Mass Shootings

[Nice Guy Eddie 13730]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's a great song for people who masturbate to the thought of war, not so great for those who've been through the actual orgy of violence that is war.

Reminds me of people that love "Born in the USA" but don't really understand its meaning.   They can't interpret anything other than the title even if they can sing the lyrics.

[Brisketexan 106893]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Reminds me of people that love "Born in the USA" but don't really understand its meaning.   They can't interpret anything other than the title even if they can sing the lyrics.

Funny, I was just thinking about the song yesterday, and about how Reagan was a fan of it -- even at my young age at the time, I cocked my head and thought "dude, have you LISTENED to the song?"

[HoustonHorn 1064]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.

It's like any other "failure analysis."  There's almost NEVER one single cause.  Planes usually don't crash because of one failure -- they crash because 10 things in a row went wrong.  It takes a confluence of causes to lead to the ultimate failure.

Multi-faceted causation.  Which requires multi-element solutions.  Not just your pet cause, or the distraction you want everyone to look at instead of some other element.

agreed 100%

It would be interesting to see if we could come up with a list of the top 10 factors or top 20 and then identify reasonable solutions to each. I think most of these reasons are going to have a lot of sub-catergories too that will have to be broken down. I'll start with a few.

Easy Access to Guns

Lack of Moral Compass

Social Media

Bullying

Mental Health Issues

Lack of Community/Isolationism

Glorification of Violence/24-hour News Media

 

Not trying to provide a complete list, just getting one started.

Edited May 25, 2018 by HoustonHorn
added list

[GW Hayduke 1957]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.

It's like any other "failure analysis."  There's almost NEVER one single cause.  Planes usually don't crash because of one failure -- they crash because 10 things in a row went wrong.  It takes a confluence of causes to lead to the ultimate failure.

Multi-faceted causation.  Which requires multi-element solutions.  Not just your pet cause, or the distraction you want everyone to look at instead of some other element.

Yes. The continuous use of the question “why” to drill down and find out all the root causes of an instance of failure or non-compliance can help frame the problem. 

IMO “the problem” isn’t often defined well and drilling down can help, and with an ill-defined problem, the goals aren’t established well. Without goals, it’s hard to measure and compare solutions.

IMO the broadest statement of our problem is the high overall rate of firearm deaths and the high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings. 

 

 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

18 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I’m going to jump out on a limb. There isn’t a single major “cause” for the untenable frequency/magnitude of mass shootings. There isn’t one single major “cause” for the untenable rate of firearm-related violence in the US.

I’m going to go a little further on that limb. There isn’t one single “solution” to either of these problems.

However, anyone who isn’t willing to accept that the unfettered and underregulated supply of firearms in our population as one of the major reasons for our problems, please help me understand with a supportted rational. 

Top bait!

[Brian Fantana 6866]

Just now, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Top bait!

Gonna respond to your lie about CCHRI you pussy bitch mother fucker?

[Brisketexan 106893]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Gonna respond to your lie about CCHRI you pussy bitch mother fucker?

Liars never own their lies.  They just continue to gaslight. He's a liar who kneels to the Prince of Lies, why would you expect anything different.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's a Smokey post.  It's always a lie.

So are any of the facts in the paper a lie?

https://www.cchrint.org/pdfs/violence-report.pdf

They all look well sourced to me.

You can't argue against it so you try to attack and discredit the source by whatever means possible. The most common "appeal to group-think" tactic, it's getting pretty boring. People can go ahead and read it and decide on their own, or listen to you, and only read things in line with the gun confiscation solution. 

[bernorange 8385]

Quote

A man “opened fire” Thursday in an Oklahoma restaurant, leaving at least four people injured, before he was fatally shot by a bystander, police said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/24/man-opens-fire-inside-oklahoma-restaurant-before-armed-citizen-shoots-kills-him-police-say.html

[jimmyjazz 47191]

Good lord, man.  The CoS is well known to completely reject the tenets of psychiatry.  It is not an objective, peer-reviewed study.  Just give it the fuck up.

(But you won't, because you're a troll and a fool.)

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Liars never own their lies.  They just continue to gaslight. He's a liar who kneels to the Prince of Lies, why would you expect anything different.

I have that sock on ignore so I don't have to read his constant childish and disgusting insults. 

Good argument from you and Brain though. 

I give you a 60 page sourced description of what may be causing all this horrible violence in mass shootings, you attack the source and call me a "pussy bitch mother fucker" and accuse me of kneeling to the "Prince of Lies".

Just pointing out the obvious isn't really "Scientology propaganda" now is it? 

[Brisketexan 106893]

They also blame psychiatry for 9/11.

You promulgate Scientology BS, you get treated accordingly.

You're a lying propagandist.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/24/man-opens-fire-inside-oklahoma-restaurant-before-armed-citizen-shoots-kills-him-police-say.html

Good guy with a gun? 

This will be swept under the rug just like Southerland Springs mass shooter was. 

Nobody from the anti-gun protests after Parkland even knew what the Southerland Springs mass shooting was and it was just months prior.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They also blame psychiatry for 9/11.

You promulgate Scientology BS, you get treated accordingly.

You're a lying propagandist.

More deflection, accusations without sources, and name calling. You are really stuck in a loop bub. It's the pattern of the last 10 or so replies from you. 

Tried to find the source for your claim breifly... Interesting reads.

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_blames_Pearl_Harbor,_9/11_on_psychiatry

https://people.com/celebrity/cruises-scientology-group-aids-911-victims/

https://www.scientology.org/how-we-help/volunteer-ministers/disaster-relief/new-york.html#slide6

Edited May 25, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[Chuckie Finster 23073]

6 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Good guy with a gun? 

This will be swept under the rug just like Southerland Springs mass shooter was. 

Nobody from the anti-gun protests after Parkland even knew what the Southerland Springs mass shooting was and it was just months prior.

It's spelled Sutherland Springs, Mr. High IQ.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Brisketexan 106893]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

More deflection, accusations without sources, and name calling. You are really stuck in a loop bub. It's the pattern of the last 10 or so replies from you. 

It's all you deserve.

I don't use my hands to pick up shit.  I kick it aside with my boot like all sensible people do.

[wildcat09 29579]

I'm stealing this comparison from somewhere else online but can't for the life of me remember where I first saw it, but our problem with gun violence is similar to the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. At the time, we didn't know how cholera was transmitted, but a physician investigated an outbreak in London and based on his investigation he hypothesized that it was being transmitted through contaminated water, with a focus of infection at a specific public water pump. He convinced the authorities to disable the pump, and the outbreak ended. He didn't cure cholera, but he didn't need to to stop the outbreak.

The ease of access to guns, and the ease with which people can use guns to commit horrific acts, are similar focuses of infection. As this epidemic spreads, it's only going to become clearer that mass shooters are frequently what we consider to be "normal" people, not mentally deranged maniacs with an unquenchable blood lust. Pretty much everyone has dark thoughts sometimes, and guns make it much easier to act on them than most alternatives do. It's easy to say that anyone who wants to do something like a mass shooting will find an alternative if guns are not available, but that isn't true. Guns are unique in the ease with which they enable someone to flip from a "normal" person to a killer.

Taking guns away from everyone would stop this outbreak. It wouldn't end all violence, just as disabling the water pump didn't cure cholera, but it would stop the outbreak. That's not really politically possible and it's not something I would support, but anyone who thinks that the widespread availability of guns has nothing to do with the epidemic is simply wrong.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's all you deserve.

I don't use my hands to pick up shit.  I kick it aside with my boot like all sensible people do.

Why would you even get shit on your boots? 

[BabaYaga 15625]

30 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

unfettered and underregulated supply of firearms

This isn't remotely close to being true.  There has never been more guns/ammo in this country - and yet homicide/gun crimes are at decade-low levels.  And access?  You used to be able to walk into any hardware/outdoor store in the country and walk out with any platform they sold.  Only restriction was age.  Or just get one from a catalog.  Most school had guns in them.  Shooting/marksmanship classes.  Guns in vehicles.  Unlocked gun cases in homes. 

These isolated school shootings are unique and modern.  Columbine was the sub-5 minute mile.  Ever since that horrible tragedy, we've seen a torrent of copy-cat killers.  Meticulous, planned attacks on soft targets these little lunatics know can be pulled off successfully.  And now we're seeing IED's.  This is just the start.  

[Brisketexan 106893]

4 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Why would you even get shit on your boots? 

That's what boots are for, you fucking yankee POS who has never walked a corral.

Then I go home, remove whatever shit remains with my bootscrapers, and forget you ever fucking existed.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm stealing this comparison from somewhere else online but can't for the life of me remember where I first saw it, but our problem with gun violence is similar to the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. At the time, we didn't know how cholera was transmitted, but a physician investigated an outbreak in London and based on his investigation he hypothesized that it was being transmitted through contaminated water, with a focus of infection at a specific public water pump. He convinced the authorities to disable the pump, and the outbreak ended. He didn't cure cholera, but he didn't need to to stop the outbreak.

The ease of access to guns, and the ease with which people can use guns to commit horrific acts, are similar focuses of infection. As this epidemic spreads, it's only going to become clearer that mass shooters are frequently what we consider to be "normal" people, not mentally deranged maniacs with an unquenchable blood lust. Pretty much everyone has dark thoughts sometimes, and guns make it much easier to act on them than most alternatives do. It's easy to say that anyone who wants to do something like a mass shooting will find an alternative if guns are not available, but that isn't true. Guns are unique in the ease with which they enable someone to flip from a "normal" person to a killer.

Taking guns away from everyone would stop this outbreak. It wouldn't end all violence, just as disabling the water pump didn't cure cholera, but it would stop the outbreak. That's not really politically possible and it's not something I would support, but anyone who thinks that the widespread availability of guns has nothing to do with the epidemic is simply wrong.

This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

That's what boots are for, you fucking yankee POS who has never walked a corral.

Then I go home, remove whatever shit remains with my bootscrapers, and forget you ever fucking existed.

Disgusting

I'm defiantly not a "yankee POS" but I don't go out of my way to step in shit just so I can get it on my boot scraper. Sounds very aggy of you bragging about how your boots are for stepping in shit. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

Correct, but this isn't taking into consideration the difference between PURPOSEFUL attacks and accidents. The vehicle regulations helped prevent a ton of accidents that were killing people and improvements in technology all helped making traveling a less risky activity. Protecting yourself with a firearm isn't a risky activity, but some regulations and technology have been enacted already to help keep it safe.

All those safety things don't stop this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

Sure it's a complex problem, and all of the different factors should be taken into consideration. All the potential solutions should be taken into consideration. Lets start simple, with two factors.

1. Weapon

2. Person

What are we more likely to be able to change with additional understanding and regulation? What works best without sacrificing our rights? 

[Brisketexan 106893]

12 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Disgusting

I'm defiantly not a "yankee POS" but I don't go out of my way to step in shit just so I can get it on my boot scraper. Sounds very aggy of you bragging about how your boots are for stepping in shit. 

Kicking it out of the way.  Not stepping in it.  You don't know a gotdamn thing about being a Texan or wearing boots.  Add that to the infinite list of stuff you're ignorant about.

The only one around here stepping in shit is the one posting lie after lie and being fool enough to think that makes him look clever.  You're not fooling anyone.  You have no friends here.  You're pathetic.  You're loud and brash, but you're really weak and shallow, just like your Orange God.  By all means, continue to pants yourself and think you're impressing someone.  There is no better display to demonstrate what you and yours truly are then to just let you be, in all of your asinine glory.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Brisketexan

[GW Hayduke 1957]

 

42 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

My understanding is that the only restrictions to purchasing a firearm are age and felon status. That’s about as unfettered as it can be. Virtually anyone who wants a gun, can get a gun. And as you pointed out, this has resulted in a lot guns.

Your statement about our trend in violence compared to our trend in ownership isn’t presented accurately. Yes, the total number of firearms has been increasing (just like an overall population increase); however, the rate of ownership per household and per adult have consistently gone down. 1977 was a high point at 50.4% of households down to 31% in 2014.

See table 1.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

I also argue that a downward trend in homicides since the 90s matches with the downward trend of other crimes, such as those related to property.

Also, I will add that since 1999 the trend in homicides related to firearms has remained flat. 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/%3famp=1

Of particular importance, even if we pick a point in time like 1990 and say homicides have trended down (which ignores the flatline since 1999) it is still important for us to lower the rate of homicides and suicides from firearms. 

A comparison of the US with other countries show us that we have the highest rate of firearm violence of all first world countries and are more in comparison with third world countries. I invite you to explore the below table and sort by Total or Homicides. Below are the rates of firearm related homicides per 100,000 per year for a few notable countries.

- 0.06 UK

- 0.18 Australia 

- 0.21 France

- 0.35 Italy

- 0.61 Canada

- 1.04 Israel

- 3.72 Nicaragua

- 4.22 peru

- 4.62 USA

- 4.78 Uruguay

- 6.34 Mexico

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Edited May 25, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[GW Hayduke 1957]

55 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This isn't remotely close to being true.  There has never been more guns/ammo in this country - and yet homicide/gun crimes are at decade-low levels.  And access?  You used to be able to walk into any hardware/outdoor store in the country and walk out with any platform they sold.  Only restriction was age.  Or just get one from a catalog.  Most school had guns in them.  Shooting/marksmanship classes.  Guns in vehicles.  Unlocked gun cases in homes. 

These isolated school shootings are unique and modern.  Columbine was the sub-5 minute mile.  Ever since that horrible tragedy, we've seen a torrent of copy-cat killers.  Meticulous, planned attacks on soft targets these little lunatics know can be pulled off successfully.  And now we're seeing IED's.  This is just the start.  

I mis-quoted my above comment and didn’t include you.

Edited May 25, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m blaming video games for this one,  definitely video games

 

NRA President Oliver North was a consultant on "Call of Duty."

[David Dennison 19538]

48 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Correct, but this isn't taking into consideration the difference between PURPOSEFUL attacks and accidents. The vehicle regulations helped prevent a ton of accidents that were killing people and improvements in technology all helped making traveling a less risky activity. Protecting yourself with a firearm isn't a risky activity, but some regulations and technology have been enacted already to help keep it safe.

All those safety things don't stop this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

Sure it's a complex problem, and all of the different factors should be taken into consideration. All the potential solutions should be taken into consideration. Lets start simple, with two factors.

1. Weapon

2. Person

What are we more likely to be able to change with additional understanding and regulation? What works best without sacrificing our rights? 

I'm fine with sacrificing rights. 

[Jiggy-Z 3509]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm stealing this comparison from somewhere else online but can't for the life of me remember where I first saw it, but our problem with gun violence is similar to the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. At the time, we didn't know how cholera was transmitted, but a physician investigated an outbreak in London and based on his investigation he hypothesized that it was being transmitted through contaminated water, with a focus of infection at a specific public water pump. He convinced the authorities to disable the pump, and the outbreak ended. He didn't cure cholera, but he didn't need to to stop the outbreak.

The ease of access to guns, and the ease with which people can use guns to commit horrific acts, are similar focuses of infection. As this epidemic spreads, it's only going to become clearer that mass shooters are frequently what we consider to be "normal" people, not mentally deranged maniacs with an unquenchable blood lust. Pretty much everyone has dark thoughts sometimes, and guns make it much easier to act on them than most alternatives do. It's easy to say that anyone who wants to do something like a mass shooting will find an alternative if guns are not available, but that isn't true. Guns are unique in the ease with which they enable someone to flip from a "normal" person to a killer.

Taking guns away from everyone would stop this outbreak. It wouldn't end all violence, just as disabling the water pump didn't cure cholera, but it would stop the outbreak. That's not really politically possible and it's not something I would support, but anyone who thinks that the widespread availability of guns has nothing to do with the epidemic is simply wrong.

To add to this:  I think another factor involved is the "backs to the wall" element of desperation found in most but not all of these cases.  Some are true nut jobs for sure but others are "victims" for lack of a better word, of constant and seemingly never ending frustrations with school, the opposite sex, employers, family, personal health, envy, patience, and their station in life.  For them it is a constant struggle to just get one little bit of win in life, but for every win there is lots of lose.  Of course they lack perspective in all this taking for granted that they are not starving in a fascist regime in a disease ridden country-yet.

[Art Vandelay 1712]

36 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

My understanding is that the only restrictions to purchasing a firearm are age and felon status. That’s about as unfettered as it can be. Virtually anyone who wants a gun, can get a gun. And as you pointed out, this has resulted in a lot guns.

This isn't accurate. Felony convictions are the most common reason for being denied a firearm, but you can also be restricted for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions (which should have prohibited the Sutherland Springs shooter from purchasing weapons), unlawful drug use/addiction, mental health, being a fugitive, dishonorable discharge from the military, open warrants, unlawful immigration status, etc.

In fact, mental health care providers, police departments and family members can request for individuals to be placed into the NICS database for any number of documented reasons.

I'm for strengthening background checks and making sure people don't slip through the cracks -- which is exactly what happened in some of these mass shootings -- but to say it's as simple as checking age and felony status is way off.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Art Vandelay

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 5/21/2018 at 8:40 AM, bolverk said:

This seems like a pretty cool idea to help mitigate social isolation:

https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/50960/how-being-part-of-a-house-within-a-school-helps-students-gain-a-sense-of-belonging?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180520

 

This does seem like a good idea. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 5/21/2018 at 8:40 AM, bolverk said:

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by JimmyJames
Double post

[GW Hayduke 1957]

10 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

This isn't accurate. Felony convictions are the most common restriction, but you can also be restricted for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, unlawful drug use/addiction, mental health, being a fugitive, dishonorable discharge from the military, open warrants, unlawful immigration status, etc.

In fact, mental health care providers, police departments and family members can request for individuals to be placed into the NICS database for any number of documented reasons.

I'm for strengthening background checks and making sure people don't slip through the cracks -- which is exactly what happened in some of these mass shootings -- but to say it's as simple as checking age and felony status is way off.

You are correct. I believe the restrictions you mention are for the purchase of a handgun and for a concealed handgun license. Even so, it isn’t very restricted for handguns IMO. If you are a relatively normal person without a record, you can get a handgun. 

[Art Vandelay 1712]

9 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are correct. I believe the restrictions you mention are for the purchase of a handgun and for a concealed handgun license. Even so, it isn’t very restricted for handguns IMO. If you are a relatively normal person without a record, you can get a handgun. 

No, those are all examples of restrictions for any type of firearm purchase, whether it's a handgun, a bolt-action hunting rifle, or an AR-15.

The Brady Act mandated that FFL dealers run background checks on their buyers. At first, the law applied only to handgun sales, and there was a waiting period (maximum of five days) to accommodate dealers in states that did not already have background check systems in place. Those dealers were to use state law enforcement to run checks until 1998, when the NICS would become operational and come into effect. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled against the five-day waiting period, but by 1998 the NICS was up and running, administered by the FBI, and applied to all firearms purchases from FFL dealers, including long guns.

Wiki

Also, why shouldn't a "relatively normal person without a record" be able to purchase a handgun? -- provided none of the other examples of restrictions I gave apply. That certainly describes me!

Edited May 25, 2018 by Art Vandelay

[jimmyjazz 47191]

6 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Also, why shouldn't a "relatively normal person without a record" be able to purchase a handgun? That certainly describes me!

I don't think you should be prevented from purchasing a handgun.  I do think it's reasonable to place waiting periods on all gun purchases so as to help mitigate sudden emotional states, etc.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

This is a good analogy. I like the analogy surrounding traffic fatalities a bit better.

At one time, the rate of traffic accident deaths were determined by society to be too high. This was a complex problem with many causes, factors, and potential solutions.

Over time, we implemented was a licensing system that ensured only people with the training, appropriate vision, and driving history would get behind the wheel. There was a registration and inspection system to ensure that vehicles are probably maintained (brakes, windshield wipers, etc.) and fees paid to the state for general safety efforts. There was a set of safety standards set for cars (seat belts, roll over standard, air bags, braking standard) and an industry of designers and vehicle testers. There was a set of road design standards (turning radius to speed, sight lines) and an industry of traffic enginneers. There were speed limits and limits on blood-alcohol consumption along with the enforcement element and public awareness element. 

The point is that we had a complex problem and we implemented a broad range of solutions and the general goal of all those solutions was to lower the overall rate of traffic deaths.

Multiple People run over at PSU, Mass casualty Declared by FD

1 hour ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Correct, but this isn't taking into consideration the difference between PURPOSEFUL attacks and accidents. The vehicle regulations helped prevent a ton of accidents that were killing people and improvements in technology all helped making traveling a less risky activity. Protecting yourself with a firearm isn't a risky activity, but some regulations and technology have been enacted already to help keep it safe.

All those safety things don't stop this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[jimmyjazz 47191]

Gosh, it's almost hard to believe that anything that stores a significant amount of kinetic energy could be used as a weapon.  Thanks for the update, Smokey.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Gosh, it's almost hard to believe that anything that stores a significant amount of kinetic energy could be used as a weapon.  Thanks for the update, Smokey.

No problem Jazz. Horrible situation, but it proves my point from the earlier post. 

All the safety regulations prevented accidents, but didn't prevent the ability of someone with a motive to use the vehicle to kill people. 

1. Weapon

2. Person

There's something to blame in every single mass shooting or these vehicular attacks... The person who committed the act. 

[Eskimohorn 5682]

You aren;t going to get any amendments changed without a constitutional convention. Nobody got the balls for that anymore.

Maybe we should stop misinterpreting the 2nd amendment (since Rehnquist court)

[GW Hayduke 1957]

16 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

No, those are all examples of restrictions for any type of firearm purchase, whether it's a handgun, a bolt-action hunting rifle, or an AR-15.

The Brady Act mandated that FFL dealers run background checks on their buyers. At first, the law applied only to handgun sales, and there was a waiting period (maximum of five days) to accommodate dealers in states that did not already have background check systems in place. Those dealers were to use state law enforcement to run checks until 1998, when the NICS would become operational and come into effect. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled against the five-day waiting period, but by 1998 the NICS was up and running, administered by the FBI, and applied to all firearms purchases from FFL dealers, including long guns.

Wiki

Also, why shouldn't a "relatively normal person without a record" be able to purchase a handgun? -- provided none of the other examples of restrictions I gave apply. That certainly describes me!

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a gun lol. I’m defining a problem in the US, high rates of firearm violence and high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings, and that we should take a multi-pronged approach to minimize and mitigate.

One of those approaches has to do with how we regulate firearms.

[jimmyjazz 47191]

Just now, SmokeyBear1861 said:

All the safety regulations prevented accidents, but didn't prevent the ability of someone with a motive to use the vehicle to kill people. 

It's almost as if you're OK with safety regulations being partially effective, yet you demand that gun regulations be 100% effective.  Wonder why that is?  Hmmm.

[Art Vandelay 1712]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think you should be prevented from purchasing a handgun.  I do think it's reasonable to place waiting periods on all gun purchases so as to help mitigate sudden emotional states, etc.

That's well meaning but it doesn't sound like there's any evidence it has much statistical effect on overall gun violence. There is however some evidence it has an effect on suicides. I think a more stringent background check, which could result in delaying a purchase, might be more effective than an arbitrary waiting period like 7 days.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc/

The study concluded that the law’s waiting period was associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for people age 55 and older, but not associated with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

Other research has found that people who buy handguns are at a higher risk of committing suicide during the first week after the purchase. For example, an article published in 2000 by members of the Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin said a Wisconsin study found a "sharp increase" in the risk of suicide within one week of a gun purchase.

But a 2003 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reviewed studies on the effects of waiting periods on violence found that some studies indicated a decrease in violent outcomes associated with the delay, while others indicated an increase.

And a 2012 study by one researcher from the University of Cincinnati and another from Arizona State University found no statistical effects from waiting periods on gun crimes.

 

[Art Vandelay 1712]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a gun lol. I’m defining a problem in the US, high rates of firearm violence and high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings, and that we should take a multi-pronged approach to minimize and mitigate.

One of those approaches has to do with how we regulate firearms.

Gotcha. My bad for misreading that.

[jimmyjazz 47191]

1 minute ago, Art Vandelay said:

That's well meaning but it doesn't sound like there's any evidence it has much statistical effect on overall gun violence. There is however some evidence it has an effect on suicides.

Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

[HoustonHorn 1064]

Amazing that anyone trying to actually start a discussion of the problem and underlying causes is completely ignored so y'all can continue to fling shit at each other like fucking monkeys.

Carry on.

[HoustonHorn 1064]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

Do you blame the gun, or Academy, the fact he was obviously suffering a depression so severe he felt the best way out was to kill himself, or family/friends who didn't recognize his dire situation, or maybe the external factors in the world that led to his depression?

Edited May 25, 2018 by HoustonHorn

[Art Vandelay 1712]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

That is awful JJ. I am truly sorry to hear that.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

That is horrible. Two of my friends from high school committed suicide a couple of years after serving overseas for the Marines. Both diagnosed and medicated for PTSD.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

Maybe we should stop misinterpreting the 2nd amendment (since Rehnquist court)

 

What would you say is the correct interpretation ?

[GW Hayduke 1957]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps I'm sensitive, as my nephew went to Academy, purchased a shotgun, and blew his head off.

IMO we as a society should be interested in lowering our rates of overall deaths, overall deaths from firearms, homicides from firearms, and suicides from firearms.

Too often I see folks say that we don’t need gun reform because most firearm-related deaths are from suicides. This is a dishonest point that doesn’t acknowledge that our society wants to lower suicide rates in addition to homicide by firearm rates. There is evidence that shows access to a firearm increases risks of successful suicides.

Edited May 25, 2018 by GW Hayduke