Another mass shooting...

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.

Inside buildings...but they are allowed on campus, which is what I said.

So, if they are allowed on campus grounds, then it is clearly not a "gun free zone". Unless of course this is a private school.

Let's see how you and rush now try to move the goal posts.

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

So, from that link, 290 deaths from mass killings ( 4 or more people killed on 1 incident) since 2006, 218 from shootings. That works out to just over 24 a year.

There have been more deaths, so far just this year, in Oregon alone, from traffic fatalities than from 9 years of mass killings.

We, as a society, accept the number of traffic fatalities without a second thought. But, a much smaller number mass killings and there is outrage.

No, we don't. We are concerned enough to require driver ed, licensing, vehicle registration, vehicle testing in most states, strict rules about vehicle design and safety features, DUI laws, eyesight tests...

The comparison is a very stupid one designed to make unacceptable outcomes seem acceptable.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

No, we don't. We are concerned enough to require driver ed, licensing, vehicle registration, vehicle testing in most states, strict rules about vehicle design and safety features, DUI laws, eyesight tests...

Agreed, and those requirements resulted in 32,719 traffic fatalities in 2013. No big debate (at least compared to the gun debate) about dramatically increasing diver training or restrictions.

Quote

The comparison is a very stupid one designed to make unacceptable outcomes seem acceptable.

Why is 24/year from mass killing unacceptable? We execute double that per year in the U.S.

Why is 32,719/year from traffic fatalities acceptable?

This is the root of the debate. What is acceptable and what is not.

Derek V

[headoverheels 291]

Yeah, I always wondered why anyone had any concern at all when the World Trade Center buildings went down. After all, that many people die in US traffic accidents every 6 weeks.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Why is 24/year from mass killing unacceptable? We execute double that per year in the U.S.

Why is 32,719/year from traffic fatalities acceptable?

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of risk vs reward?

Most people have cars - Risk: people die in car crashes. Reward: Modern society continues to function.

Most people have guns - Risk: mass (and other) shootings occur. Reward: Guns are shiny?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>We, as a society, accept the number of traffic fatalities without a second
>thought. But, a much smaller number mass killings and there is outrage.

Yep. And skydivers are even more outraged when skydivers die due to equipment sabotage, even though that number is much lower than the number of deaths due to cancer in the US.

Would knowing that there are a lot of cancer deaths in the US make you not care much about equipment sabotage? If you were concerned about a local case of a rigger killing a skydiver through sabotage, would that be an emotional response rather than a logical one?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Driver,

Quote

Local news is reporting that the shooter is among the dead.

Local news is now saying he was killed in a shootout with police.

Jerry Baumchen

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of risk vs reward?

Most people have cars - Risk: people die in car crashes. Reward: Modern society continues to function.

Most people have guns - Risk: mass (and other) shootings occur. Reward: Guns are shiny?

Sure. So first define what is acceptable. Then determine what it would take to get to the acceptable level. Then decide if we are willing to accept what it takes to reduce the number to the acceptable level.

Without much expense, effort, or limiting of personal freedoms, we could reduce traffic fatalities dramatically in the US. I would very much support an increase in minimum requirements for an initial driver's license and an annual practical test. This would save lives without much expense, effort, or limiting personnel freedoms.

Guns in the Us are not going anywhere, they are constitutionally protected. The measures that have been implemented where I live, in CO, recently are;

1) Limiting new magazine production and sales to 15 rounds and;
2) Requiring background checks for all firearm transfers.

I know at least one of the costs for these measures, MagPul left the state, taking their jobs and taxes with them. What has been the upside to these measures? Nothing. You go out of state and buy all the magazines you want. You can even buy 30-round magazines in the state.

How many people have been prosecuted for the background check law? How many mass killings have these measures prevented? None.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yep. And skydivers are even more outraged when skydivers die due to equipment sabotage, even though that number is much lower than the number of deaths due to cancer in the US.

Would knowing that there are a lot of cancer deaths in the US make you not care much about equipment sabotage? If you were concerned about a local case of a rigger killing a skydiver through sabotage, would that be an emotional response rather than a logical one?

If the goal is saving lives, I am not going to spend much time, effort, or money on preventing skydiving equipment sabotage. I would go after the low hanging fruit.

How much effort does USPA put into preventing equipment sabotage? How much effort does USPA put into preventing skydiving plane crashes, fatalities from low turns, and canopy collisions?

I have yet to see anyone propose a new gun law that didn't limit personal freedoms and would reduce mass shootings.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

I'm sure it provides great solace and comfort to the families of the murdered people to know that their loved ones were more likely to be killed in a traffic accident.

...

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

[Anvilbrother 0]

You have been around here long enough to know this debate with him and the others is not going to go anywhere.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm sure it provides great solace and comfort to the families of the murdered people to know that their loved ones were more likely to be killed in a traffic accident.

Of course not, but thank you for making my point. The debate tends to devolve into an emotional discussion rather than logical. Usually when the facts do not support your position.

Derek V

[billvon 2,400]

>If the goal is saving lives, I am not going to spend much time, effort, or money
>on preventing skydiving equipment sabotage. I would go after the low hanging
>fruit.

I would also suspect you would have an opinion on the issue, and would post about it. (Which means you would be "outraged" and "putting emotion above reason" according to the standards of this thread.)

>How much effort does USPA put into preventing equipment sabotage?

A fair amount. Much of Safety Day is oriented towards gear checks, for example - and they harp on ensuring your gear is in-date, packed by a rigger, maintained well, kept control of and protected during transit. I've seen half a dozen articles in PARACHUTIST over the years on how to protect against equipment tampering while traveling, for example. It's a common topic on here.

[mpohl 1]

Being sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment is pretty harsh.

If you could ask the dead, I think all of them would agree.
I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

Skyrad

Thats a bit harsh.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A fair amount. Much of Safety Day is oriented towards gear checks, for example - and they harp on ensuring your gear is in-date, packed by a rigger, maintained well, kept control of and protected during transit. I've seen half a dozen articles in PARACHUTIST over the year on how to protect against equipment tampering while traveling, for example.

So very little of USPA overall efforts are direct specifically towards equipment sabotage. This is reasonable. It is rare. It is worth some articles in Parachutist if it prevents a fatality from equipment sabotage.

This brings back to traffic fatalities and mass killing fatalities.

We have limited resources and would like to keep our personal freedoms. I am not saying pick one or the other. I am saying at some point we reach diminishing returns. We are at an average of 24 fatalities/year from mass killings (using Kallend's link). What would it take to reduce that number?

We are at 33,000 traffic fatalities/year. What would it take to reduce that number?

We are at ? (I honestly don't know) fatalities/year from skydiving equipment sabotage. What would it take to reduce that number (whatever it is)?

I don't hear much discussion about reducing the traffic fatalities with stricter requirements, etc. Although we could reduce that number easily, without undue burden on drivers or expense.

I hear a lot of discussion about mass killings. I have not seen anyone propose a law that would reduce that number without undue burden on gun owners.

I don't hear much discussion about skydiving equipment sabotage. I think the number of fatalities in this category are very low and I think USPA does enough to prevent them without taking further action.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day?

It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day?

It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

A lot of first-world democracies have chosen to restrict the right to bear firearms, and they have a far lower rate of shooting homicides than the USA does.

So it does work like that.

...

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

[Bolas 5]

SkyDekker

Quote

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.

Inside buildings...but they are allowed on campus, which is what I said.

So, if they are allowed on campus grounds, then it is clearly not a "gun free zone". Unless of course this is a private school.

Let's see how you and rush now try to move the goal posts.

It's an indirect ban.

A student or visitor with a CCW can visit the campus but can't take their gun in any buildings. Unless the school is providing secured storage outside each building for weapons the person is only left with four options:
1. Carry their weapon but don't go in any buildings.
2. Break the law and carry their weapon in buildings.
3. Store the gun in their car.
4. Leave it at home.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A lot of first-world democracies have chosen to restrict the right to bear firearms, and they have a far lower rate of shooting homicides than the USA does.

So it does work like that.

No, you don't get choose after you are dead to never ride in a car again to live again. It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

[mpohl 1]

I can accept traffic fatalities. They happen all over the world.
Mas o menos.

Gun violence is a uniquely American phenomenon.
This doesn't happen to that extend in Europe, the UK (America's brethren), Russia, China, India. Do I need to go on?

Gun violence is totally preventable.
No guns, no violence.

Again: Europe, the UK (America's brethren), Russia, China, India. Do I need to go on?

Hooknswoop

Quote

I bet all of them would have given up their right to bear guns. Just to live another day.

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day?

It doesn't work like that.

Derek V

[Anvilbrother 0]

Has Europe russia China etc had hundreds of millions of guns in the country during their entire existence? With laws designed to protect their recreational and self defence use? No did not think so, so you can't compare the US with other nations. It is a problem I guarantee you that but you can't look and go see germany is ok. Well germany had their guns kind of taken away at one point remember.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Gun violence is totally preventable.
No guns, no violence.

I would change it to "No guns, no gun violence."

And you are correct. But, this is a freedom that is protected by the constitution in the US. That will not change without an amendment to the constitution, and that is very unlikely. There is always a price to be paid for a freedom.

Quote

I can accept traffic fatalities.

You accept traffic fatalities as the price of freedom to drive cars. I accept gun fatalities as the price to own firearms.

Derek V

[rushmc 18]

Bill
It has been admited by those who make the proposals of increased gun regulations or controls would NOT have stopped any of them
Sandy Hook included

I will bet, the only change that had the chance of making a difference in this case would be allowing those on campus, who chose to, the carry and maybe protect themselves and others

The is just emotional hype

This said
Too much to learn about this one yet

The only known? Gun control nuts will be going apoplectic


again

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

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.

Inside buildings...but they are allowed on campus, which is what I said.

So, if they are allowed on campus grounds, then it is clearly not a "gun free zone". Unless of course this is a private school.

Let's see how you and rush now try to move the goal posts.

Nothing to move
Reported AGAIN

This was a gun free zone

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/oregon-community-college-shooting/

Now admit you are wrong

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

[rushmc 18]

From the link

Quote

The community college is a gun-free campus.

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” the college’s security policy states.

Joe Olson, former president of the college, told The Associated Press the school has only one security officer on duty at a time, and that person isn’t armed.

DOES IT GET ANY FUCKING CLEARER?????

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