Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#277 Dec 19 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen.


Not at all. The public media explosion does contribute significantly to the problem, however. When the perpetrator is given celebrity status the way these guys are, it makes the idea more appealing to certain individuals. There's a whole side-debate going on regarding the extent to which public media response to these events contributes to the problem and whether this potential celebrity status might be a larger part of the problem.


Fine. Now address the more important part of my response. If it makes things easier, let's also assume that the 1st amendment isn't going away anytime soon either. So given those assumptions, how do you minimize the number of kids killed by such events?


Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.
#278 Dec 19 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,861 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Native Americans had hatchets so we couldn't genocide them.


And if the French hadn't helped us then the new Americans would have been genocided by the British, right?

(I like how firefox wanted me to capitalize American and British but was okay with French being lowerclass.)

Fixed for accuracy.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#279 Dec 19 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That'd be because "french" is a cutting technique, i.e. french fries and french cut green beans

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 6:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Dec 19 2012 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.


How on earth is that somewhere in the middle? You've chosen to focus solely on the three things that we can't do much to change and can't ensure will be effective at if we do, while ignoring entirely the argument I've made for removing that law in effect which directly ensures that such shooting events will result in the most deaths possible.

In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.

Our current gun laws with regard to schools basically assumes that no one will ever show up to randomly shoot people and completely removes any ability to defend those on the school grounds when one does. Given that we can't really make that assumption, shouldn't we change that law?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Dec 19 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.


How on earth is that somewhere in the middle? You've chosen to focus solely on the three things that we can't do much to change and can't ensure will be effective at if we do, while ignoring entirely the argument I've made for removing that law in effect which directly ensures that such shooting events will result in the most deaths possible.

In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.

Our current gun laws with regard to schools basically assumes that no one will ever show up to randomly shoot people and completely removes any ability to defend those on the school grounds when one does. Given that we can't really make that assumption, shouldn't we change that law?


And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with. You couldn't possibly be farther from the middle. Also, you're an idiot.
#282 Dec 19 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with.


No. I have acknowledged that those other issues exist, but that they are unlikely to be "fixed" to any degree that would reasonably be expected to prevent future such shootings. Do you agree with my assumptions that we're not going to remove the 1st or 2nd amendments nor magically make everyone mentally healthy anytime in the foreseeable future?

Assuming you do, then those things can't be the entirety of what we might do in response to such events. I've presented something else we could do. Something which would have a tangible and demonstrable effect on the outcomes of such shootings in the future. But you (and others) either just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand without any real argument (or present a limited and contrived one).

It's interesting that so many people are sure that allowing private citizens to legally carry weapons on school grounds (with the school itself defining the policy) is a bad idea, but no one has yet made any real attempt to make an argument for this. I got one person saying that a teacher might snap and shoot a student. But I didn't say "in the classroom right in front of students". I said "on school grounds". Big difference.

If the principle, or assistant principle, or any of a dozen people who work at a school but aren't sitting in a classroom all day had access to a firearm at that school, it's entirely possible that all 20 of those children would be alive today.

Quote:
You couldn't possibly be farther from the middle.


I'm presenting a course of action which addresses both sides of the issue (prevention and mitigation). You are insisting on addressing only one (prevention), and ignoring the other.


Quote:
Also, you're an idiot.


Well that's constructive. How about making an argument about why changing or eliminating the Gun Free School Act to allow some faculty to have firearms on school grounds would either not help in cases of school shootings, or would cause some harm greater than those shootings? You know, like I asked you to do already and you refused to do? If you believe so strongly that I'm wrong, then make that case. If you can't, then perhaps you should reassess your position.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#283 Dec 19 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with.


No. I have acknowledged that those other issues exist, but that they are unlikely to be "fixed" to any degree that would reasonably be expected to prevent future such shootings. Do you agree with my assumptions that we're not going to remove the 1st or 2nd amendments nor magically make everyone mentally healthy anytime in the foreseeable future?


Nobody said any of the options are a magical pill that cures everything. Doing nothing in the face of the lack of a 100% cure is ludicrous, as is producing more of the same type of individual that commits these acts in the first place - armed civilians.

Quote:
I've presented something else we could do. Something which would have a tangible and demonstrable effect on the outcomes of such shootings in the future.


No you haven't. There is no statistically significant data that supports your claim that arming citizens prevents gun violence. There exists, however, mounds of evidence to support the contrary.

Quote:
But you (and others) either just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand without any real argument (or present a limited and contrived one).


The argument has been countered with evidence you choose to ignore. That doesn't make it nonexistent.

Quote:
It's interesting that so many people are sure that allowing private citizens to legally carry weapons on school grounds (with the school itself defining the policy) is a bad idea, but no one has yet made any real attempt to make an argument for this. I got one person saying that a teacher might snap and shoot a student. But I didn't say "in the classroom right in front of students". I said "on school grounds". Big difference.


If your primary goal is to ensure the presence of deadly counter force on school grounds, then dedicated, uniformed school police officer with proper training is sufficient. There is no need for X random citizen to be allowed to possess a firearm in the presence of children because of the ridiculous fallacy that they might be the next hero to stop a mass murder cold in his tracks simply because they have the option of deadly force.

Quote:
If the principle, or assistant principle, or any of a dozen people who work at a school but aren't sitting in a classroom all day had access to a firearm at that school, it's entirely possible that all 20 of those children would be alive today.


See above.


Quote:
If you believe so strongly that I'm wrong, then make that case. If you can't, then perhaps you should reassess your position.


The case has been made. Your inability to comprehend doesn't nullify the evidence to the contrary. In fact, it strengthens it.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:26pm by gbaji [/quote]
#284 Dec 19 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
From the article I quoted above:

Quote:
More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.
#285 Dec 19 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BD, I already responded to the incredibly biased Mother Jones article.

Despite all their insistence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings, you know what one factor is consistent in nearly all (actually, "all" I think) cases where an armed civilian (other than the shooter) is present? They don't become mass shootings. The article even attempts to use this fact to "prove" that armed civilians don't matter because in not one mass shooting event was another armed civilian available to attempt to prevent it.

Which a rational person would take as "mounds of evidence" that the presence of other armed civilians prevents shooting events from becoming mass shooting events. The problem with the MJ logic is that we can't ever know how many armed civilians prevented mass shootings because when they do, they don't become mass shootings. You can't use that as evidence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings. If anything, it serves as strong evidence that they do.


The MJ article's logic is like arguing that a healthy diet and regular exercise wont help prevent you from becoming obese because in a case study of obese people, not one person in the study had a healthy diet and exercised regularly. Yeah. It's that dumb. It really is. The absence of armed civilians at mass shootings somehow proves that the presence of armed civilians doesn't prevent mass shootings? Seriously, think it through.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#286 Dec 19 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Well look at that. Apparently, people don't like to see facts and links, so they sub-defaulted my post where I provided exactly the evidence which counters the Mother Jones claim. Kinda ironic that people demand facts and citations, but then don't like it when those things don't support their own positions.

Here's the list of shootings interrupted by armed civilians again. And here's the article about the correlation between shootings and "gun free" zones.

I know that this is an emotional issue, but we really should approach it by looking at actual facts and not intentionally manipulated statistics. Armed civilians absolutely do prevent shootings from being worse than they should be. They are arguably the only thing that does once a shooting has started. So, if you acknowledge that we can't 100% prevent shootings from happening, why on earth shouldn't we also act to minimize the damage that occurs when/if they do?


It's like you're insisting that we should not have air bags in cars, but just should "teach people to be better drivers". Yes. We should do that. But it might also be a good idea to put airbags in cars.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#287 Dec 19 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hatchets are just as efficient as guns for killing people.

But not for killing skeletons. If we just armed schools with skeletons, all the hatchet mass murderers would be thwarted.
#288 Dec 19 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Despite all their insistence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings, you know what one factor is consistent in nearly all (actually, "all" I think) cases where an armed civilian (other than the shooter) is present? They don't become mass shootings

So, it's your theory that no one has ever been killed in a shooting involving 2 or more victims when that person has had a firearm? I just want to be clear on what it'll take seven seconds of research to refute. Can you concisely state what you "assume" is true for us? Nothing overly complex, but what sort of number you accept as a "mass" shooting. If the victims have to die or just get shot, that sort of thing. Also what you mean by civilian. If someone was, oh I don't know, shot in Pakistan while armed working for DoD as a civilian...does that count? Are armed security guards civilians?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#289 Dec 19 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The American Indian story absolutely was deliberate and systematic.


Sure, but it wasn't a deliberate and systematic extermination. Conversion? Sure. Persecution? OK. Extermination? In some cases, but certainly not systematically.

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.



Many populations were decimated, to the point where they were no longer viable. That's what genocide is.

For all Hitler's efforts, for all the godawful evil **** that went down in Rwanda, there are still viable populations of Jews left, even in Europe. There are still Hutus.

But see it your way, I guess.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#290 Dec 19 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That'd be because "french" is a cutting technique, i.e. french fries and french cut green beans




Also see: kissing.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#291 Dec 19 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Samira wrote:
For all Hitler's efforts, for all the godawful evil sh*t that went down in Rwanda, there are still viable populations of Jews left, even in Europe. There are still Hutus.


There are still native americans.
#292 Dec 19 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#293 Dec 19 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
Samira wrote:
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

Nah, all Indians are the same.
#294 Dec 20 2012 at 4:27 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Samira wrote:
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

Nah, all Indians are the same.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty damned sure that the Apache nation (or what is left of it) was never famous for its Biryani.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#295 Dec 20 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Default
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
Well look at that. Apparently, people don't like to see facts and links, so they sub-defaulted my post where I provided exactly the evidence which counters the Mother Jones claim. Kinda ironic that people demand facts and citations, but then don't like it when those things don't support their own positions.


I know you're enough of a realist to expect nothing different here, it's why I dont post often.

The uncomfortable truths are that Guns are just a tool & can be used for good or evil (just like dynamite, a point I tried to inject with my Bath massacre quote),
and Real World problems dont often respond well to emotionally based feel-good solutions. Even if we could craft and pass perfect gun control legislation, that would still leave guns in the same position as most illegal drugs are now.....easy to obtain & widely abused (by criminals).
And remember, a lot of these drugs have NO medicinal purpose and are not even manufactured by drug companies.

If its about saving lives, we would do better to outlaw ladders, stairs, kitchens & baths........electrical power, automobiles etc ad nauseum.

People who favor increased gun control just havn't accepted the fact that the police (& laws) cant protect us from certain things & never will, self reliant people want to retain this ability & others want to stamp their feet and demand that it STOP !!!
There is also a class issue at work here in that no matter what the laws are, there will always be people "At the Top" who "deserve" or "need" extra protection....
- from the POTUS down to celebrities, pop-stars, etc this kinda presents a problem for the whole " all men are created equal" & "equal justice under the law" concept.

Our society is ill & these rampages are but a symptom.

ps Many indigenous people of the Americas were practicing Slavery & Genocide before the Euro's came...nothing was done to them that they hadnt done to others.

#296 Dec 20 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
The uncomfortable truths are that Guns are just a tool & can be used for good or evil

And we regulate/restrict "tools" all the time so to minimize the amount of evil they can cause.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Dec 20 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.


Better mental health care, better security, better restrictions on dangerous weapons. Attack it at all angles, there's something for everyone, good chance for success. Now, Lord knows you aren't going to have an armed security guard (or anyone with a 'self-defense' gun for that matter) who isn't "properly trained" at a school. Mental health care isn't cheap, and someone has to enforce gun restrictions.

In the meantime I'm going to put on my swim trunks and do a cannonball of the fiscal cliff. There's water at the bottom right?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#298 Dec 20 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm imaging an immigration argument where the usual suspects making the "We can't get rid of every gun and they'll just use swords and crossbow bombs" argument say "We can't deport every illegal immigrant so let's just give up." and "Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*

You know, rather than, "We can't just deport every illegal immigrant but we can strengthen border security to decrease the flow of immigrants and double our efforts to locate and deport the most problematic types of immigrants who pose the greatest threats..."

* I'm sure there's people on the pro-immigration side who've said this since dopey logic exists across the spectrum.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 11:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#299 Dec 20 2012 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:

If its about saving lives, we would do better to outlaw ladders, stairs, kitchens & baths........electrical power, automobiles etc ad nauseum.
These things are all inherently different than guns. They're purpose is not to stop a beating heart. If all these items were always used properly and without incident they would cause no deaths. Guns on the other hand if used properly will cause death or injury - that's what it's designed to do.
Quote:
People who favor increased gun control just havn't accepted the fact that the police (& laws) cant protect us from certain things & never will, self reliant people want to retain this ability & others want to stamp their feet and demand that it STOP !!!
I am for increased gun control and I accept the fact that the police and laws can't protect me from certain thing - most things really. So you're flat out wrong on that statement.
Quote:

Our society is ill & these rampages are but a symptom.
Not really. There are over 300 million people in this country. A handful - less than 100, less than one-one hundreth of one percent go on killing sprees in a year. It's not like it's pervasive. I'm not sure how you define an ill society, but the largest percentage of people in this country are not homicidal maniacs, or even hardened criminals.
Quote:
ps Many indigenous people of the Americas were practicing Slavery & Genocide before the Euro's came...nothing was done to them that they hadnt done to others.
Cite?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#300 Dec 20 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*


How about the obvious "you can't have armed guards everywhere, so the mass murderer guy will just choose the softest target he can?"

Or is that one no fun? Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#301 Dec 20 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm imaging an immigration argument where the usual suspects making the "We can't get rid of every gun and they'll just use swords and crossbow bombs" argument say "We can't deport every illegal immigrant so let's just give up." and "Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*

You know, rather than, "We can't just deport every illegal immigrant but we can strengthen border security to decrease the flow of immigrants and double our efforts to locate and deport the most problematic types of immigrants who pose the greatest threats..."

It's that common reaction, when a problem is too frustratingly complex to solve, people just throw their hands in the air and say "fuck it, it can't be solved." Incremental changes to ameliorate problems aren't satisfying and become unacceptable because they aren't perfect.


Edited, Dec 20th 2012 11:56am by trickybeck
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 148 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (148)