More mass shootings

[normiss 622]

It would appear the weapon has more intelligence than some owners.

[nolhtairt 0]

Hooknswoop

Quote

You're simply ignoring factual evidence of the efforts to reduce auto fatalities of ALL ages.

No, I’m not. We will add crumple zones and air bags, but not restrict cars to the speed limit. Why? Because that is a restriction on a freedom. That is the difference, that is where we draw the line.

You’re ok with further restrictions on firearms, but not vehicles.

Derek V

To be fair, there are speed "governors" on some commercial vehicles and trucks. I'm not all that familiar on whether these are installed at the company's discretion or if it's a state requirement. But for sure, 18 wheelers and heavy vehicles don't need to be speeding due to the weights and distances needed to stop.

[Hooknswoop 19]

The point is society is not calling for this technology to automatically limit vehicles speed to be mandatory in all new vehicles every time there is a traffic fatality. We avoid restricting freedoms. I didn't even know that the technology was available. Same for breathalyzers tied to the ignition. We don't put them in every vehicle.

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities. Mental health care, bringing poorer area up with jobs, infrastructure and education, etc is much better. This is the direction the discussion needs to go.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities.

Actually, experience the world over shows that it is. The fact that you do not want gun control does not change the fact that it works.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Actually, experience the world over shows that it is. The fact that you do not want gun control does not change the fact that it works.

I thought this statement might get misunderstood. I didn't phrase it very well. In the US, with the 2nd amendment, gun control is difficult at best. I also think improving poorer areas is better than gun control. Reduce firearm fatalities and improve people lives. Win-Win. That is what I mean by gun control not being the best method.

Derek V

[billvon 2,400]

> In the US, with the 2nd amendment, gun control is difficult at best.

Definitely agreed there. But we should not shy away from things that are difficult. If we did, we would now not have samples of Moon rocks, an international space station, A380's, nuclear reactors or a 400-way formation record.

> I also think improving poorer areas is better than gun control. Reduce firearm
>fatalities and improve people lives. Win-Win.

Also a good idea, and it's great that you are pushing that angle. That might also help.

[Phil1111 911]

Hooknswoop

... We avoid restricting freedoms. ...

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities. Mental health care, bringing poorer area up with jobs, infrastructure and education, etc is much better. This is the direction the discussion needs to go.

Derek V

Every time there is an attack involving knives, vehicles, etc. motivated by radicalization, terrorism or a will to inflict mass casualties. The proof of gun control is laid bare.

Canada, France, UK and other western countries have seen knife attacks and the use of vehicles. All with the purpose of mass casualties. A gun is the most effective tool for killing.

In most cases semi-auto weapons would have resulted in more casualties. In addition its hard to kill children in classrooms, worshipers in a church or Mosque with a vehicle. Or use a knife in an attack and kill more than a couple people.

Mass Shootings and Mental Illness
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099
Above detailed study.

Generally speaking:
"– The U.S. has similar rates of mental illness to other developed countries, yet we experience far more firearm attacks. It's not an answer to say that we simply need to treat mental illness, because that only treats part of the problem. We also need to improve our gun laws to make sure that people who are in a mental health crisis cannot assemble arsenals of deadly weapons so quickly and easily."
https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/guns-and-mental-health-are-shootings-the-us-psychological-problem

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Definitely agreed there. But we should not shy away from things that are difficult. If we did, we would now not have samples of Moon rocks, an international space station, A380's, nuclear reactors or a 400-way formation record.

Yep, but none of those things took away freedoms from individuals.

Derek V

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Quote

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities.

Actually, experience the world over shows that it is. The fact that you do not want gun control does not change the fact that it works.

What you call fax are widely disputed by many. They're just what you want to be faxed in your world. Australia is the best example of this. Mini here point to say that it's made a big difference. It only has in one area but it is not reduced deaths.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

Quote

What you call fax are widely disputed by many. They're just what you want to be faxed in your world. Australia is the best example of this. Mini here point to say that it's made a big difference. It only has in one area but it is not reduced deaths.

Fax are factually real, hence the original government requirement to sign legal papers in black ink.

[Phil1111 911]

rushmc

***

Quote

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities.

Actually, experience the world over shows that it is. The fact that you do not want gun control does not change the fact that it works.

What you call fax are widely disputed by many. They're just what you want to be faxed in your world. Australia is the best example of this. Mini here point to say that it's made a big difference. It only has in one area but it is not reduced deaths.

"The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people other than himself, which is notably a higher casualty count than is generally applied for tallying mass shootings in the U.S.—dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre. Between 1995 and 2006, gun-related homicides and suicides in the country dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively, though these declines appear to have since leveled off. Two academics who have studied the impact of the reform initiative estimate that the gun-buyback program saves at least 200 lives each year, according to The New York Times."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4748733;page=51;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Learning requires an effort and desire to understand. Is it the former or latter thats missing?

[rushmc 18]

Phil1111

******

Quote

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities.

Actually, experience the world over shows that it is. The fact that you do not want gun control does not change the fact that it works.

What you call fax are widely disputed by many. They're just what you want to be faxed in your world. Australia is the best example of this. Mini here point to say that it's made a big difference. It only has in one area but it is not reduced deaths.

"The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people other than himself, which is notably a higher casualty count than is generally applied for tallying mass shootings in the U.S.—dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre. Between 1995 and 2006, gun-related homicides and suicides in the country dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively, though these declines appear to have since leveled off. Two academics who have studied the impact of the reform initiative estimate that the gun-buyback program saves at least 200 lives each year, according to The New York Times."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4748733;page=51;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Learning requires an effort and desire to understand. Is it the former or latter thats missing?


You need to reread my post. Notice I didn't say shootings but I did say deaths...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

You need to reread my post. Notice I didn't say shootings but I did say deaths...

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/#incidentsJurisdiction

and...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

check out total number of gun deaths on the second link

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

The point is society is not calling for this technology to automatically limit vehicles speed to be mandatory in all new vehicles every time there is a traffic fatality. We avoid restricting freedoms. I didn't even know that the technology was available. Same for breathalyzers tied to the ignition. We don't put them in every vehicle.

Gun control is not the best way to reduce firearm fatalities. Mental health care, bringing poorer area up with jobs, infrastructure and education, etc is much better. This is the direction the discussion needs to go.

Derek V

Arguments like this make me so angry. Why is it one or the other? We should try to improve on both.

Your 'fix that first' attitude is just another way of trying to make nothing happen about gun fatalities. There will ALWAYS be another 'that' in your mind...

Car safety is continually improving. Seat-belts, crumple zones, the design of highways themselves... The same is NOT true of firearms.

[billvon 2,400]

>Yep, but none of those things took away freedoms from individuals.

The Apollo program took away a tremendous amount of money from individuals. It cost $144 billion in 2017 dollars - about $500 for every person in the US.

A380's can fly safely because we have a worldwide air traffic control system, which requires training and licensing before anyone can fly.

Nuclear reactors are hip-deep in regulations. Lots of utilities would like to avoid all the red tape and build reactors without legal requirements for evacuation planning, NRC oversight, spent fuel transport and storage, radiation exposure limits for their employees and requirements to report accidents.

However, let's go with your requirement that no _individual_ has rights removed. Then we do it this way -

Pass a law that makes gun manufacturers responsible for any misuse of their weapons. Problem solved - with no restrictions of anyone's individual rights. Gun manufacturers can do whatever they like to solve the problem. The free market in action!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Arguments like this make me so angry. Why is it one or the other?

Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results. The other improves the nation and will have large results.

Derek V

[billvon 2,400]

>Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results.

Other than keeping a few thousand Americans alive.

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Arguments like this make me so angry. Why is it one or the other?

Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results. The other improves the nation and will have large results.

Derek V

I don't accept that. There will never be a point where you say 'OK. It's time to do something about the gun fatalities'. If we did everything you wanted re car fatalities you wouldn't give up your gun rights any easier then, would you?

[normiss 622]

He's entirely correct.
The innocent dead people have completely lost all of their rights, have all of their freedoms restricted, with no results.
But as a nation, those still alive get the tremendous results of having weapons to kill more people.
Surely that improves the nation.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't accept that. There will never be a point where you say 'OK. It's time to do something about the gun fatalities'.

Let me clarify my position. I am in favor of reducing, even eliminating, firearm related fatalities. What I am not in favor of is restricting individual rights, (specifically the 2nd amendment) especially for little to no reduction in firearm related fatalities. For example, the background check and magazine limit laws here in CO. I am in favor of enforcing the current laws. I am in favor of ensuring that if someone should not be able to pass the NICS background check, that they not pass the background check. I am in favor of more policing of areas with high rates of firearm fatalities as well as reducing the factors that drive those high rates.

My point about the vehicle fatalities is that a lot more can be done, today, and isn't being done. Because that would restrict individual freedoms. There is no mandate that new cars be equipped with the technology that prevents exceeding the posted speed limit. There is no mandate that new cars be equipped with a breathalyzer tied to the ignition. There is no mandate that cell phone manufacturers must disable e-mail, text, etc in a moving vehicle. Society accepts the 40,000 +/- vehicle related fatalities. We could do a lot more, today, but don't.

Derke V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

I don't accept that. There will never be a point where you say 'OK. It's time to do something about the gun fatalities'.

Let me clarify my position. I am in favor of reducing, even eliminating, firearm related fatalities. What I am not in favor of is restricting individual rights, (specifically the 2nd amendment) especially for little to no reduction in firearm related fatalities. For example, the background check and magazine limit laws here in CO. I am in favor of enforcing the current laws. I am in favor of ensuring that if someone should not be able to pass the NICS background check, that they not pass the background check. I am in favor of more policing of areas with high rates of firearm fatalities as well as reducing the factors that drive those high rates.

Derke V

What if the laws in place won't actually have any measurable effect on fatalities? Background checks, magazine controls and even perfect policing (I believe) would only have minimal impact on random mass shootings.
What if the ONLY way to reduce them is to curb some rights? (or even just one)

While by definition people who go out and murder a bunch of people are probably technically insane, a more thorough background check wouldn't stop most of these events. The magazine limits are utterly pointless - the one time I went to a firing range it took me (an absolute neophyte) about 3 seconds to change a magazine. So instead of taking 1 magazine with 30 rounds in, I'll take two with 15 to my rampage... Nobody's any safer.

My solution makes everybody safer in the long run. Police that can shut down guns in an area hostage situations. A massive reduction in criminals with guns that work on the streets... There will eventually be no need for you to have to carry a gun to feel safe because almost everyone will be in the same boat. And remember, my proposal gives you all of your rights back and doesn't require any oversight to shoot on your own property. You are completely within your rights to defend your family there.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

My solution makes everybody safer in the long run. Police that can shut down guns in an area hostage situations. A massive reduction in criminals with guns that work on the streets... There will eventually be no need for you to have to carry a gun to feel safe because almost everyone will be in the same boat. And remember, my proposal gives you all of your rights back and doesn't require any oversight to shoot on your own property. You are completely within your rights to defend your family there.

I am not in favor of disabling firearms outside of a defines boundary (home/property/whatever. I carry a firearm outside of the home.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

You could still carry it. It just wouldn't do anything - the same as everybody else carrying a gun. Who would you be protecting yourself from if 99% of the criminals don't have working guns either?



Do you carry a gun because you actually feel the need to protect yourself? Or is it just because you can, or for some other reason?

Have you ever been shot at as a civilian? I have. And it was because I was involved in stuff that I shouldn't have been. Since I left that life I've had a gun pointed at me precisely 0 times. The 'on-the-street' self defense rationale is (I believe) basically paranoia.

[kallend 1,625]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Arguments like this make me so angry. Why is it one or the other?

Because one approach restricts individual freedoms for little to no results. The other improves the nation and will have large results.

Derek V

Yes, the tens of thousands shot dead every year, and the hundreds of thousands of injuries, are just a small price to pay so you can have your illusion of self-defense (the gun most likely to kill you is the one you or a family member owns).

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You could still carry it. It just wouldn't do anything - the same as everybody else carrying a gun. Who would you be protecting yourself from if 99% of the criminals don't have working guns either?

It's not just criminals with guns, but criminals with knives, bats, friends, lots of previous spare time and free access to a gym, etc.

Quote

Do you carry a gun because you actually feel the need to protect yourself? Or is it just because you can, or for some other reason?

I carry a gun for the same reason I have an AAD. Hope I don't need it, but if I do, it could save my life.

Quote

Have you ever been shot at as a civilian? I have. And it was because I was involved in stuff that I shouldn't have been. Since I left that life I've had a gun pointed at me precisely 0 times. The 'on-the-street' self defense rationale is (I believe) basically paranoia.

1 knife pulled on me, 1 gun. Neither time was I in a place or doing something I shouldn't. For the knife, I was very glad I had my firearm on me. I wasn't armed when the gun was pulled.

Never needed my AAD. Probably never will.

Derek V