available for people who still want to commit crimes.

        People are using the "if it saves one child" card to promote laws that will do very little, if anything, to stop these events. I think that's an intellectually lazy argument. We can pass a lot of crazy laws to "save one child," but we don't because it doesn't make sense. No law comes without unintended consequences, so I am reticent to support any law unless it clearly offers a solution to the problem addressed. Passing laws banning bump stocks, assault weapons, etc., are nothing more than feel good measures that will have little, if any, effect on the current rash of school shootings. When people want to kill, they will find a way to do it.
        sigpic
        "Outlined against a blue, gray
        October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
        Grantland Rice, 1924

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cowboy View Post
          Just briefly, I agree it would be nice to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but I don't know of any proposal that would effectively accomplish that. Some laws might make it slightly more difficult, but at a substantial cost to the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and with a negligible benefit. I know 'negligible benefit' is arguable, but my point with that phrase is that people who are crazy enough to commit mass murder will find ways to do it. Given the number of guns owned by the public, it will likely be with a gun, and virtually no law short of an Australian solution would substantially reduce these events. I believe that the last guns we will confiscate are the guns that would potentially be used in a crime. Guns used for recreation and protection would be the guns coming "off the street" in most scenarios short of outright confiscation, leaving plenty of legal and illegal guns available for people who still want to commit crimes.

          People are using the "if it saves one child" card to promote laws that will do very little, if anything, to stop these events. I think that's an intellectually lazy argument. We can pass a lot of crazy laws to "save one child," but we don't because it doesn't make sense. No law comes without unintended consequences, so I am reticent to support any law unless it clearly offers a solution to the problem addressed. Passing laws banning bump stocks, assault weapons, etc., are nothing more than feel good measures that will have little, if any, effect on the current rash of school shootings. When people want to kill, they will find a way to do it.
          I'm generally in agreement with this argument and have made the same. Yet there is a difference between a rifle and a bomb, or a truck. And there is a difference between a rifle and and handgun. A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance. Not all of the mass murderers are motivated by the same hatred or contempt. Some specifically want to discriminate against those they have perceived as having done the most harm to them personally. They will also discriminate and refrain in behalf of those perceived as granting them kindness. Distance or short range will depend to some degree on if they expect or want to live through it or want to revel in the fear of their victims. For these types, the gun (rifle for distance, handgun/shotgun for close range) is the weapon of choice because what they desire is to target specific individuals.

          However, removing guns won't necessarily change the outcome, and in some cases in could be worse. If the desire is the most mayhem possible in the shortest amount of time, guns aren't actually the best choice, they are simply the easy choice. If you take them away some will be forced to find other avenues of destruction which could be worse. When deciding what to do, don't underestimate the deviousness of the malevolent mind bent on retribution. You also must deal with the practicality of removing guns. They can be easily manufactured and/or imported. The writings of some of these school shooters reveal that they are already aware of how to attain weapons on the dark web. It's not likely you can actually legislate and be effective in the short run, and the long run effects are not so simple as many believe. Society is way more complicated than we can understand such that accurate long term predictions are impossible.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
            A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance.
            Why do you suppose that people have been selecting the wrong weapon to match the distance from which they choose kill? The typical scenario is a rifle used in close quarters. I think the psychology of terrorism is a factor at play.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
              Why do you suppose that people have been selecting the wrong weapon to match the distance from which they choose kill? The typical scenario is a rifle used in close quarters. I think the psychology of terrorism is a factor at play.
              Probably it's just factor of the distances we're talking about, rifles can still be used relatively close, just not as effectively really close relative to a handgun, which is why most of them go in armed with both. They are not referred to as assault rifles for no reason. My point was mostly about the ability to discriminate--this is something that is made clear in the journals and testimony of the perpetrators, there is a hierarchy of specific people they want dead. And I agree that psychology is at play, they want the greatest amount of physical and psychological damage and deliberate target selection or non-selection accomplishes that better than bombs.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                I'm generally in agreement with this argument and have made the same. Yet there is a difference between a rifle and a bomb, or a truck. And there is a difference between a rifle and and handgun. A rifle allows discriminate killing from a distance, a choice of targets. A handgun (or shotgun) allows the same discrimination, but not from distance. Not all of the mass murderers are motivated by the same hatred or contempt. Some specifically want to discriminate against those they have perceived as having done the most harm to them personally. They will also discriminate and refrain in behalf of those perceived as granting them kindness. Distance or short range will depend to some degree on if they expect or want to live through it or want to revel in the fear of their victims. For these types, the gun (rifle for distance, handgun/shotgun for close range) is the weapon of choice because what they desire is to target specific individuals.

                However, removing guns won't necessarily change the outcome, and in some cases in could be worse. If the desire is the most mayhem possible in the shortest amount of time, guns aren't actually the best choice, they are simply the easy choice. If you take them away some will be forced to find other avenues of destruction which could be worse. When deciding what to do, don't underestimate the deviousness of the malevolent mind bent on retribution. You also must deal with the practicality of removing guns. They can be easily manufactured and/or imported. The writings of some of these school shooters reveal that they are already aware of how to attain weapons on the dark web. It's not likely you can actually legislate and be effective in the short run, and the long run effects are not so simple as many believe. Society is way more complicated than we can understand such that accurate long term predictions are impossible.
                I agree with much of what you write.

                The costs of removing guns are easily dismissed without an examination.

                The Australian solution involved several factors not at play in the US. First, if I understand it correctly, Australian guns were already registered, so identifying and retrieving them in a small community was a rather easy affair. Most US weapons are not registered. Recovery of these weapons would be a Herculean effort. Second, Australia had no equivalent to the Second Amendment. Third, the damage to the liberties of the lawful gunowners is dismissed out of hand. If one drunk driver kills a child, should we ban alcohol for all people?
                "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                  Probably it's just factor of the distances we're talking about, rifles can still be used relatively close, just not as effectively really close relative to a handgun, which is why most of them go in armed with both. They are not referred to as assault rifles for no reason. My point was mostly about the ability to discriminate--this is something that is made clear in the journals and testimony of the perpetrators, there is a hierarchy of specific people they want dead. And I agree that psychology is at play, they want the greatest amount of physical and psychological damage and deliberate target selection or non-selection accomplishes that better than bombs.
                  In the broader definition of mass shootings (I think 4 or more?) I can see where discrimination is a large factor. But when it comes to the larger body count shootings like what we're finding in our schools, it seems like the goal is just to rack-up as high a body count as possible. Is my intuition here counter to what the journals and testimony of perpetrators are saying?

                  As for distances, I agree that a rifle can be quite effective at close range. I misspoke; the weapon of choice in close quarters combat is a sub-machine gun. Depending on your goals and tactics, I could see making a case for either a rifle or a hand-guns, and any desire for discrimination would likely inform those.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
                    In the broader definition of mass shootings (I think 4 or more?) I can see where discrimination is a large factor. But when it comes to the larger body count shootings like what we're finding in our schools, it seems like the goal is just to rack-up as high a body count as possible. Is my intuition here counter to what the journals and testimony of perpetrators are saying?
                    There are both, shooters that just want mayhem plain and simple, others which want to discriminate. If you included domestic shootings then obviously the level of discrimination is high, they want their family dead. I'm looking for an entry I remember reading about a prevented shooting where names were listed in a journal. Many still target a specific high school where events occurred and identify targets in general terms. I don't think the goals of all shooters are the same.

                    I would agree that most just want a high body count from what I can find. Will look some more later.
                    Last edited by swampfrog; 05-21-2018, 06:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ooting/433527/

                      It’s important to point out that the young people who become shooters vary. Some, Langman would classify as psychopathic. These shooters lack empathy and are sometimes sadistic. Psychotic shooters, like the Virginia Tech shooter, may have schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions. They often have trouble functioning socially and emotionally. Finally, traumatized shooters are those who may have grown up in dysfunctional families and suffered physical, mental, or sexual abuse. Some choose to go on a shooting spree at college, others in middle or high school. Some target specific people they feel have wronged them, while others want to inflict as much harm as possible on random victims.

                      Comment


                      • The Texas leuitenant governor knows where to focus efforts to reduce mass shootings:

                        “We have 50 million abortions,” he said, according to CNN. “We have families that are broken apart, no fathers at home. We have incredible heinous violence as a game, two hours a day in front of their eyes. And we stand here and we wonder why this happens to certain students.”
                        I assume fake news deleted the paragraph where he places the main blame on the number of guns in the US
                        "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                        "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                        - SeattleUte

                        Comment


                        • Also found this reference from the Santa Fe shooting:

                          Dimitrios told an investigator he acted alone and spared people he liked because he wanted his story told, according to a probable cause affidavit.
                          https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/us/te...ing/index.html

                          Comment


                          • How School Shootings Changed Their Classrooms
                            By BARBARA MARCOLINI and NEETI UPADHYE

                            https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...ion=title-area

                            Comment


                            • Guns

                              I get falling for a well disguised prank, but good hell.


                              https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk



                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                              I told him he was a goddamn Nazi Stormtrooper.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dwight Schr-ute View Post
                                I get falling for a well disguised prank, but good hell.


                                https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk



                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                No, good fucking hell.
                                Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

                                For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

                                Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X