More mass shootings

[kallend 1,623]

billvon

>What I mean is that a 747 crashing and everyone dieing results in a different response than the
>equivalent number of people dying in one day in car crashes.

The reason that 747's _don't_ regularly crash is that every time an aircraft does crash, we look long and hard at what causes led up to that crash - and remove as many of them as possible.

In fact the GOP, bought and paid for by the gun lobby, has explicitly made it difficult to research the causes of gun violence.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The reason that 747's _don't_ regularly crash is that every time an aircraft does crash, we look long and hard at what causes led up to that crash - and remove as many of them as possible.

Well, to a point. We could do more. But there is a point of diminishing returns. How much are we willing to pay for a plane ticket?

Quote

it's a good thing we don't treat 747 crashes like we treat gun deaths (i.e. "well, it's going to happen, nothing we can do about it") or flying would be a life-or-death gamble.

I don't agree. Just like 747 (or any plane) crashes, we do what we can, but there is a point of diminishing returns.

Derek V

[RonD1120 58]

jakee

You said don't make them angry. If nothing bad happens when they're angry, why is it important not to make them angry?

That is a good question. I my situation I did not want to lose their friendship. Marines, IMO, tend to be on one side or the other.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,395]

>Well, to a point. We could do more. But there is a point of diminishing returns.

Agreed.

Now imagine what their safety record would be like if:

-the government zeroed out the budget of the NTSB every year
-they outlawed any research into aircraft safety
-they made sure that pilots did not need a license to fly (because freedom)
-they opposed any efforts to register aircraft, track their maintenance or maintain databases on problems with them
-whenever an aircraft crashed, they said "this isn't the time to talk about airplane safety; it's a time to pray for the victims."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>Well, to a point. We could do more. But there is a point of diminishing returns.

Agreed.

Now imagine what their safety record would be like if:

-the government zeroed out the budget of the NTSB every year
-they outlawed any research into aircraft safety
-they made sure that pilots did not need a license to fly (because freedom)
-they opposed any efforts to register aircraft, track their maintenance or maintain databases on problems with them
-whenever an aircraft crashed, they said "this isn't the time to talk about airplane safety; it's a time to pray for the victims."

Good thing 747's aren't in the Bill of Rights then.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

>Well, to a point. We could do more. But there is a point of diminishing returns.

Agreed.

Now imagine what their safety record would be like if:

-the government zeroed out the budget of the NTSB every year
-they outlawed any research into aircraft safety
-they made sure that pilots did not need a license to fly (because freedom)
-they opposed any efforts to register aircraft, track their maintenance or maintain databases on problems with them
-whenever an aircraft crashed, they said "this isn't the time to talk about airplane safety; it's a time to pray for the victims."

Good thing 747's aren't in the Bill of Rights then.

Derek V

Which particular part of the Bill of Rights prohibits research on gun violence? On background checks?

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Which particular part of the Bill of Rights prohibits research on gun violence? On background checks?

Not in there. Do all the research and background checks you like.

Derek V

[billvon 2,395]

>Good thing 747's aren't in the Bill of Rights then.

That's why most conversations with gun rights supporters are fruitless. No matter how good a point you make, they reply with "bill of rights." (Despite what the Supreme Court has said.)

You'd save a lot of time if you just led with that.

[Hooknswoop 19]

You missed the point.

Diminishing returns. We could do more for 747 crashes and we could do more with gun-deaths. We eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. That point is going to be different for different topics. 747's, guns, vehicles.

Did you know the equivalent of a full 747 passenger load dies every day in vehicle accidents. But a 747 crash has a much larger emotional impact than a bunch of car crashes across the country. This affects the return on investment equation. Why does the gun discussion heat up after a mass shooting event but not after someone getting shot in the poorer neighborhoods of Chicago? The emotional reaction to the event.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You'd save a lot of time if you just led with that.

Did you think you could convince me that we need more gun restrictions?

I was never under the illusion that I could convince you that we don't. If you don't own guns, who cares if they restrict them more?

Derek V

[billvon 2,395]

>Did you know the equivalent of a full 747 passenger load dies every day in vehicle accidents.
>But a 747 crash has a much larger emotional impact than a bunch of car crashes across the
> country.

I disagree. 747 impacts get more news; car crashes affect more people personally, and the emotional impact for them is much higher. Most people (myself included) know people who have died in car crashes - and that impacted me a lot more than the Tenerife crash.

Yes, car crashes happen far more often. Which is why we have registrations, licensing, insurance, inspection requirements, requirements for brakes, tailllights, seatbelts, airbags and telescoping steering wheels. And laws against speeding, reckless driving, drunk driving and driving without a license or registration. And highway patrol cops.

Now imagine how much worse your odds of surviving on the road would be if:

-the government zeroed out the budget of the NTSB every year
-they outlawed any research into car safety
-they disbanded the NHTSA
-they prohibited police officers from pulling any driver over
-they made sure that drivers did not need a license to drive (because freedom)
-they opposed any efforts to register vehicles, put license plates on them, insure them or pass laws against drunk driving or reckless driving.
-whenever there was a large highway accident, they said "this isn't the time to talk about vehicular safety; it's a time to pray for the victims."

I know you don't really give a shit about any of that and will just reply with "bill of rights" again. The above isn't really for you; it's for other readers.

[billvon 2,395]

>If you don't own guns, who cares if they restrict them more?

Why do you assume I don't?

Along the same lines, are you currently preparing for an AFF JCC?

[yoink 321]

billvon

>Good thing 747's aren't in the Bill of Rights then.

That's why most conversations with gun rights supporters are fruitless. No matter how good a point you make, they reply with "bill of rights." (Despite what the Supreme Court has said.)

I've never understood the 'it's in the constitution' argument. By definition the 2nd amendment was itself an alteration to the constitution, so why is it considered sacrosanct?

It's not an immutable fact of existence. It can be changed in any way that we as a society see fit. Being in the constitution does not guarantee that it will or should always be in the constitution in its current (or any) form.

[normiss 622]

Apparently nowhere near the price we pay to keep angry old fat white guys firing lead at any and every thing they desire to kill.
Giving up isn't the answer to anything.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why do you assume I don't?

I asked you, and kallend, (anything more modern than a musket for kallend and 6+ round magazines for you) both of you did not answer.

Quote

Along the same lines, are you currently preparing for an AFF JCC?

No. Passed in 1999.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I've never understood the 'it's in the constitution' argument. By definition the 2nd amendment was itself an alteration to the constitution, so why is it considered sacrosanct?

Same as, for example, the 1st amendment. It is just as important a right, to me.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Giving up isn't the answer to anything.

I am not suggesting anyone give up. I am attempting to explain the resistance to more restrictions and understand why you want change.

That understanding (why and why not change) is, I believe, the key to both side of the discussion moving forward instead of just talking past each other.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

I've never understood the 'it's in the constitution' argument. By definition the 2nd amendment was itself an alteration to the constitution, so why is it considered sacrosanct?

Same as, for example, the 1st amendment. It is just as important a right, to me.

Why? Can you explain that to me without using reductive logic? (It's my right so I'm not giving it up because it's my right.)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why? Can you explain that to me without using reductive logic? (It's my right so I'm not giving it up because it's my right.)

I see the bill of rights as equally important rights. In the same sense that the oath of allegiance I took a long time ago, all of it is equally important. Parts of it are not important than other parts.

I would no more give up my right to free speech than unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of religion. I am not sure if I answered your question or not.

Derek V

[billvon 2,395]

>I asked you, and kallend, (anything more modern than a musket for kallend and 6+ round
>magazines for you) both of you did not answer.

True. And if you asked me if I kept a lot of money in the house, or asked me what sort of alarm system I had, I wouldn't answer that, either. Seems like a bad idea.

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Why? Can you explain that to me without using reductive logic? (It's my right so I'm not giving it up because it's my right.)

I see the bill of rights as equally important rights. In the same sense that the oath of allegiance I took a long time ago, all of it is equally important. Parts of it are not important than other parts.

I would no more give up my right to free speech than unreasonable search and seizure or freedom of religion. I am not sure if I answered your question or not.

Derek V

I think so, and I see where you're coming from but can't agree with it.

Do you honestly put the same value on the right to freedom of speech and religion as the right of excessive bail not being required (which would seem to be broken regularly)...

[RonD1120 58]

yoink

***>Good thing 747's aren't in the Bill of Rights then.

That's why most conversations with gun rights supporters are fruitless. No matter how good a point you make, they reply with "bill of rights." (Despite what the Supreme Court has said.)

I've never understood the 'it's in the constitution' argument. By definition the 2nd amendment was itself an alteration to the constitution, so why is it considered sacrosanct?

I think it is the same reasoning that claims any reference to God or Christ be removed from schools and other public facilities.

You build on a foundation you do not change it. When you remodel a structure the change takes place above the foundation. If you change the foundation you are building a new structure entirely.

If we change the foundation of the United States of America we will lose it completely. Progressive left thinking globalists are OK with that. I and others like me are not OK with that and we will fight to keep it as solid a foundation as we can.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,254]

RonD1120

***

You said don't make them angry. If nothing bad happens when they're angry, why is it important not to make them angry?

That is a good question. I my situation I did not want to lose their friendship. Marines, IMO, tend to be on one side or the other.
But the comment was meant as advice to others, who presumably are not friends with them, otherwise you would not need to explain what PGR riders are like.

So why does someone who is not friends with a PGR rider need to avoid making them angry?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[yoink 321]

RonD1120

I think it is the same reasoning that claims any reference to God or Christ be removed from schools and other public facilities.

You build on a foundation you do not change it. When you remodel a structure the change takes place above the foundation. If you change the foundation you are building a new structure entirely.

If we change the foundation of the United States of America we will lose it completely. Progressive left thinking globalists are OK with that. I and others like me are not OK with that and we will fight to keep it as solid a foundation as we can.

If inspection of a foundation shows that there is damage (or it was built incorrectly in the first place) you absolutely DO make changes to the foundation. You also continually repair and maintain it, and you bring it up to current building code (because attitudes about what's acceptable and safe change over time).

If you don't then chances are your structure eventually collapses...

The nature of the universe is that of change, Ron. A completely static system fails - always. Entropy dictates it.

[normiss 622]

The foundation was never built on your god or your christ, that's why it's being pushed to remove all that nonsense.
We've had enough of American christian sharia laws.