massive shooting at Batman projection...

[davjohns 1]

Ummm...was it true at the mass murders by some other means???

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I haven't seen anything speaking to the benefits of 4 drinks per day. The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day. 4 is just short of binge drinking.

You really should read the article to which I linked.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Oops. I think you overreached on that one. How can the health benefits outweigh death? Hundreds of people a year manage to drink themselves to death. Tens of thousands die in alcohol related driving accidents. Many of the gun deaths lamented herein involve alcohol. I'm not sure 1.5 ounces of red wine helping your heart is going to balance that scale. I guess if you used a broken wine bottle to stop an assailant? Nah....

Read the article to which I linked (and quoted in the post to which you replied).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I haven't seen anything speaking to the benefits of 4 drinks per day. The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day. 4 is just short of binge drinking.

You really should read the article to which I linked.

I did. It points out in a few places that the greatest benefit is at the 1-2 drink level. And while some of the studies said up to 4, the actual advice was 15/week (5 x 3) for generic man, 10/week ( 5x 2)for generic woman, but never more than 4 or 3 at one instance.

People zero in on the high number and quickly say "drink to my health!"

It looks like these cited studies tend to group people into 3 cohorts - non drinkers, drunks, and everyone in between. I wonder if it was too unreliable to separate the 1-2 drinkers from the 3-4s.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I haven't seen anything speaking to the benefits of 4 drinks per day. The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day. 4 is just short of binge drinking.

You really should read the article to which I linked.

I did. It points out in a few places that the greatest benefit is at the 1-2 drink level. And while some of the studies said up to 4, the actual advice was 15/week (5 x 3) for generic man, 10/week ( 5x 2)for generic woman, but never more than 4 or 3 at one instance.

People zero in on the high number and quickly say "drink to my health!"

It looks like these cited studies tend to group people into 3 cohorts - non drinkers, drunks, and everyone in between. I wonder if it was too unreliable to separate the 1-2 drinkers from the 3-4s.

At least you're acknowledging that your previous interpretation (i.e., "The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day.") was incorrect. That's a start.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

At least you're acknowledging that your previous interpretation (i.e., "The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day.") was incorrect. That's a start.

it's amazing how far you'll stoop for a victory, and yet still miss the point.

I'll drink to you, but I won't pretend I'm doing it for my health.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

At least you're acknowledging that your previous interpretation (i.e., "The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day.") was incorrect. That's a start.

it's amazing how far you'll stoop for a victory, and yet still miss the point.

I'll drink to you, but I won't pretend I'm doing it for my health.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that if you choose to drink alcohol you do so only in moderation — up to one drink a day for women or two drinks a day for men.

Guess the Europeans are more liberal.

[davjohns 1]

I'll admit I didn't read it. Does it really say the health benefits outweigh the social impacts of drunk driving, alcoholism and such? I'd have to question their statistical analysis if it does.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'll admit I didn't read it. Does it really say the health benefits outweigh the social impacts of drunk driving, alcoholism and such? I'd have to question their statistical analysis if it does.

I only skimmed through it, but I got the impression that the only "costs" of alcohol that the author was comparing the benefits to, were the various disease states caused by alcohol abuse. I don't think he was considering the health costs of alcohol in its entirety (alcohol-related accidents, violence, etc.) Not certain, but that was my impression. I'd have a hard time believing that - all things considered - the benefits of alcohol outweigh the costs.

But still I'm not for banning it either. Though I suspect my chances of getting killed by a drunk driver are significantly higher than my chances of getting killed by a psycho with a gun.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'll admit I didn't read it. Does it really say the health benefits outweigh the social impacts of drunk driving, alcoholism and such? I'd have to question their statistical analysis if it does.

It looked at many different studies, but I didn't look at the individual studies. It was pretty obvious that many of them looked at things like alcoholism. Whether they also looked at drunk driving is unclear. I might take a look later.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,434]

>If crying over deaths is what is important, then, the same uproar should occur over
>the deaths he posted about

I don't think that's valid. I bet you were more upset about the 3000 deaths that happened during the terrorist attacks of 9/11 than you were over the 75,000 people killed by alcohol related incidents in 2001 - or even the 18,000 deaths related to DWI.

For many it's the unexpected nature of the deaths - you're just at a movie or at work and then ten seconds later you're dead. For others it's due to the idea that other people intentionally and directly killed you. But it's not valid to say "everyone should react the same to every death." You don't, nor do most people.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

For many it's the unexpected nature of the deaths - you're just at a movie or at work and then ten seconds later you're dead. For others it's due to the idea that other people intentionally and directly killed you.

quite a few (thousand) of the DUI driven deaths fall into this category. i think there's got to be more alcohol contributing accidental shootings as well.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

Are 100 deaths (or one) by gun fire more significant than 100 deaths (or one) cause by drunk drivers?

No, both need to be addressed. Though one should look at whether the person engaging in the activity is getting killed or of innocent bystanders are getting killed.

The act of drunk driving, even if you do not kill anybody, is already rather heavily penalized and there are specific spot checks to check for that behaviour. Just sitting in your car while drunk can lead to penalties.

So, to say that nothing is being done to combat people getting killed by drunk drivers is asinine. Though we can certainly debate if enough is being done.

The same goes for innocent people getting killed by gunfire. I see no reason why that cannot be discussed.

I find it dishartening that one would even question why one would want to discuss what could be done to prevent mass murderers from using a theatre as a shooting gallery.

[quade 3]

Quote

I find it dishartening that one would even question why one would want to discuss what could be done to prevent mass murderers from using a theatre as a shooting gallery.

Ever see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

Are 100 deaths (or one) by gun fire more significant than 100 deaths (or one) cause by drunk drivers?

No, both need to be addressed. Though one should look at whether the person engaging in the activity is getting killed or of innocent bystanders are getting killed.

The act of drunk driving, even if you do not kill anybody, is already rather heavily penalized and there are specific spot checks to check for that behaviour. Just sitting in your car while drunk can lead to penalties.

So, to say that nothing is being done to combat people getting killed by drunk drivers is asinine. Though we can certainly debate if enough is being done.

The same goes for innocent people getting killed by gunfire. I see no reason why that cannot be discussed.

I find it dishartening that one would even question why one would want to discuss what could be done to prevent mass murderers from using a theatre as a shooting gallery.

I see no problem discussing ways to stop mass murderers. The problem is the way the gun grabbers want to do it would be like having your DUI check points taking cars away from people that don't drink.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

I see no problem discussing ways to stop mass murderers. The problem is the way the gun grabbers want to do it would be like having your DUI check points taking cars away from people that don't drink.

The majority of the people throwing out comments like that seem to be in the pro-gun crowd. I haven't seen too many people truly advocating that in this thread.

Are you sure you have read this somewhere, or are you just having a knee-jerk reaction? Cause all these knee-jerk reactions make me think that many do have a problem having this dicussion.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I haven't seen too many people truly advocating that in this thread.

I guess the problem, is that people are saying vague things:

"We should do more" more is rarely better - more just means intrusion
"We should do it better" I agree here, but it's so vague as to be useless

but without any concrete suggestions. and when cornered, the best we've seen is just additional screens and reviews that would be very unlikely to make a positive impact, but would be negative to a lot of innocents

Basic philosophy is interesting, but useless in application. I'd rather see people try to offer different solutions, and get away from the "I don't what, but MORE is better" vs "you can't do anything so don't try" stances. The current discussion goes nowhere. It just degenerates into points about how the other side is wrong, not how the current side is right. That's at least where the pro-gun side has the high ground in the conversation. The anti-gun side (or call it the anti-violent nutjob side) needs to offer more than just complaints.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

That's at least where the pro-gun side has the high ground in the conversation. The anti-gun side (or call it the anti-violent nutjob side) needs to offer more than just complaints.

And that is where I think you are wrong. Reactions as indicated above show that if anybody comes with a suggestion that even hints at any sort of restriction on arms, that person is labelled as a gun control fanatic (and in another thread subsequently compared to a child molester) who wants to ban all guns.

If there is ever a solution to found, it needs frank discussion from both sides. Not one side demanding solutions and then ridiculing anything brought forward.

[rushmc 18]

Ever see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy?

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

I see no problem discussing ways to stop mass murderers. The problem is the way the gun grabbers want to do it would be like having your DUI check points taking cars away from people that don't drink.

The majority of the people throwing out comments like that seem to be in the pro-gun crowd. I haven't seen too many people truly advocating that in this thread.

Are you sure you have read this somewhere, or are you just having a knee-jerk reaction? Cause all these knee-jerk reactions make me think that many do have a problem having this dicussion.

Your observations are true about this thread, but this thread is not where the new laws are being proposed. Members of Congress are already adding amendments, to unrelated laws, to do the very things the "knee Jerk" crowd goes on about.

Some of those same Members of Congress have said their goal is to remove all guns from society, their justification is law abiding citizens do not need them any way. Those individuals should not be at the debate table, just like the "Arms includes, Nukes!" individuals need not be there. Those two extremes are not going to ever have a healthy discussion.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

Some of those same Members of Congress have said their goal is to remove all guns from society, their justification is law abiding citizens do not need them any way. Those individuals should not be at the debate table, just like the "Arms includes, Nukes!" individuals need not be there. Those two extremes are not going to ever have a healthy discussion.

+1

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

That's at least where the pro-gun side has the high ground in the conversation. The anti-gun side (or call it the anti-violent nutjob side) needs to offer more than just complaints.

And that is where I think you are wrong. Reactions as indicated above show that if anybody comes with a suggestion that even hints at any sort of restriction on arms, that person is labelled as a gun control fanatic (and in another thread subsequently compared to a child molester) who wants to ban all guns.

If there is ever a solution to found, it needs frank discussion from both sides. Not one side demanding solutions and then ridiculing anything brought forward.

I'm good with this. My point is just that what's brought (typically) forward tends to deserve ridicule.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 622]

We've actually had enough theater shooting gallery incidents that we need to make some major changes?

Why haven't we addressed the cafeteria shooting gallery laws???

Watch tower / bell tower shooting gallery (range?) laws???

We better do a lot of laws at once - soon some other looney will find a way to kill more people at once.

Oh the horror.




What we have in this recent case is possibly one of few where a true nut ball went loopy.
Good luck getting privacy laws changed to allow some heads up to law enforcement. Between doctor/patient and HIPPA...NOT GUN RIGHTS...this is a tough one.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

We've actually had enough theater shooting gallery incidents that we need to make some major changes?

That's up to each individual to decide. Maybe enough to make minor tweaks? Maybe nothing. What do you think?

Quote

theater shooting gallery incidents

cafeteria shooting gallery

Watch tower / bell tower shooting gallery

Oh the horror.

They are pretty horrific in my opinion. I guess we'll put you on the side of, no big deal.

[normiss 622]

Quit "putting" me anywhere.
You want to discuss something until you disagree or can't accept another perspective.

We can't prevent the unknown - who would have thought this shooting would have happened?


I seriously feel this is a privacy issue we don't want to stomp on. You willing to open your health records up to the government?
Say I'm feeling suicidal (damn that sounds weird!) - so I go talk to suicide prevention and a therapist.
Cops show up within 24 hours to take my weapons, sharp instruments, pitchforks, razor blades, shoe laces, rope, belts, .... should they chop down my huge oak tree in the back yard? I could kill myself jumping from it.



6 months later...all better. Now how do I get my guns back?
Get off the psycho registry?
Removed from cop shop records telling them where the guns are?

I don't see this ever happening.
People generally do not like their privacy flayed open for the government to devour.