More mass shootings

[winsor 186]

billvon

>When someone commits a hideous crime with gasoline or other commonly available
>materials, the means is ignored and the perpetrator is the focus of any discussion.

So you claim that, in the past, drunk driving crimes/deaths have not resulted in discussions on tighter restrictions on driving (BAC levels etc)? (You may never have heard of an organization called MADD, but that's basically all they do.)

In the past, accidents involving pilots with suicidal or homicidal intent have not resulted in discussions on new pilot regs/qualifications?

In the past, bombings using ANFO have not resulted in discussions over tighter oversight of ammonium nitrate sales?

That just doesn't jibe with reality.

>I won't get into the other means immediately available to the dipshit in Las Vegas to
>cause carnage at the concert, which could easily have resulted in a much higher body
>count, since popular hysteria would only tend to fuck things up in areas unrelated to
>firearms, and I don't want to give anyone any ideas.

Agreed. Even a poorly designed nuclear weapon, or a small amount of VX, would have had immeasurably worse results. Perhaps even an ANFO bomb, although that's harder now with the new restrictions on obtaining the materials - and requires a level of education beyond imbecile.

But people don't commit mass murder in the US with chemical or nuclear weapons - and even ANFO bombs are very, very rare. What they do use is guns. '

If this guy were a chemist he might have been able to do even more damage. But he wasn't. He was a guy who liked guns, like many Americans. And he had easy access to them. As a result, he was able to kill 58 and injure 851.

This is the difference between a hypothetical discussion and a real one. Yes, hypothetically he could have done that with something else. In reality, people use guns.

Nothing hypothetical. He had the means at hand (VX & nuke irrelevant).

[kallend 1,625]

On this Memorial Day weekend it is worth recalling that more Americans have been killed with civilian owned "my 2nd Amendment rights" guns in the past 50 years alone than in all the wars the USA has fought combined since the founding of the nation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 186]

kallend

On this Memorial Day weekend it is worth recalling that more Americans have been killed with civilian owned "my 2nd Amendment rights" guns in the past 50 years alone than in all the wars the USA has fought combined since the founding of the nation.

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.

[yoink 321]

billvon

>About the whole psychological testing thing. Test for what?

A proclivity towards violence.

(BTW I agree with you that mandatory testing every six months for just this wouldn't work.)

It would work better than the do nothing thing we've go going on now.

The only problem is that it's incredibly invasive, probably goes against the constitution and leads to a database of people with psychological issues that could be MASSIVELY abused.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

The people who are banging on about 'mental-health' solutions? This is what it would take... Regular, mandatory screening for every single American, and action taken on those results.
Refuse a screening? No 2nd amendment rights for you. Fail one? No guns for you or your family.

[jcd11235 0]

winsor

***
On this Memorial Day weekend it is worth recalling that more Americans have been killed with civilian owned "my 2nd Amendment rights" guns in the past 50 years alone than in all the wars the USA has fought combined since the founding of the nation.

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.Perhaps you want to double-check that. Take your time; we'll wait.

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

[kallend 1,625]

winsor

***
On this Memorial Day weekend it is worth recalling that more Americans have been killed with civilian owned "my 2nd Amendment rights" guns in the past 50 years alone than in all the wars the USA has fought combined since the founding of the nation.

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.

Ummmm - NO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Nothing hypothetical.

People in the US killed by guns every year - 30,000 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by ANFO every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by ANFO and derivatives every year - 6 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by VX every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by nuclear weapons every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)

So yes, about as hypothetical as you can get.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

It would work better than the do nothing thing we've go going on now.

The only problem is that it's incredibly invasive, probably goes against the constitution and leads to a database of people with psychological issues that could be MASSIVELY abused.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

Agreed with all of that.

However, mental health screenings as part of an overall approach to mental health - done with the regularity (and lack of invasiveness) that you get during a medical checkup - could do a lot to reduce the number of people with pathologies likely to lead them to become mass murderers.

[winsor 186]

jcd11235

******
On this Memorial Day weekend it is worth recalling that more Americans have been killed with civilian owned "my 2nd Amendment rights" guns in the past 50 years alone than in all the wars the USA has fought combined since the founding of the nation.

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.Perhaps you want to double-check that. Take your time; we'll wait.

I'm sure that with the wildly disparate kill ratio in the Pacific, along with Dresden, Yokohama, Tokyo and, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki we covered a lot of ground.

The First Gulf War was quite the killing spree, we killed well over 10X the number we lost in Vietnam, and the numbers were similar in Korea IIRC.

I would not be at all surprised if American losses were eclipsed by the 'collateral damage' we inflicted in the long run.

Of course I'm referring to non-American deaths, but I suppose they don't count.

[winsor 186]

billvon

>Nothing hypothetical.

People in the US killed by guns every year - 30,000 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by ANFO every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by ANFO and derivatives every year - 6 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by VX every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)
People in the US killed by nuclear weapons every year - 0 (on average over the past 30 years)

So yes, about as hypothetical as you can get.

Of course I'm referring to E) None of the above when I cite the means available for numbnuts in Las Vegas to up the ante in his death toll.

But then again, you're bright enough to know that.

[yoink 321]

billvon

Quote

It would work better than the do nothing thing we've go going on now.

The only problem is that it's incredibly invasive, probably goes against the constitution and leads to a database of people with psychological issues that could be MASSIVELY abused.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

Agreed with all of that.

However, mental health screenings as part of an overall approach to mental health - done with the regularity (and lack of invasiveness) that you get during a medical checkup - could do a lot to reduce the number of people with pathologies likely to lead them to become mass murderers.

The problem is that unless it's compulsory and enforced then the the people who need help invariably think they're the ones who don't. need it - particularly if there's a risk that they'll lose access to their precious guns.

Can you really see rushmc going for regular psychological health checks?
It'd be 'it's none of the government's business! LOL!', or 'There's no proof it works!' or similar.

The point is that while the 'it's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem' is a great slogan for proponents of the 2nd, they haven't thought about how you'd actually implement any sort of response if that's true. Cost, personal freedom, risk and deployment issues are all much, much harder than removing access to the firearms themselves.

I think next time someone suggests it I'll take a page out of their book and just ask 'how do you do it?' or 'wouldn't work' as a response.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

The problem is that unless it's compulsory and enforced then the the people who need help invariably think they're the ones who don't. need it - particularly if there's a risk that they'll lose access to their precious guns.

Can you really see rushmc going for regular psychological health checks?
It'd be 'it's none of the government's business! LOL!', or 'There's no proof it works!' or similar.

But there's not a lot of people who will skip regular physicals because "it's none of the government's business! LOL!" - even though the result of a physical can cause someone to lose their rights (i.e. driving.) That's because the benefits greatly outweigh the downsides.

I am suggesting we make mental health like that. Have regular checkups for people that help them deal with stress, depression, insomnia - things like that. Sure, there will be .0001% of cases where the guy is determined to be psychotic or demented or incapable and will need to have rights curtailed, just as we see in physicals today. But for 99% of the people out there, it will merely reduce the odds that they will go postal.

[jcd11235 0]

winsor

I would not be at all surprised if American losses were eclipsed by the 'collateral damage' we inflicted in the long run.

Perhaps, although that's wholly irrelevant with respect to your previous claim.

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

[winsor 186]

jcd11235

***I would not be at all surprised if American losses were eclipsed by the 'collateral damage' we inflicted in the long run.

Perhaps, although that's wholly irrelevant with respect to your previous claim.

Which you misread as being what?

[jcd11235 0]

winsor

******I would not be at all surprised if American losses were eclipsed by the 'collateral damage' we inflicted in the long run.

Perhaps, although that's wholly irrelevant with respect to your previous claim.

Which you misread as being what?

I misread nothing. You're claim was factually incorrect.

ETA: Rereading your post reveals more poor writing with ambiguous meaning.

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

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.

Winsor, are you referring to American casualties or to American caused causalities? My research shows about 655,000 total battle deaths suffered by US forces over the years. I can find no reasonably reliable number for deaths inflicted by US forces.

I can find claims of 20 to 30 million foreigners killed. But the counting methods look pretty vague. And I'm sure that indirect deaths are being counted here as well.

But who's keeping score anyway?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[winsor 186]

gowlerk

Quote

But nowhere near as many as American forces killed in these wars.

Winsor, are you referring to American casualties or to American caused causalities? My research shows about 655,000 total battle deaths suffered by US forces over the years. I can find no reasonably reliable number for deaths inflicted by US forces.

I can find claims of 20 to 30 million foreigners killed. But the counting methods look pretty vague. And I'm sure that indirect deaths are being counted here as well.

But who's keeping score anyway?

I think if you look up the Imperial Japanese forces before and after the battles of Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tarawa et al. you can get some numbers of those killed BY American forces. Add to that the casualties inflicted by Curtis LeMay, whose goal was to reduce the Japanese population "by half," and you have overshot the number of Americans killed in all wars.

We can dish it out, but we sure can't take it. Talk to a Russian about casualties in wartime.

The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The book "How to Lie With Statistics" also seems like good source material.

Of the U.S. deaths where firearms were used as an implement, all are not equal.

Suicide is way up there, and is subject to a separate discussion.

Police shootings loom large these days, and even the politicians who bitch the loudest rely heavily on Law Enforcement and other armed services for protection.

Justifiable Homicide is another column to consider.

Criminals shooting criminals? My main concern is that they are such poor shots that they too often fail to kill each other, and bystanders are liable to drop.

By no means do I support allowing the kinds of people behind the Parkland and Santa Fe shootings to have access to lethal force, but in each cases the perp clearly stated intent well in advance and nobody did squat.

It is my contention that any adult who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society.

Regarding those who support bans, Socrates said that "a man sees in others what he knows of himself."

I do not acknowledge the right of the fundamentally mediocre to subject me to their limitations.


BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

I do not acknowledge the right of the fundamentally mediocre to subject me to their limitations.

Nah..., you accept many limitations on your behavior. You just have a pet cause centered around your love of and lust for firearms.

I do agree with your Socrates quote though. It confirms my long held belief.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

winsor

I do not acknowledge the right of the fundamentally mediocre to subject me to their limitations.

So everyone who disagrees with your position is fundamentally mediocre? Implying, of course, that you're not mediocre.

That's some serious arrogance you've got going on there.

[Bob_Church 7]

"The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." "

I think it was Disraeli. But as far as wartime deaths go, I'm missing your point. A country attacks another country, starting a war. They continue doing things that make it imperative to the attacked country to stop them which can only be done by defeating them.
But the leadership of the attacking country would rather they all die than lose so it takes enormous losses to finally get them to stop.
Why then would it be the attacked country's fault that so many of the attacker's people died?

[winsor 186]

Bob_Church

"The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." "

I think it was Disraeli. But as far as wartime deaths go, I'm missing your point. A country attacks another country, starting a war. They continue doing things that make it imperative to the attacked country to stop them which can only be done by defeating them.
But the leadership of the attacking country would rather they all die than lose so it takes enormous losses to finally get them to stop.
Why then would it be the attacked country's fault that so many of the attacker's people died?

Benjamin Disraeli sounds right.

I was simply using a different statistic than the one in which GUNS killed more Americans than did the ENEMY!

It's more of a 'so what, Americans killed more of the ENEMY than Americans died at the hands of the ENEMY and GUNS put together.'

I am, in fact, a lot more concerned with OUR death toll than I am with THEIRS.

I also don't blame gasoline for arson or knives for stabbings. I guess that puts me in the minority here.

[Bob_Church 7]

winsor

***"The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." "

I think it was Disraeli. But as far as wartime deaths go, I'm missing your point. A country attacks another country, starting a war. They continue doing things that make it imperative to the attacked country to stop them which can only be done by defeating them.
But the leadership of the attacking country would rather they all die than lose so it takes enormous losses to finally get them to stop.
Why then would it be the attacked country's fault that so many of the attacker's people died?

Benjamin Disraeli sounds right.

I was simply using a different statistic than the one in which GUNS killed more Americans than did the ENEMY!

It's more of a 'so what, Americans killed more of the ENEMY than Americans died at the hands of the ENEMY and GUNS put together.'

I am, in fact, a lot more concerned with OUR death toll than I am with THEIRS.

I also don't blame gasoline for arson or knives for stabbings. I guess that puts me in the minority here.

Got it. I don't see a lot of hope. How anyone can miss the damage that our constant connectivity in the form of phones and social media are doing shows just how much damage they're doing. Kids are killing themselves and others over facebook postings, many adults cannot, not will not, cannot, put the phone down any moment they're awake. Cell phone holders probably sounded like a great investment not all that long ago but they didn't realize that so many people would just never put them down but walk around with it in one hand, angled so they don't miss anything that might come in.
The last time I drove through Chicago I went through a construction site and saw grown men running grinding wheels with one hand while holding the phone to their ear with the other. And at work, watching janitors trying to run a buffer with one hand while using the other hand, again, to hold the phone up to their head for their non-stop "whuut, nothin'', how about you? Whuut, nothin."
We are deeply screwed up and won't do anything about it because it might put limitations on something we enjoy.

[yoink 321]

Bob_Church

******"The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." "

I think it was Disraeli. But as far as wartime deaths go, I'm missing your point. A country attacks another country, starting a war. They continue doing things that make it imperative to the attacked country to stop them which can only be done by defeating them.
But the leadership of the attacking country would rather they all die than lose so it takes enormous losses to finally get them to stop.
Why then would it be the attacked country's fault that so many of the attacker's people died?

Benjamin Disraeli sounds right.

I was simply using a different statistic than the one in which GUNS killed more Americans than did the ENEMY!

It's more of a 'so what, Americans killed more of the ENEMY than Americans died at the hands of the ENEMY and GUNS put together.'

I am, in fact, a lot more concerned with OUR death toll than I am with THEIRS.

I also don't blame gasoline for arson or knives for stabbings. I guess that puts me in the minority here.

Got it. I don't see a lot of hope. How anyone can miss the damage that our constant connectivity in the form of phones and social media are doing shows just how much damage they're doing. Kids are killing themselves and others over facebook postings, many adults cannot, not will not, cannot, put the phone down any moment they're awake. Cell phone holders probably sounded like a great investment not all that long ago but they didn't realize that so many people would just never put them down but walk around with it in one hand, angled so they don't miss anything that might come in.
The last time I drove through Chicago I went through a construction site and saw grown men running grinding wheels with one hand while holding the phone to their ear with the other. And at work, watching janitors trying to run a buffer with one hand while using the other hand, again, to hold the phone up to their head for their non-stop "whuut, nothin'', how about you? Whuut, nothin."
We are deeply screwed up and won't do anything about it because it might put limitations on something we enjoy.

Guns don't kill people, social media does!

Got it. I'll add it to the list.

[Bob_Church 7]

Oh, and summer is here. Let's see what sort of new records we can set for dead babies in the back seat because a parent was on the phone and zoned out about them.

[billvon 2,400]

>Guns don't kill people, social media does!

That's ridiculous. We now know that too many doors, no Jesus in the classroom, violent video games and abortion enables mass shootings - not social media or guns. What are you, some kind of liberal?