Walmart shooting - El Paso

[billvon 2,379]

1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.  Hard to argue with numbers.  Is it about saving lives or gun control?

It's about saving lives.  But here in the US we put a higher priority on preventing murder than we do on preventing cheeseburgers.  In our morality, it is unfortunate if a person tries to kill themselves, whether by gun or by cheeseburger.  It is orders of magnitude worse when someone decides to kill someone else, and carries that out.

Which is why police homicide divisions are well funded, but the anti-junk-food division is not.  I know you understand this.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

Where should we as a society spend our time, energy, and resources to get the most lives saved for least effort spent?

Derek,

You reduced the problem to a simple question that no one is asking. But as long as that's where you went I'll ask you: what would be a ratio that would cause you to support a ban on assault weapons? 1 in a 1000? 1 in a 100? Or is it no number because its a constitutional right and thus immune?

 

Joe

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

what would be a ratio that would cause you to support a ban on assault weapons?

Hi Joe,

I do believe that Derek has 'answered' that question previously by his complete silence.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

I do believe that Derek has 'answered' that question previously by his complete silence.

Jerry Baumchen

I guess I just don’t get the good news of assault weapons.

[Hooknswoop 19]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

It's about saving lives.  But here in the US we put a higher priority on preventing murder than we do on preventing cheeseburgers.  In our morality, it is unfortunate if a person tries to kill themselves, whether by gun or by cheeseburger.  It is orders of magnitude worse when someone decides to kill someone else, and carries that out.

Which is why police homicide divisions are well funded, but the anti-junk-food division is not.  I know you understand this.

You are right, and I agree.  Murder is higher priority than cheeseburgers.  But is less than 1000 from mass shootings a higher priority than 30,000 from vehicles accidents?  We could cut that number in half very quickly.  But we don’t because it doesn’t have the emotional impact of mass shootings.

Derek V

[Rick 67]

34 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I guess I just don’t get the good news of assault weapons.

We need to define "assault weapons". Right now there is an iniative in the Florida Senate to ban military type weapons.

"The measure would ban persons residing or entering the state from possessing military-style firearms. The measure would define military-style firearms as "any gun with a magazine capacity of more than seven rounds of ammunition or any weapon capable of firing in fully automatic mode, any weapon capable of being modified in any manner to fire in a fully automatic mode or any weapon classified as a sniper rifle."

The definition is so broad it would ban pretty much every long gun. I think maybe a focus on high capacity magazines might be more effective and easier to pass.

[Hooknswoop 19]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Derek,

You reduced the problem to a simple question that no one is asking. But as long as that's where you went I'll ask you: what would be a ratio that would cause you to support a ban on assault weapons? 1 in a 1000? 1 in a 100? Or is it no number because its a constitutional right and thus immune?

 

Joe

That is a simple question to a complicated problem.  What impact would a ban on assault weapons have on the issue of mass shootings?

How many lives need to be lost every year to general aviation aircraft accidents before you would support the elimination of private aircraft ownership?  We are more likely to die in an aircraft accident than a mass shooting.  We have to look at the cost/benefit.  

I don’t think any constitutional right is unlimited.

Jerry-  I haven’t posted in a while, that is true.  But I have been reading and thinking about this.  I didn’t feel like I had anything worthwhile to contribute.  My “silence” doesn’t mean I don’t care, just didn’t want to add to the noise.  Did you have anything to add?

Derek V

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, Rick said:

We need to define "assault weapons". Right now there is an iniative in the Florida Senate to ban military type weapons.

"The measure would ban persons residing or entering the state from possessing military-style firearms. The measure would define military-style firearms as "any gun with a magazine capacity of more than seven rounds of ammunition or any weapon capable of firing in fully automatic mode, any weapon capable of being modified in any manner to fire in a fully automatic mode or any weapon classified as a sniper rifle."

The definition is so broad it would ban pretty much every long gun. I think maybe a focus on high capacity magazines might be more effective and easier to pass.

Pictures would work. You know, like the chart at the airport when they lose you luggage. Or simple explanations. Bolt action, good. No clip and 5 round capacity, good. Has an acronym for a name, maybe not good. I see it as  easily done.

[billvon 2,379]

4 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

How many lives need to be lost every year to general aviation aircraft accidents before you would support the elimination of private aircraft ownership?  We are more likely to die in an aircraft accident than a mass shooting.  We have to look at the cost/benefit.  

That number would be very different if the deaths were of the pilot and passengers due to negligence or poor decision making vs. deaths due to murderers flying aircraft into sports arenas and concert venues.  And the result would not be "elimination of private ownership" - just additional requirements for licensing, training, tracking and background checks.

I am sure you understand this.

[gowlerk 1,901]

17 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

But is less than 1000 from mass shootings a higher priority than 30,000 from vehicles accidents?  We could cut that number in half very quickly.  But we don’t because it doesn’t have the emotional impact of mass shootings.

If you believe this then you have not looked at accident statistics and the relentless push to lower them. The number of fatalities per mile has been cut in half several times over in the past decades and the effort is continuing.

[Hooknswoop 19]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

If you believe this then you have not looked at accident statistics and the relentless push to lower them. The number of fatalities per mile has been cut in half several times over in the past decades and the effort is continuing.

Yes, I understand that.  But what would it cost to require new cars to be limited to the speed limit for the section of road they are on?  Or to be equipped with ignition breathalyzers?  Or tech that would prevent phone usage while the vehicle was in motion?  What would the benefit be?

I’m not saying ignore the problem.  I am saying look at how big the problem is, what it would cost to address and what would the return be on that cost?

If banning assault rifles resulted in no more mass shootings, I would support that.  What impact did the 1994 assault weapon ban have on mass shootings?

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

That number would be very different if the deaths were of the pilot and passengers due to negligence or poor decision making vs. deaths due to murderers flying aircraft into sports arenas and concert venues.  And the result would not be "elimination of private ownership" - just additional requirements for licensing, training, tracking and background checks.

I am sure you understand this.

Sure, but again, we accept that we are more likely to die in an aircraft accident.  I don’t think very many people would support banning general aviation.  I know I don’t.  The difference is the emotional reaction to an aircraft crash vs. a mass shooting.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,901]

Just now, Hooknswoop said:

If banning assault rifles resulted in no more mass shootings, I would support that.  What impact did the 1994 assault weapon ban have on mass shootings?

Assault rifles and mass shootings are only a small and very visible portion of the problems caused by America's obsession with killing machines. But you may as well start somewhere. Those who would claim that controlling those types of weapons is just the beginning of a larger effort to remove more and more killing machine rights? Well, they are correct, it is. Good luck, I have no real answers to the problem, but I sure see the problem. 

[billvon 2,379]

3 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

Yes, I understand that.  But what would it cost to require new cars to be limited to the speed limit for the section of road they are on?  Or to be equipped with ignition breathalyzers?  Or tech that would prevent phone usage while the vehicle was in motion?  What would the benefit be?

Agreed.  

Now, what would the cost be to require seatbelts in all cars?  Airbags?  Crash testing on all cars?  Brakes that meet a standard?  Lights?  In the past we've heard many people (mostly who have some sort of stake in the status quo) declare that these things would make cars unaffordable, or unsafe, or unwieldy, or would end their freedoms. Yet today cars are much safer, more powerful, better handling and more comfortable than they were 50 years ago - and cost about the same in real dollars.

So what's next?  Perhaps mandating emergency braking (currently an option.)  Or brake assist.  Or pedestrian detection.  Or ESC.  We might require more training to get a driver's license.  Insurance companies might require continuing driver ed to get their cheaper rates.  And in all cases, the benefits will be compared to the costs.  And in most cases, cars will end up being safer as a result - even if people's freedom to buy a car without ESC, or without additional training, is eroded.

It's amazing to me that this sort of things is not just accepted, but done regularly with cars.  But with guns, any such attempt is met with fury, hysteria and threats.

[billvon 2,379]

5 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

Sure, but again, we accept that we are more likely to die in an aircraft accident.  

You accept you might die in an aircraft accident.  You would be less likely to accept that your friends or loved ones could be killed by a murderer with an aircraft.  You are OK with that now because such incidents are vanishingly rare.  But even you would likely want changes if that happened once a day.

[Hooknswoop 19]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  

Now, what would the cost be to require seatbelts in all cars?  Airbags?  Crash testing on all cars?  Brakes that meet a standard?  Lights?  In the past we've heard many people (mostly who have some sort of stake in the status quo) declare that these things would make cars unaffordable, or unsafe, or unwieldy, or would end their freedoms. Yet today cars are much safer, more powerful, better handling and more comfortable than they were 50 years ago - and cost about the same in real dollars.

So what's next?  Perhaps mandating emergency braking (currently an option.)  Or brake assist.  Or pedestrian detection.  Or ESC.  We might require more training to get a driver's license.  Insurance companies might require continuing driver ed to get their cheaper rates.  And in all cases, the benefits will be compared to the costs.  And in most cases, cars will end up being safer as a result - even if people's freedom to buy a car without ESC, or without additional training, is eroded.

It's amazing to me that this sort of things is not just accepted, but done regularly with cars.  But with guns, any such attempt is met with fury, hysteria and threats.

Agreed.  I don’t think the hysteria is any more productive than “Those who would claim that controlling those types of weapons is just the beginning of a larger effort to remove more and more killing machine rights? Well, they are correct, it is.“.  

I would be ok with more regulation if it made a meaningful impact.  I do want the current laws enforced vigorously.  I do want a felon that attempts to purchase a firearm prosecuted.  I do want a program that keeps firearms out of the hands of anyone with mental health issue(s) that doesn’t discourage them from seeking treatment.  I am against doing something (ANYTHING!) just to say something was done.  For example, the magazine and universal background checks here in Colorado.  

I believe we are all on the same side.  I don’t know anyone that wants mass shootings.  I know I don’t.  Where we get divided is how to go about reducing/eliminating them.  This has been a large part of my thinking on the topic.  We all agree on where we want to go, just not how to get there.  I think if we keep that in mind, the conversation can move forward.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

23 minutes ago, billvon said:

You accept you might die in an aircraft accident.  You would be less likely to accept that your friends or loved ones could be killed by a murderer with an aircraft.  You are OK with that now because such incidents are vanishingly rare.  But even you would likely want changes if that happened once a day.

I’m sure fly commercially often, what is your opinion of the TSA?

Derek V

[Rick 67]

9 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

 This has been a large part of my thinking on the topic.  We all agree on where we want to go, just not how to get there.  I think if we keep that in mind, the conversation can move forward.

That's what I was getting at when I said define assault rifle. People on one side hear that term used and immediately shut down the conversation.

It is obvious (to me anyway) that what we are currently doing does not work. I would be for a gun registration The "title" to the gun follows it from owner to owner like a vehicle. A lot of people see this as the first step to confiscation but I don't believe that will ever happen.

[billvon 2,379]

15 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

I’m sure fly commercially often, what is your opinion of the TSA?

TSA?  10% effective changes, 90% security theater.  But you were talking about private aviation, weren't you?  That isn't really affected by the TSA (other than a few ramp-access issues.)

[kallend 1,619]

4 hours ago, Hooknswoop said:

No posts about the 40 victims of gun violence in Chicago over the weekend?  Or does 1’s and 2’s not get the headlines and emotional response that a mass shooting does?

Neil Degrasse Tyson is right.  Hard to argue with numbers.  Is it about saving lives or gun control?

What are the leading causes of death in the US?  Around 74% of all deaths in the United States occur as a result of 10 causes.

• Heart disease.
• Cancer.
• Unintentional injuries.
• Chronic lower respiratory disease.
• Stroke and cerebrovascular diseases.
• Alzheimer's disease.
• Diabetes.
• Influenza and pneumonia.
• kidney disease.
• Suicide.

Lifetime odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident- 1 in 108.  (Just missed making the top ten, it is number 11).

Lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting- 1 in 11,125.

Where should we as a society spend our time, energy, and resources to get the most lives saved for least effort spent?  I’m not saying do nothing or nothing can be done.  I think we should enforce the current laws for sure.  What I am saying is if I am not breathing and have a cut on my leg that is going to require stitches, don’t start discussing the best way to sew me up.

I get it, we are wired to react emotionally to mass shootings.  The same way there can be 30 people die in separate motor vehicle accidents won’t make the national news, but 30 people dying in a bus crash will.  But if we focus on bus crashes, how many lives will be saved per year vs. if we spent the same time on motor vehicle crashes?

People complain that nothing is done after a mass shooting.  That is because there are no easy fixes to that issue.

Derek V

Parroting NRA talking points again.

Do you know the difference between OR and XOR?

[Hooknswoop 19]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

TSA?  10% effective changes, 90% security theater.  But you were talking about private aviation, weren't you?  That isn't really affected by the TSA (other than a few ramp-access issues.)

I would put it at 5% and 95%, but close enough.  My point is the TSA was an over reaction to a small probability, high cost event.  The same type of reaction i see to mass shootings.  We spent and continue to spend a not insignificant amount of money, time, etc. and get very little for it.  The cost/benefit just isn’t there.

Derek V

[billvon 2,379]

4 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

I would put it at 5% and 95%, but close enough.  My point is the TSA was an over reaction to a small probability, high cost event.  

Agreed.  9/11 happened once in the 116 years since we've had airplanes.  The TSA was probably an overreaction.  And again, the TSA has to do with commercial aviation, not the private aviation example you gave.

Mass shootings are happening on average every six weeks.  That puts the urgency a bit higher.

[Hooknswoop 19]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

Parroting NRA talking points again.

Do you know the difference between OR and XOR?

I don’t know the NRA’s talking points.  I am not, never have been, and no plans to be a member of the NRA or support them.  Way too extreme for me.  

I would answer your question, but you never do the same when I ask you questions.  You just like telling people how they are wrong if they do t agree with you.  Because you are smart and therefore must be right.  Telling people how they are wrong makes you feel superior.  But when asked direct, specific questions, you just quibble.  “I already posted my answer.  What was it?  If you search for it, you will find it, I’m not reposting it for you.  Ok, I searched and didn’t find anything, what do I search for? ............”.  I have no desire to engage with you.  You use big words and my reading comprehension isn’t at a high enough level to understand your wisdom.  Better you don’t even waste your time addressing someone like me, just a waste of your valuable intellect.  

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 minute ago, Hooknswoop said:

Better you don’t even waste your time addressing someone like me, just a waste of your valuable intellect.  

Or, just maybe your desire for no restrictions on killing machine ownership rights is very hard to defend in a reasonable way. Which causes you to get frustrated.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Just now, billvon said:

Agreed.  9/11 happened once in the 116 years since we've had airplanes.  The TSA was probably an overreaction.  And again, the TSA has to do with commercial aviation, not the private aviation example you gave.

Mass shootings are happening on average every six weeks.  That puts the urgency a bit higher.

2 separate points.  General aviation point was we don’t, as a society, demand ‘something to be done’ even though we are more likely to die in a general aviation accident than a mass shooting.  It is an emotional reaction.  Same as a bus crash vs. many more car crashes.

how many people died in the 2 recent shootings?  How many died just in Chicago over the weekend?

I explain my TSA point, over reaction for very little gain.  Banning assault weapons will do exactly what to mass shootings?  Remember, we tried that once.

Derek V