More mass shootings

[gowlerk 1,911]

Quote

Well, one thing I'm resigned to and will accept and stop posting on is that we will let any amount of carnage continue before even considering a reality that might require some limitations on our access to the internet. The NRA has nothing on the smart phone industry.

The internet and smart phones has been the biggest revolution in human communications since the advent of the written word. That is why you are here. Firearms on the other hand are the biggest improvement in killing machines since the knife.

One is a tool designed for helping. The other is a tool designed for killing. Your post and your thinking are an extreme example of an attempt to create a false equivalency.

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

[DanG 1]

I don't see how you can possibly think it is impossible to reduce access to guns and simultaneously think it will be possible to keep teenagers from being sad.

Frankly your position is ridiculous.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,121]

No matter what is (or isn’t) done, someone will be unhappy, and someone will be worse off. Maybe a lot worse off. and maybe a lot of someones.

The issue is whom do we hurt, in order to help someone else? Eventually something else will be the new status quo, just as smartphones are a status quo now.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bob_Church 7]

DanG

I don't see how you can possibly think it is impossible to reduce access to guns and simultaneously think it will be possible to keep teenagers from being sad.

Frankly your position is ridiculous.

If that was my position it would be. But trying to make a point here when nobody wants to hear it is like wrestling a greased pig, so I'll quit wasting pixels on it.

[gowlerk 1,911]

Quote

Only if the plan includes massive cutbacks on the number of guns available in the US. There are hundreds of millions, not tens of thousands. Until then, we have to go after the reason kids are going over the edge.

Even if you could find a way to stop the 14 to 19 year old dissatisfied male set from being resorting to violence they only represent a small fraction of the firearm violence in the USA. Massive cutbacks in firearm availability are what is needed. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. But one day it will.

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

[Bob_Church 7]

I'm done. Once we reach the point of trivializing all this by calling these victims of bullying "sad" then I have nothing to say, at least not that wouldn't get me banned.

[gowlerk 1,911]

Bob_Church

I'm done. Once we reach the point of trivializing all this by calling these victims of bullying "sad" then I have nothing to say, at least not that wouldn't get me banned.

I view this as putting words in my mouth that I did not use.

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

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

***
I'm done. Once we reach the point of trivializing all this by calling these victims of bullying "sad" then I have nothing to say, at least not that wouldn't get me banned.

I view this as putting words in my mouth that I did not use.

You didn't say that and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying you did.
But, and this isn't about something you said, people who think that the results of High School bullying are sadness can never understand why these shootings happen, so what's there to discuss? I think the discussion has bottomed out.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

We need to take a serious look at why so many young people turn to guns now no matter how much we might not like what we learn.

I think that answer is pretty simple. Because they are so easily available. That is really the only big difference between an American teenager and Canadian or Western European teenagers.

You have been told this now many different ways, but you don't like that answer. You want a different answer. So rather ironic you finish the sentence with: "no matter how much we might not like what we learn".

All these other things you want to address would make some difference, but not a material difference.

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

Quote

Only if the plan includes massive cutbacks on the number of guns available in the US. There are hundreds of millions, not tens of thousands. Until then, we have to go after the reason kids are going over the edge.

Even if you could find a way to stop the 14 to 19 year old dissatisfied male set from being resorting to violence they only represent a small fraction of the firearm violence in the USA. Massive cutbacks in firearm availability are what is needed. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. But one day it will.

Exactly. I'm happy to see anything that reduces the ability of mass shooters from getting their hands on assault rifles but the moves that will reduce the number of guns in the country will also do the same but with much better outcomes.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,396]

>Talking about keeping people from getting a gun in the US is like doing away with
>gravity so we don't need parachutes.

More like doing away with lead paint and asbestos so we don't need to treat as many kids for lead poisoning and lung cancer.

Pretty sure there's more lead paint and asbestos (on a pound per pound basis) in the US than guns. But we're making progress.

[DanG 1]

I was bullied every day in middle school. I know it creates more than sadness. I was making a rhetorical point. BTW, that happened to me before the internet

The point is that your goal of ending bullying by restricting the internet is completely unrealistic. The internet makes bullying easier, sure. It also makes it easier for bullied kids to connect with friends, learn coping mechanisms, or seek help.

Ending bullying by restricting the internet is just as unrealistic as getting rid of all the guns.

- Dan G

[winsor 186]

There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

[tkhayes 125]

DanG

Right. Before social media we had Columbine. You’re focused on a single cause just like the anti-gun people are focused on a single cause.

Anti-gun people are no more focused on a single cause any more than the pro-gun people are denying that it is part of the problem.

Gun legislation is and has to be part of the solution.

denying that by the gun lobby is just as stupid as calling out anti-gun folks as singularly focused. Most anti-gun lobby groups advocate for MANY facets of solutions to the problems, so singling out that they are ONLY anti-gun already shows an unrealistic bias.

The NRA calls for mental health changes, but then does nothing to further that cause. They blame video games, but they do nothing to further that cause. They call out bad parenting but do nothing to further that cause.

everyone likes to pick on the other side with whatever cherry-picked narrow inane arguments they can come up with.

GUNS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, and they will have to be part of the solution, along with tons of other stuff.

[jcd11235 0]

winsor

There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively.

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

[DJL 232]

jcd11235

***There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively.

That's a pretty low resolution list but put it this way, it's also saying that there's no need to own a firearm as long as you follow those steps. If we all agree to that logic, which does make sense in many regards, we can go ahead with further restrictions on firearms possession which will have a trickle down effect (Trickle-Down Gun Control) of slowing the transfer of guns from the legal to illegal market.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jcd11235 0]

DJL

******There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively.

That's a pretty low resolution list but put it this way, it's also saying that there's no need to own a firearm as long as you follow those steps.

It's analogous to the common claim of many smokers that if non-smokers want top breathe clean air, they should feel free to stay home.

It's also factually inaccurate, but that's nothing new for gun-nut rhetoric.

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

[DJL 232]

jcd11235

*********There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively.

That's a pretty low resolution list but put it this way, it's also saying that there's no need to own a firearm as long as you follow those steps.

It's analogous to the common claim of many smokers that if non-smokers want top breathe clean air, they should feel free to stay home.

It's also factually inaccurate, but that's nothing new for gun-nut rhetoric.

So it does the dual duty of invoking the points that we shouldn't have to restrict our personal freedoms just because others want unrestricted access to firearms and also that firearms are entirely unnecessary for self defense if you're willing to restrict your personal freedoms which means we can have tighter gun control measures and choke the supply chain.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[winsor 186]

DJL

************There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively.

That's a pretty low resolution list but put it this way, it's also saying that there's no need to own a firearm as long as you follow those steps.

It's analogous to the common claim of many smokers that if non-smokers want top breathe clean air, they should feel free to stay home.

It's also factually inaccurate, but that's nothing new for gun-nut rhetoric.

So it does the dual duty of invoking the points that we shouldn't have to restrict our personal freedoms just because others want unrestricted access to firearms and also that firearms are entirely unnecessary for self defense if you're willing to restrict your personal freedoms which means we can have tighter gun control measures and choke the supply chain.

While you're at it, pass laws against alcohol.

88,000 people die each year from alcohol related causes.

I don't drink, so you should be like me. Unless, of course, you are willing to have tens of thousands of innocents dead so you can have access to your poison.

Think of the children.

[billvon 2,396]

>While you're at it, pass laws against alcohol.

We do.

You can't drink until you are 21. You can't buy alcohol for someone else under 21. You can't provide alcohol to anyone who is drunk. You can't drive when drunk. You can't fly when drunk. If you do you might spend a long time in jail.

In most places you can't work while drunk. (Specific jobs like brewers, bartenders and sommeliers excepted.) Come to work drunk? You'll likely be tested and fired.

Want to sell alcohol? You'll need a license, and specific training for bartenders, which varies from state to state. And if you decide to serve someone who IS drunk? You might end up responsible for the people they kill.

Want to make alcohol? Same things. Health department signoffs and inspections. Recordkeeping requirements. Laws on alcohol percentages (again varies by state.)

Do the laws work? Yes, they reduce deaths from alcohol. Drunk driving deaths have declined dramatically from the 1970's, for example. Which is a good thing.

Too bad we don't take a similar approach to guns.

[winsor 186]

billvon

>While you're at it, pass laws against alcohol.

We do.

You can't drink until you are 21. You can't buy alcohol for someone else under 21. You can't provide alcohol to anyone who is drunk. You can't drive when drunk. You can't fly when drunk. If you do you might spend a long time in jail.

In most places you can't work while drunk. (Specific jobs like brewers, bartenders and sommeliers excepted.) Come to work drunk? You'll likely be tested and fired.

Want to sell alcohol? You'll need a license, and specific training for bartenders, which varies from state to state. And if you decide to serve someone who IS drunk? You might end up responsible for the people they kill.

Want to make alcohol? Same things. Health department signoffs and inspections. Recordkeeping requirements. Laws on alcohol percentages (again varies by state.)

Do the laws work? Yes, they reduce deaths from alcohol. Drunk driving deaths have declined dramatically from the 1970's, for example. Which is a good thing.

Too bad we don't take a similar approach to guns.

We do.

I recommend a common sense prohibition of alcohol. Think of the untold benefits we could reap thereby!

[billvon 2,396]

>I recommend a common sense prohibition of alcohol.

There is no need for that, just as there is no need for a gun ban. As explained.

If you don't like alcohol, consider cars. The laws we have for cars work; we haven't banned them, but they're a lot safer and more efficient than they were 40 years ago - and they are about the same cost in adjusted dollars. We did that with the NTSB, the NHTSA and the IIHS. We did that with laws that require taillights, seat belts and airbags, and that prohibit driving drunk. We did that with insurance companies who offer discounts for safe drivers.

We are fortunate that we do not have a society with a large segment of "car nuts" who would see the requirement for seatbelts as equivalent to abolishing the Constitution. If we did, we would not have seen the above gains.

[gowlerk 1,911]

Or, you could go with what has proven to work in every other western nation. Gun control.

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

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

We do.

Actually... no you don't. Of if you do, it is an abysmal failure. Gun violence is actually up. Chicago is no longer the leader, and has not been for a long time, in gun violence, they are something like 25th in the most gun violence in cities.

you have more guns, more people carrying than ever, more good guys with guns, and yet we see increased gun violence, not a decrease. Your experiment is absolutely and wholly failing.

Canada has more guns that ever, and and also an increase in gun violence, but far better set of laws that generally mean lottery odds of ever being a victim of gun violence.

So you can actually have your guns AND have less gun violence.

[DJL 232]

billvon

>While you're at it, pass laws against alcohol.

We do.

You can't drink until you are 21. You can't buy alcohol for someone else under 21. You can't provide alcohol to anyone who is drunk. You can't drive when drunk. You can't fly when drunk. If you do you might spend a long time in jail.

In most places you can't work while drunk. (Specific jobs like brewers, bartenders and sommeliers excepted.) Come to work drunk? You'll likely be tested and fired.

Want to sell alcohol? You'll need a license, and specific training for bartenders, which varies from state to state. And if you decide to serve someone who IS drunk? You might end up responsible for the people they kill.

Want to make alcohol? Same things. Health department signoffs and inspections. Recordkeeping requirements. Laws on alcohol percentages (again varies by state.)

Do the laws work? Yes, they reduce deaths from alcohol. Drunk driving deaths have declined dramatically from the 1970's, for example. Which is a good thing.

Too bad we don't take a similar approach to guns.

In my state you cannot walk out of a store with alcohol that's in a loose bottle or 6-pack, only an enclosed case, they legally have to put it in a bag. Because:

"It is illegal for any individual to drink or offer a drink of alcohol to another individual in a public place (excluding areas licensed for on-premise alcohol consumption). Under Virginia State Law, a person can be fined up to $250 if caught drinking alcoholic beverages in public. Constitutes a Class 4 Misdemeanor."

This is all in an effort to curb public intoxication by limiting how easy it is to get it from hand to mouth in a public area.

In the meantime we're a firearms open carry state.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher