Mass Shootings

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Wat. You stared off trying to present yourself as understanding the leftist point of view, but then indulged an incredibly slanted characterization of a single issue which simply revealed that you _don't_ actually understand that point of view.

I understand it just fine, I grew in a blue household. Doesn’t mean I have to support it, or others that do. 

[ndawg 1242]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I understand it just fine, I grew in a blue household. Doesn’t mean I have to support it, or others that do. 

Of course you don't have to support it. I didn't suggest otherwise. But you do not have the understanding you claim to have, regardless of the political affiliation of your family members. Most people have a very shallow understanding of, well, just about anything. I wouldn't be as confident in my understanding of the other side of the political spectrum if I were you.

[maninblack 7974]

 

On 5/18/2018 at 12:45 PM, In10se said:

I did not suggest someone should do that. I stated that as one of, if not the only, realistic avenue left to enact change in this policy. All of the evidence has shown any change enacted by politicians will not occur, and the American people have shown they will not hold the politicians responsible over this issue. Therefore, if any change is to occur, it would have to come through strategic acts of violence against those in power. 

Holy shit you're advocating murder. And not in a satirical way. Get help

[blackmarketbaby 118]

4 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Sure. They are a motivated single-issue voting block and the US would be in a better place without them but I don't they are insurmountable.  

You must be part of the authoritarian bloc of trolls

[bolverk 29355]

Libs have a lot more kills to their names than the SS ever dreamed of.

Why don't you shove a rusty crowbar up your ass? I'm a "lib" and have never had nor paid for an abortion, unlike what our current president has likely done.

As an adopted child borne of a casual teenage relationship, I can tell you first-hand what it means to be grateful that my biological mother chose to not abort me.

Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land since 1973, and thats not likely to change. Therefore, I think we should do everything in our power to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't occur, including free contraception, robust sex ed, and wide distribution of the morning-after pill.

To compare "libs" to the SS is about as low as one can go. You have failed. Godwin's Law out front should have told you.

Oh, and a hearty "fuck you" to you.

[Theo Huxtable 48]

The greatest lie the devil ever told was that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[maninblack 7974]

The greatest lie the devil ever told was that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Belief in authority

[ChiTownDoc 21090]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I understand it just fine, I grew in a blue household. Doesn’t mean I have to support it, or others that do. 

If only we could understand things through osmosis.  

[Dutchrudder 11099]

I guess the US is the only country with mental health issues...

[Jack Burton 35]

Johnny Sack has a law degree from Texas and he posts stupid shit like that regularly. Probably has stipulations in his trust that his kids have to marry white people from two parent households.

[Buzzrock 14867]

Fine with me. Who pays?

Taxpayers

[GW Hayduke 1950]

8 hours ago, blackmarketbaby said:

You must be part of the authoritarian bloc of trolls

It is not authoritarian to have an opinion the us would be better off without single issue voters. Nor is it trollish to share that opinion as it is rather common.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

6 hours ago, maninblack said:

Belief in authority

It isn't a fallacy to point out that the gun industry's marketing slogan isn't true.  I invite you to consider Kellermann's 1993 study that touched on this topic.  

"The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

[atomheartbevo 89348]

After the Dems get control of Congress, they are gonna run a train on us the first chance they get with something at least equal to the Assault Weapons Ban, which happened in the lifetimes of most of us here (for those who keep thinking we will never see serious gun control). 

Meanwhile, Republican politicians like Dannie Goeb will keep whining about abortion. 

Thats where we are at. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

After the Dems get control of Congress, they are gonna run a train on us the first chance they get with something at least equal to the Assault Weapons Ban, which happened in the lifetimes of most of us here (for those who keep thinking we will never see serious gun control). 

Meanwhile, Republican politicians like Dannie Goeb will keep whining about abortion. 

Thats where we are at. 

Banning assault weapons is cosmetic IMO, although a no-brainer. It would help at decreasing the magnitude of mass shootings. 

I think of Assault weapons as a weighing of costs and benefits.  What are the benefits of them?

[Fozzz 152]

This is interesting.

Quote

We show that opposition to stricter gun control is closely linked to Christian nationalism, a religious cultural framework that mandates a symbiotic relationship between Christianity and civil society. Using data from a national population-based survey, we show that Christian nationalism is an exceptionally strong predictor of opposition to the federal government enacting stricter gun laws. In fact, of all the variables we considered only general political orientation has more predictive power than Christian nationalism. We propose that the gun control debate is complicated by deeply held moral and religious schemas that discussions focused solely on rational public safety calculations do not sufficiently address. For the substantial proportion of American society who are Christian nationalists, gun rights are God-given and sacred. Consequently, attempts to reform existing gun laws must attend to the deeper cultural and religious identities that undergird Americans’ beliefs about gun control.

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3ag7k

[Chuckie Finster 22582]

20 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Banning assault weapons is cosmetic IMO, although a no-brainer. It would help at decreasing the magnitude of mass shootings. 

I think of Assault weapons as a weighing of costs and benefits.  What are the benefits of them?

People like to post pictures of them on Facebook.

Not even being sarcastic, being able to say "look at this gun I have" genuinely seems to be the biggest benefit for the owners.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

People like to post pictures of them on Facebook.

Not even being sarcastic, being able to say "look at this gun I have" genuinely seems to be the biggest benefit for the owners.

Funny I haven't ever seen an image of any of my friends (hunters, gun collectors) or my sons friends (military guys who have lots of firearms in their collections) posting pics with their AR's on FB.

 Maybe you need a better class of friends. 

[Chuckie Finster 22582]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Maybe you need a better class of friends. 

Oh, well that's a given.

[atomheartbevo 89348]

18 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Banning assault weapons is cosmetic IMO, although a no-brainer. It would help at decreasing the magnitude of mass shootings. 

I think of Assault weapons as a weighing of costs and benefits.  What are the benefits of them?

Don't get bogged down in the details - I mentioned the AWB as something that actually happened within our lifetime, and that withstood challenges until the sunset provision kicked in.  The next time there probably won't be a sunset provision.  

There is a group waiting for the tipping point so that they can go to town on banning firearms, and politicians like Lt. Governor Dannie Goeb are bitching about abortion rather than trying to stave off that group.

Actually the comments about abortion, blaming schools for having too many entrances, talk of arming teachers, etc. are pretty good signs that Republicans (and the NRA) care less about defending gun owners than they do about winning votes and fundraising for the next election.

[Hate 20100]

59 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Banning assault weapons is cosmetic IMO, although a no-brainer. It would help at decreasing the magnitude of mass shootings. 

I think of Assault weapons as a weighing of costs and benefits.  What are the benefits of them?

No it won't.  The only thing it will do is to change the weapon of choice of said mass shooter.  See Va Tech, Killeen, Austin, etc. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

There is a group waiting for the tipping point so that they can go to town on banning firearms, and politicians like Lt. Governor Dannie Goeb are bitching about abortion rather than trying to stave off that group.

Actually the comments about abortion, blaming schools for having too many entrances, talk of arming teachers, etc. are pretty good signs that Republicans (and the NRA) care less about defending gun owners than they do about winning votes and fundraising for the next election.

I don’t think anyone is realistically waiting to “go to town banning firearms.” That is a “they’re comin for your guns” and then “over my cold dead hands” marketing pitch. I think that stance ignores the sensible gun control proposals out there.

Concerning the repub politicians, it does seem even more apparent now that they represent the interests of the gun lobby/manufactures and the role of the NRA is to shape the repub electorate into believing in the interests of the gun industry/lobby/manufactures. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

16 minutes ago, Hate said:

No it won't.  The only thing it will do is to change the weapon of choice of said mass shooter.  See Va Tech, Killeen, Austin, etc. 

I get that there are examples where a mass shooter didn’t use an AW; however, to take that fact and use as evidence that removing or heavily restricting AWs from a population would not decrease the body count from mass shootings doesn’t hold up. AW appear to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.  This rational seems to assume that a strategy isn’t appropriate unless it stops all mass shootings. Society doesn’t operate with these extremes in mind. The goal is to lower the magnitude, body count associated with mass shootings. And that is just one of the goals with effective gun control

Edited May 22, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[atomheartbevo 89348]

14 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I don’t think anyone is realistically waiting to “go to town banning firearms.” That is a “they’re comin for your guns” and then “over my cold dead hands” marketing pitch. I think that stance ignores the sensible gun control proposals out there.

Concerning the repub politicians, it does seem even more apparent now that they represent the interests of the gun lobby/manufactures and the role of the NRA is to shape the repub electorate into believing in the interests of the gun industry/lobby/manufactures. 

I think we will see something on the level of the AWB, with a lot more provisions.  And I think there are plenty on the left who are ready to roll something out the moment they get power and we have another major shooting.  It's too easy to organize kids who are 18 or about to be 18, and people in general these days, and more and more parents are getting concerned.     

The AWB happened in 1994 before school shootings were on the national conscious, before the internet was widespread and well before social media, before 58 people were killed and 850 injured by a single guy, before two dozen little kids were slaughtered in an elementary.  

Not many 18 year olds used to vote, but this is one of those single issues that could do the trick.  And that's not even getting into the fact that Trump is trying to hand Congress over to the Dems within 1-2 elections, thereby setting the stage for something more comprehensive than the AWB.

[yoladu 4064]

6 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

I guess the US is the only country with mental health issues...

Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

[Fozzz 152]

Minorities and the fact that Americans are total loons. 

[atomheartbevo 89348]

4 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

We took in a helluva lot of French, Germans, Brits/Scots/Bog Jumpers, and Guineas in the 1800s.  What if they were playing a long game and were actually sending us the dregs of their societies?  Oh wait, they were.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think we will see something on the level of the AWB, with a lot more provisions.  And I think there are plenty on the left who are ready to roll something out the moment they get power and we have another major shooting.  It's too easy to organize kids who are 18 or about to be 18, and people in general these days, and more and more parents are getting concerned.     

The AWB happened in 1994 before school shootings were on the national conscious, before the internet was widespread and well before social media, before 58 people were killed and 850 injured by a single guy, before two dozen little kids were slaughtered in an elementary.  

Not many 18 year olds used to vote, but this is one of those single issues that could do the trick.  And that's not even getting into the fact that Trump is trying to hand Congress over to the Dems within 1-2 elections, thereby setting the stage for something more comprehensive than the AWB.

I would agree that the concept of sensible gun control is building political steam and would entail something more comprehensive than the past AWB. IMO sensible gun reform would have the primary goal of decreasing the overall rate of firearm-related deaths in the US and a secondary goal of decreasing the frequency/magnitude of mass shootings

[GW Hayduke 1950]

28 minutes ago, yoladu said:

Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

[Eskimohorn 5610]

No it won't.  The only thing it will do is to change the weapon of choice of said mass shooter.  See Va Tech, Killeen, Austin, etc. 

Current campus safety and design use these incidents as models where defense can be made possible. Deaths and casualties can be limited.

Vegas shows the impossibility of defense when civilians have access to military-grade weaponry.

[chesthair 231]

I cant find the guy who posted the newyorker article, but it was a great read.  The takeaway at the end really made sense to me:

 

Quote

In the day of Eric Harris, we could try to console ourselves with the thought that there was nothing we could do, that no law or intervention or restrictions on guns could make a difference in the face of someone so evil. But the riot has now engulfed the boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement. The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts.

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

43 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

The easy answer is the US has by far more guns than any other country, total volume and per capita. Literally more guns than people. Only country on earth that can come close to that claim. 

If we had more hang grenades than people and they were extremely easy to buy, we would lead the world in hand grenade deaths. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

The rest of the world is obviously better at thoughts and prayers than we are?

[GW Hayduke 1950]

4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The easy answer is the US has by far more guns than any other country, total volume and per capita. Literally more guns than people. Only country on earth that can come close to that claim. 

If we had more hang grenades than people and they were extremely easy to buy, we would lead the world in hand grenade deaths. 

Totally agree that that is the easy and obvious answer. I would add that in addition to that, the lack of any effective controls surrounding firearms contributes to this. There are several countries that allow ownership of firearms that do not have near our levels of gun violence.

[JohnRedHorn 29]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

If that was satirical then bravo. If not then wtf? 

Duh, the US is the only civilized western society that has easy access to guns and a majority of gun owners who are irresponsible and don't keep their guns locked in a gun safe whenever not in use. 

You dont have to take away guns, you just start charging whoever the legal owner of any gun that is used in a crime with that crime. If dumb ass daddy of this kid was up for capital murder and the death penalty alongside his kid then we'd either see a lot of people deciding to not own guns or we'd get rid of irresponsible gun owners by making felons out of them. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

2 minutes ago, JohnRedHorn said:

If that was satirical then bravo. If not then wtf? 

Duh, the US is the only civilized western society that has easy access to guns and a majority of gun owners who are irresponsible and don't keep their guns locked in a gun safe whenever not in use. 

You dont have to take away guns, you just start charging whoever the legal owner of any gun that is used in a crime with that crime. If dumb ass daddy of this kid was up for capital murder and the death penalty alongside his kid then we'd either see a lot of people deciding to not own guns or we'd get rid of irresponsible gun owners by making felons out of them. 

It’s not a satirical question although the answer is obvious to a lot of folks though not all - see the blaming of doors, abortion, etc.  It’s not satirical because it is meant to refocus on the real, more important question, and away from the question that only looks at mass shootings.

I agree however that increased enforcement and possibly expanding liabilities may be an effective strategy

[Chuckie Finster 22582]

 

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

It’s not a satirical question although the answer is obvious to a lot of folks though not all - see the blaming of doors, abortion, etc.  It’s not satirical because it is meant to refocus on the real, more important question, and away from the question that only looks at mass shootings.

I agree however that increased enforcement and possibly expanding liabilities may be an effective strategy

It's because "the right to bear arms is part of what makes America great" has been ingrained into the psyche of a large portion of our population.  My conservative mother has repeated that phrase numerous times, despite the fact that our family never once went hunting, never went to the shooting range, and never had a firearm in the house stronger than a BB gun until after I left for college.  I am NOT saying that gun owners do not have a right to bear arms, but it is strange just how important that amendment has become in the minds of a huge portion of the population.  It's meant to be a statement that we all nod along to like "no excessive bail," but millions of people have instead formed their entire identities around it.  And now we are too far gone to discuss, as a nation, a reasonable solution to a solvable problem.

And most of these same people who cite the Bill of Rights when claiming that having guns is a God-given right have absolutely no issues when the President of our goddamn country attacks the free press on a daily basis.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[atomheartbevo 89348]

4 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

I would agree that the concept of sensible gun control is building political steam and would entail something more comprehensive than the past AWB. IMO sensible gun reform would have the primary goal of decreasing the overall rate of firearm-related deaths in the US and a secondary goal of decreasing the frequency/magnitude of mass shootings

I just don’t think it will be sensible. I think it will be in reaction to the past few years and the fact that the GOP and NRA is hell-bent on telling them to fuck off  

They may even make the Vegas shooting front-and-center - one guy killing and wounding over 900 people is a pretty good argument for their side when the GOP did basically nothing. 

The NRA will be happy though. Memberships will go through the roof. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I just don’t think it will be sensible. I think it will be in reaction to the past few years and the fact that the GOP and NRA is hell-bent on telling them to fuck off  

They may even make the Vegas shooting front-and-center - one guy killing and wounding over 900 people is a pretty good argument for their side when the GOP did basically nothing. 

The NRA will be happy though. Memberships will go through the roof. 

Sure though I don’t think of it as a reaction but more as an effort to solve a problem. Sensible is just an opinion and some folks will undoubtedly feel like anything that happens is drakonian or tyrannical. I would use “sensible” if it turns out to still allow for our legitimate uses of firearms while making a measured effect on our overall rate of firearm deaths.

Most industries try and get our in front of regulations. I’m not sure why the gun industry isn’t doing this. The forestry industry in the US has sought to avoid regulations through sticking to best practices. Ride-sharing companies do their own background checks. 

[JohnRedHorn 29]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

It's because "the right to bear arms is part of what makes America great" has been ingrained into the psyche of a large portion of our population.  My conservative mother has repeated that phrase numerous times, despite the fact that our family never once went hunting, never went to the shooting range, and never had a firearm in the house stronger than a BB gun until after I left for college.  I am NOT saying that gun owners do not have a right to bear arms, but it is strange just how important that amendment has become in the minds of a huge portion of the population.  It's meant to be a statement that we all nod along to like "no excessive bail," but millions of people have instead formed their entire identities around it.  And now we are too far gone to discuss, as a nation, a reasonable solution to a solvable problem.

And most of these same people who cite the Bill of Rights when claiming that having guns is a God-given right have absolutely no issues when the President of our goddamn country attacks the free press on a daily basis.

Nobody cares about the constitution anymore, just like nobody cares about responsible fiscal spending. It's all about what I want and fuck you if you get in the way. No negotiation. No compromise. Just use whatever narrative fits your opinion and reject whatever doesn't. We're one step away from political killings and assassinations because fuck civility just give me what I want now.  

[atomheartbevo 89348]

2 hours ago, JohnRedHorn said:

You dont have to take away guns, you just start charging whoever the legal owner of any gun that is used in a crime with that crime. If dumb ass daddy of this kid was up for capital murder and the death penalty alongside his kid then we'd either see a lot of people deciding to not own guns or we'd get rid of irresponsible gun owners by making felons out of them. 

In a lot of states, if you have a dangerous dog, and they get loose and maul or kill somebody, you’re in a world of shit legally. With guns, it seems like it doesn’t matter a lot of times if you leave them around for your kids to do something stupid and/or deadly, other than civil lawsuits. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

13 minutes ago, JohnRedHorn said:

Nobody cares about the constitution anymore, just like nobody cares about responsible fiscal spending. It's all about what I want and fuck you if you get in the way. No negotiation. No compromise. Just use whatever narrative fits your opinion and reject whatever doesn't. We're one step away from political killings and assassinations because fuck civility just give me what I want now.  

I agree that things are shitty and the rule-of-law, free press, and an honestly informed electorate are under attack. However, I disagree with the no body cares idea. There is still clearly one-half of the political spectrum that cares about those things.

[Thatguy 8466]

 

.......

Edited May 22, 2018 by Thatguy
double

[Thatguy 8466]

6 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Minorities and the fact that Americans are total loons. 

[Buzzrock 14867]

Nobody cares about the constitution anymore, just like nobody cares about responsible fiscal spending. It's all about what I want and fuck you if you get in the way. No negotiation. No compromise. Just use whatever narrative fits your opinion and reject whatever doesn't. We're one step away from political killings and assassinations because fuck civility just give me what I want now.  

Brisket?

I’m coming around on the punish-the-gun-owner idea. I need to mull it over with my happy hour politics buddies.

I also kind of like going after ammo. I have to show ID to buy beer, maybe I should have to show ID that states I passed gun safety to buy ammo? Although that may be unconstitutional.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

37 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Brisket?

I’m coming around on the punish-the-gun-owner idea. I need to mull it over with my happy hour politics buddies.

I also kind of like going after ammo. I have to show ID to buy beer, maybe I should have to show ID that states I passed gun safety to buy ammo? Although that may be unconstitutional.

 

"Punish" implies the effort is directed at an identity. 

I think of it as a society seeking its citizens to take steps to help protect other citizens. 

Though sometimes I think of it as a teacher comforting and telling a child he is special after the child had a fit and screaming because he's not allowed to throw rocks at the playground.

[atomheartbevo 89348]

In a lot of states, you can be criminally punished if you have a dangerous dog and they get loose and maul/maim/kill somebody.  And if you’re dog is considered dangerous in many states, you are required to go above and beyond in securing them, and you’re not allowed to take them certain places, etc. etc.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

I like the new narrative each time against gun control from the NRA and gun enthuthiasts

1. Columbine - Too much violence in the Media

2. Aurora - Mental Healthcare is the problem

3. Sandy Hook - We need to arm the teachers

5. Santa Fe - We need to harden the schools

What am I missing? I don't remember the Orlando & las Vegas talking points. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I like the new narrative each time against gun control from the NRA and gun enthuthiasts

1. Columbine - Too much violence in the Media

2. Aurora - Mental Healthcare is the problem

3. Sandy Hook - We need to arm the teachers

5. Santa Fe - We need to harden the schools

What am I missing? I don't remember the Orlando & las Vegas talking points. 

Non operable,bullet proof glass ?

[Brian Fantana 6654]

The Vegas talking point was to first try and blame it on the Mexican security guard and then claim it was a massive false flag coordinated by US intelligence.