Another mass shooting...

[yoink 321]

JohnnyMarko

The focus should be on mental health. The shooter posted online last night that he would do this.

Unfortunately gun advocates are so concerned about any limitation in gun ownership that there will never be any middle ground available. There will always be the argument of 'x kills more people than y' or 'that might solve a, b and c, but not x so it's pointless'.

I'm kinda with mhol - not with who cares necessarily, but personally I'm getting jaded to reading about these incidents. I don't really raise an eyebrow when I hear about a fatal traffic accident on the evening news anymore because it's so frequent, and it's getting that way about mass shootings in schools / colleges.
It's not shock or horror when I read about it anymore; it's 'Again? Really?'

That's fucked up.

This apparently, is the way it is. This is what the US has accepted is the cost of gun ownership.

[billvon 2,384]

>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.

Exactly. Some effort is expended towards preventing equipment sabotage even though it's not the #1 killer in skydiving. You've admitted you would put some (not much) effort towards it.

Like USPA, we should be willing to spend some - not much compared to traffic accidents - to reduce gun deaths. There are about 10,000 homicides by gun in the US every year and about 30,000 traffic deaths every year. As a result we pass laws against speeding, drunk driving, driving without insurance etc. even though many do not DIRECTLY stop traffic accidents. These reduce our rights overall but we consider the tradeoff to be worthwhile. We spend about $4 billion a year every year on highway safety in the US - crash barriers, highway patrol, NTHSA programs etc. Some of it is ineffective, and most goes unused (most crash barriers are never hit) but per your statement it is important.

Thus it would make sense to spend about a billion a year to prevent gun deaths, and pass a fair number of laws. Call it a third as many laws as we have traffic laws, due to the smaller number of deaths.

>I don't hear much discussion about reducing the traffic fatalities with stricter
>requirements, etc.

Really? You haven't seen pedestrian walkways installed in high traffic areas? You haven't seen speed limits change, traffic lights go in, and stop signs be placed? You haven't seen drunk driving laws made tougher? Every single one of those has the potential to slow you down or inconvenience you. But we do it because public safety is important.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Is the right to drive in the constitution?

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Exactly. Some effort is expended towards preventing equipment sabotage even though it's not the #1 killer in skydiving. You've admitted you would put some (not much) effort towards it.

Agreed.

Quote

Thus it would make sense to spend about a billion a year to prevent gun deaths, and pass a fair number of laws. Call it a third as many laws as we have traffic laws, due to the smaller number of deaths.

What would the money be spent on? What laws would be passed? The recent laws passed here in Colorado are worthless, even thought politicians said they would make a difference. They were wrong (or lied).

I keep asking what laws would be passed that would actually make a difference without taking away freedom? I keep getting silence for the answer.

Quote

Really? You haven't seen pedestrian walkways installed in high traffic areas? You haven't seen speed limits change, traffic lights go in, and stop signs be placed? You haven't seen drunk driving laws made tougher? Every single one of those has the potential to slow you down or inconvenience you. But we do it because public safety is important.

I have also seen speed limits go up. I remember when it was 55 mph maximum, nation wide. I recently drove on a road in Texas with an 85 mph speed limit.

The traffic lights and walkways are not taking away freedoms. Tough drunk driving laws are not taking away freedoms. They make sense. That is why there isn't an opposition to them.

I am still waiting for reasonable gun law that does't take away freedom and makes sense. Anyone?????

Want to make a difference in US traffic fatalities?-

The German driving license can be obtained after finishing driving school and passing a two-stage test, the theory test and road test. Before being allowed to take these tests an eye-exam must have been performed and a first-aid course (usually lasts 8 hours) completed.

Driver's education usually takes place in legally authorized and mostly privately owned for profit driving schools. The driving school handles all the necessary paperwork for the students, such as applying for a license, registering for tests etc.

The theoretical part of the education comprises lessons at the driving school, held by legally authorized driving instructors, typically in the evening. The content and number of the lessons is set by law and depending on the type of license the student wishes to acquire a different number of lessons has to be attended. Remarkably enough, a student does not have to attend different lessons, they could theoretically attend the same lesson several times to meet the criteria. Lessons are divided into general knowledge about road rules that anyone studying for any license might attend and specialized lessons for certain types of vehicles. To prepare for the written theory test students usually obtain a study package from the driving school which can consist of software programs, textbooks and sample exam papers. Schools usually take responsibility for their students' success and thus keep track of class attendance and hand out sample exams for practicing. The theory test is a multiple-choice test consisting of randomized questions from a published catalog. Thus the questions and correct answers can be studied in advance.

Practical training also takes place with driving school instructors. Specially labeled and fitted vehicles are provided by the driving school. Cars usually feature extra mirrors and pedals for the instructor so that they can take control over the vehicle in dangerous situations since driving and parking maneuvers are taught on public roads. For motorcycles the student operates the motorcycle on their own with a driving instructor trailing in another vehicle and giving orders and remarks via radio. A certain number of practical and technical lessons has to be completed again depending on the type of vehicle. Obligatory lessons include a minimum number of lessons each driving on the Autobahn, outside urban areas, and in the dark. The actual number of lessons a student completes varies with individual skill. Since the most difficult part of the driving test is usually inner city driving, most lessons actually take place there, even though there is no mandated minimum for that.

If a student wishes to be trained in a car with an automatic transmission and takes the road test on such a car, a remark will be added on the license and the holder may not drive cars with a manual transmission. A test taken on a manual transmission car automatically qualifies for driving automatic transmission cars though.

Theoretical and practical training may be commenced at the same time or shifted. Some driving schools may insist a student attend a certain number of lessons before giving out appointments for driving training.

Both exams are held by an authorized inspector who visits the driving school for this purpose. Students must pass the theory test before taking the road test, with no more than 12 months lying between the two. During the road test, the driving instructor is present in the car with the assisting features of the driving school car deactivated or connected to audio signals and a warning light (if the instructor has to step in, the test is then an automatic fail.)

After each exam, results are immediately given to the students. In case of the road test, if the student meets all the required criteria, the license is handed over by the inspector. Should the student for any reason not be allowed to hold the license at the time of a successful test (for example because he has not yet reached the minimum age), the license will be sent to the Kraftfahrzeug-Zulassungsbehörde (compare DMV) of the student's place of residence where it can be picked up as soon as the person becomes eligible. There are limits on how often and in which intervals failed tests can be repeated.

The failure rate for driving tests in 2011 was 28%. Automobile associations have given the opinion that this is due to the low quality of the education at driving schools which benefits their income as students take additional lessons after failing.[2]

For cars, people aged 17 do not get a regular driver's license after passing all required tests but rather a permission slip which only allows them to drive a car under the supervision of persons that meet certain criteria and that are stated on the permission. The actual driver's license is then handed out once the person turns 18.

The cost of obtaining a license for driving a car is on average 1,400€ (US$1,800 in September 2014) but varies widely according to an individual's skill, city and region.[3] Individual driving schools set their own prices. The total contains fees for authorities and exams, learning materials, driving lessons and tuition.

Derek V

[tkhayes 124]

[urlhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email511-graphic1&utm_campaign=irandeal[/url]

let's do nothing about it then. what the fuck, I mean millions of dollars, people's lives destroyed, all falling on society to fund in so many ways....but it is Ok.

we can do nothing, I mean we put a man on the fucking moon and have cured countless diseases, but no, there is nothing that can be done EVER to help improve the gun violence in the country. nothing.

way to go america. you rock

[Anvilbrother 0]

We put a man on the moon in effort to stop a world war, we cured diseases to stop millions from dying. We have gun laws to prevent these things but nothing is perfect. Take the challenge above propose to us a law that will stop thee mad shootings and not infringe on the constitution.

Once again all this fuss over Gun deaths but we still have hundreds of thousands dying every year by things we can actually prevent if 1/16 of the effort to ban guns was directed to it.

Once again emotions taking over

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

[champu 1]

billvon

Really? You haven't seen pedestrian walkways installed in high traffic areas? You haven't seen speed limits change, traffic lights go in, and stop signs be placed? You haven't seen drunk driving laws made tougher? Every single one of those has the potential to slow you down or inconvenience you. But we do it because public safety is important.

I'm unaware of any political parties whose national platform includes limiting cars to no more than two forward gears and 50 horsepower. Everything else is a "street dragster" and we all know speed kills. You can keep the vehicles you already have but you can't sell them or drive them within 1000 ft of a school. Likewise there's no political party that thinks speed limits and drivers license revocations are fundamentally bullshit.

Nobody here really even acknowledges how poorly anti-gun politicians that they support behave when their reins are off (as demonstrated by the legislatures in a handful of states and as left largely unchecked by federal courts.) Even if we do agree on what might be reasonable measures our actual political choices are "nothing" and "every bit of pig-headed idiocy they can get away with" so long as we don't actually communicate ideas to representatives. Right now the only ones doing it are the NRA et al. and Bloomberg et al.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Do you have a non-emotional solution you would like to pitch?

Derek V

[tkhayes 124]

sure I do - but there are people far smarter than you and me that have even better solutions.

and by the way there is no 'solution'.

by that I mean nothing that will suddenly stop any and all shootings, which seems to be the prerequisite for any movement form the gun lobby,

there are 1000 things we could to do improve the situation and most of them easy.

we could collect data and allow the CDC to collect data, the FBI to collect data, but we block it.

we could require background checks for all gun purchases, a background check that actually means something, but we do not.

we could require training,

we could offer a buyback program for unwanted guns, but we block that as well and pass legislation to not even allow it in some states

but before you start picking apart my suggestions, keep in mind that I am not congress, I am not the senate, I am not the arbitrator of what the solutions are.

there are people out there and there are policies out that are already demonstratively far better than what we have today that are not being implemented and are being blocked from being implemented.

so summary - no I am not going to suggest a change for you to dismiss. what I am going to say is that we can do better,

and you already know that, but i expect you will simply deny that we can or come up with some other half-assed flimsy excuse as to why it cannot be done.

If that is the kind of person you are - "We can do nothing" then i guess that is the way that it is. i am the kind of person that says "Sure we can and let's try something'" because whatever we are doing today sure the fuck is not working.

You either think you can or you think you can't. either way you are right.

[tkhayes 124]

name one thing that we could do with 1/16 of the effort to save as many lives as die in gun violence every year.

your claim, not mine. back it up.

talk about emotional responses....wow

[mpohl 1]

Give it up, TK.
It's hopeless.

P.S.: "Responding to a mass shooting Thursday on an Oregon campus, President Obama, visibly angry and frustrated, said that such incidents had become so routine that “we’ve become numb to this."

P.P.S.: Instead we have to listen to the usual numbwits on this board. Spewing their Anvil BS. Thats what is wrong w/ America. And all OR dead would agree in a heartbeat. If they still had one!

tkhayes

[urlhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email511-graphic1&utm_campaign=irandeal[/url]

let's do nothing about it then. what the fuck, I mean millions of dollars, people's lives destroyed, all falling on society to fund in so many ways....but it is Ok.

we can do nothing, I mean we put a man on the fucking moon and have cured countless diseases, but no, there is nothing that can be done EVER to help improve the gun violence in the country. nothing.

way to go america. you rock

[tonyhays 86]

http://uproxx.com/technology/2015/04/luminaries-kai-kloepfer-ending-accidental-shootings

If a kid in his garage can do this, imagine what a properly funded project could do.

I'm sure the gun right advocates will still come up with a reason this somehow infringes upon their rights

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

[tkhayes 124]

at what point does it become 'emotional' enough to do something? By your standards I mean.

I mean we invaded Iraq over 9/11 and they had nothing to do with it. Was 9/11 emotional or not? were you emotional over 9/11? Do you disagree with any of the actions we took because of 9/11 due to people being 'emotional about it?

Did you desire and expect the USA to address 9/11 on those emotions? more people died from gun violence this year than died in 9/11.

now tell me that emotions do not matter again....go ahead. explain that to me how Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Iwo Jima, were not 'emotional' and I guess we never should have acted on them because they were too 'emotional' to be acted upon.

Go ahead and explain to me how Hurricane Katrina was 'emotional' and we never should have acted on it. Go ahead and explain to me how any major California earthquake was too 'emotional' and how we never should have acted on them because of that.

Go ahead and explain to me how we never should have acted on Polio....because so many people were so fucking 'emotional' that OBVIOUSLY a rational solution could never be found....I mean all those 'emotional people' demanding that someone help the situation - how dare they....

I cannot wait to hear that. go ahead. I can hardly wait

[Bolas 5]

tkhayes

name one thing that we could do with 1/16 of the effort to save as many lives as die in gun violence every year.

your claim, not mine. back it up.

talk about emotional responses....wow

Though it's been said, many times, many ways…

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=Gun+free+zone&search_type=AND&search_fields=sbjbdy&search_time=&search_user_username=Bolas&sb=score&mh=25

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

[gowlerk 1,903]

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.

Seems like an emotional response, not a logical response. And that fits from looking at all the gun debates, short on logic, long on emotion.

Derek V

Bingo. This is it exactly. It probably won't touch you, or someone you love. It's just one of the prices America must pay in order to indulge her fascination with the beautiful shiny elegant tools of war. And who would quibble about this small cost in order to enjoy the freedom and feel the power of holding and loving these wonderful weapons?

The broken families grieving this evening will include many who will call for new laws to limit access to these innocent toys. Even though the whole world knows that guns don't kill, people kill.

These people need to suppress their selfish calls and feelings to tread upon the freedoms of their fellow Americans. God Bless America and God Bless the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

there are people far smarter than you and me that have even better solutions.

What are their solutions?

Quote

and by the way there is no 'solution'.

Agreed.

Quote

there are 1000 things we could to do improve the situation and most of them easy.

How many of these would actually make a difference?

Quote

If that is the kind of person you are - "We can do nothing" then i guess that is the way that it is. i am the kind of person that says "Sure we can and let's try something'" because whatever we are doing today sure the fuck is not working.

If someone has an idea that would make a difference without limiting freedoms or being burdensome, I'm all for it.

I'm not in the "We can do nothing" camp, I don't think it is really a huge problem. I don't think there are any easy answers to reduce mass killings.

Derek V

[tkhayes 124]

who said we were only trying to address mass killings? Apparently you missed the other 10,000 or so killed every year by gun violence and 10,000-20,000 more suicides by guns.

once again, the gun lobby attempts to twist and change the subject to distract from the real issues and then pretend that nothing can be done about it.

let's talk about mass shootings - no wait, i meant mental illness...not that, no - background checks....oh wait, I meant to say an armed society is a polite society, no wait, are we just talking about kids that shoot their siblings by mistake.....oh wait, black people are in gangs and they don't count anyway.

no....there is no problem......

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

If someone has an idea that would make a difference without limiting freedoms or being burdensome, I'm all for it.

I'm not in the "We can do nothing" camp, I don't think it is really a huge problem. I don't think there are any easy answers to reduce mass killings.

If America (and you) are not willing to do anything "burdensome" or put limits on some of your freedoms. then there is indeed, nothing to be done.

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

[Bolas 5]

(Cough)
"Gun free zones"
(Cough)
Enforce and secure them or allow people to defend themselves.
(Cough)
Eliminate easy targets.
(Cough, cough)

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=Gun+free+zone&search_type=AND&search_fields=sbjbdy&search_time=&search_user_username=Bolas&sb=score&mh=25

Pardon me, must be a fall cold.

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

[tkhayes 124]

Quote

... or being burdensome,

you mean like the wear and tear on your brake linings every time to have to stop your car at a light?

Missed your thread and letters to Congress screaming those outrages apparently.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

at what point does it become 'emotional' enough to do something? By your standards I mean.

A society should not create laws based on emotion. Laws should be based on facts.

An example is anyone passing you on the freeway is a reckless jerk and anyone slower than you is driving too slow, creating a traffic hazard for others. This is emotion based, not fact based.

Are you saying emotional responses to situations are OK? Emotions justify the response? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I can run them off the road or shoot them because I am pissed off? Of course not. Emotions do not justify the response.

Look at mass killings objectively. How big is the issue? What measures could be put in place to reduce them? How much would those measures reduce mass killings vs. how much of a burden on society would be?

We could reduce traffic fatalities to almost zero overnight by reducing the speed limit to 20 mph nationwide. This would be too much of a burden to society so we don't do it. It is a trade off.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

who said we were only trying to address mass killings?

"Re: [tkhayes] Another mass shooting... "

I thought we were talking about mass killings.

Quote

once again, the gun lobby attempts to twist and change the subject to distract from the real issues and then pretend that nothing can be done about it.

I am not trying to twist anything, change the subject, or pretend nothing can be done about it.

I keep asking what can be done about it. So far no one has presented a solution that will make a real difference without removing the freedom to own firearms.

How can you stop someone that owns a firearm, legally purchased, would pass any of the ideas you have presented, goes crazy and starts shooting? There is now law, no background check, no training that can prevent someone form losing it.

Quote

no....there is no problem....Crazy..

There is a problem. In the grand scheme of things, mass killings are a very small problem without any easy answers for further reducing it.

Colorado passed the universal background check law and magazine limit laws. What impact have they had?

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,903]

Hooknswoop

Quote

at what point does it become 'emotional' enough to do something? By your standards I mean.

A society should not create laws based on emotion. Laws should be based on facts.

An example is anyone passing you on the freeway is a reckless jerk and anyone slower than you is driving too slow, creating a traffic hazard for others. This is emotion based, not fact based.

Are you saying emotional responses to situations are OK? Emotions justify the response? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I can run them off the road or shoot them because I am pissed off? Of course not. Emotions do not justify the response.

Look at mass killings objectively. How big is the issue? What measures could be put in place to reduce them? How much would those measures reduce mass killings vs. how much of a burden on society would be?

We could reduce traffic fatalities to almost zero overnight by reducing the speed limit to 20 mph nationwide. This would be too much of a burden to society so we don't do it. It is a trade off.

Derek V

Other countries manage to have far lower gun death rates than the US, along with traffic death rates similar to US ones. It's not that much of a burden. Just ask anyone living in another western country. You can keep your trade off. No one else wants it!

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If America (and you) are not willing to do anything "burdensome" or put limits on some of your freedoms. then there is indeed, nothing to be done.

Agreed.

This is a very important point a lot of people do not understand.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Other countries manage to have far lower gun death rates than the US, along with traffic death rates similar to US ones. It's not that much of a burden. Just ask anyone living in another western country. You can keep your trade off. No one else wants it!

OK, deal.

Derek V