mistertim Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think the only solution is to preemptively shoot everyone in the country. No people, no murders. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I think the only solution is to preemptively shoot everyone in the country. No people, no murders. Â that sounds like gun ban theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 No. The whole thing, at this point, pisses me off. Â I'm sorry you can't handle being called out for your role in it. It might be helpful to think of gun control advocates as Israelis. Imagine if for ten years, you see your school buses and synagogues homicide bombed. If every day people fire hundreds of rockets randomly into your neighborhoods... not aiming for bad guys, military, or anything in specific, but just creating seemingly senseless endless danger and destruction. Â Then, imagine people telling you for ten years... Hell, the terrorist missiles are meaningless. They don't do significant damage. How dare you try to do anything to stop the attacks. Your measures are unproportional. Your job is to turn the other cheek. After all, no matter what you do there will always will be violence. Â The only solution is for you to turn the other cheek, take it, and give the people shooting missiles at you and fire bombing your children more access to weapons. Â Further, it'd be better if you took down the check points, walls, and any other safety measures. Â In many ways, this is the argument that I hear gun rights advocates making. After twenty years of them saying, turn the other cheek and make access to guns even easier, your cheeks get a little raw and bloody. Â Esp. when you see another school attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) My argument that we can't do X isn't about the validity of X.  It's about the possibility of doing X. You and I both know that many of the proposals are not likely to pass on a national level. At best they'll get through in some very liberal areas.  I think the best way to stop gun crime is to ban guns and confiscate them all. But that's not going to happen either. At least not yet  But the fact of the matter is that is true for any of the possible solutions out there at the national level.  As I pointed out, there isn't a whole lot of legislative support out there for raising taxes period.  Much less to support anti-poverty programs or mental illness programs.  Yet, you only seem to be focused on the difficulty with respect to the one issue.  Is there any reason to actually believe we'll see more movement on a national level with respect to mental health or poverty?  And that ignores the fact that we aren't even sure what sort of policies we'd need to actually have an effect (if it is possible) unlike gun control.  poverty, I'm not sure what if anything we can do to affect violence, and I don't think it is likely that anything significant will happen with respect to legislation.  I also think there are limits to what the states can do.  I don't think there is much that the states can do to affect poverty.  mental health, I'm not sure what if anything we can do to affect violence, and I don't think it is likely that anything significant will happen with respect to legislation.  gun control, at the federal level it might be hard to do much, but I'm pretty sure there are things that can be done.  Which does it make the most sense to talk about the most?  You tell me.  Should I come into this thread and push for changes in mental health laws that I don't think will happen, and I don't know if they will have any affect with respect to violence?  Should I come in here and push for changes in our federal tax code that I don't think will happen and I don't know if they will have any affect on violence?  Or should I come in here and say, hey there's studies that show these gun laws decreased violence/gun crimes, while these others didn't so maybe we should think about these approaches (where those approaches actually have been tried at some recent time in the US so shouldn't/aren't completely legislatively crazy even if it is only at the state level)? Edited October 9, 2015 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 It might be helpful     to look at their response to school shootings....nah, too easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 to look at their response to school shootings....nah, too easy Yep, a militarized response... seems reasonable. Utilizing national and localized forces. Not saying, stuff happens, buy a gun and barricade yourself into your own home because there's nothing the government, police or anyone can do. Â Israeli's mobilize their resources, increase security, and utilize a well-regulated militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Burg,  I'm not sure that I want to be holding up Israel as the people we should be modeling ourselves after.  Either due to morality, civil rights, or effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Might seem simple but what about an executive order banning media from mentioning the name or anything about any of these shooters Sure it would be challenged in court and eventually overthrown but 1-might be fun to see the internet shaming of the news org that challenges it 2-maybe news organizations would get the message As it stands now no news org will volunteer to be the first, as it will simply give their competition ratings The attention whoring is the very heart of the mass shooter issue 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society. They don't even really want to talk about the biggest portion of their gun statistics, the every day street crime, and how to help that (education, poverty, culture) they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns.  This is an over-generalization by far, and simply not true across everyone on the gun control side of things.  On research, lots of people here have been pushing for more research.  There are some (not all) on the pro-gun side that oppose it, but on the research front, it's the gun control side that pushes it.  Democrats in Congress, on several occasions have attempted to lift the CDC ban, and Obama even attempted to jumpstart things with an executive order (which was unfortunately unsuccessful due to the limited nature of executive orders).  This research isn't aimed only at mass shootings, heck it wouldn't even be aimed purely at guns, since the root causes of gun violence could be things aside from guns like mental health or economic distress.  But the side blocking that research isn't the gun control side.  And for me personally, I've been banging the table for root cause gun violence research for months.   On mental health, it's been discussed at length in this thread at length by both sides that: - mental health is an issue for mass shootings (somewhere between ~25% to north of 60% of mass shooting cases) - mental health is a much smaller issue for gun violence overall, but still an issue (about 5% of overall cases) - mental health testing will have rights concerns - mental health testing will have diagnostic issues at point of purchase, which leads to... - it may be more effective to implement mental health reform generally than to attempt it for the limited purpose of mass shooting and/or gun violence prevention (with said reforms likely having some trickle down positive impact)  Here's the thing, addressing mental health is complicated, any bills put forth in such a short time frame would by necessity be half-assed.  So chastizing the gun control side for not going full tilt towards mental health reform isn't fair or reasonable since such reform is complex and time consuming.  And that's assuming things wouldn't grind to a halt when money entered the picture.  These reforms would cost a lot if done right, whatever "right" ultimately turns out to be.  Is there money for it?  There are political stereotypes that enter into this funding debate, which I won't go over, but, based on their usual alignment, if funding for mental health came up short, it would NOT be the gun control people who were responsible.   As for culture and society, that's too subjective and nebulous to really be useful in this debate.  Where one side see degradation of the culture and society (abortion, gay marriage), the other side sees progress (woman's right to choose, gay marriage).   With regards to street crime, plenty of options that would assist in that regard have been put forth over the two threads that arose after the Oregon shooting.  Universal background checks and registrations aren't going to only help mass shootings, they're aimed at gun violence generally, and would likely also help mass shootings.  People have mentioned increased penalties for illegal sale of firearms, that helps generally.  Improved storage procedures help both.  Smart guns may present solutions depending on implementation.  All of these things and more have been discussed and proposed, and aren't just aimed at mass shootings.   The economic issue has been mentioned and discussed too, but not widely because the economic issues are extremely complex and could probably use 10 different threads on their own sub-issues.  No one, however, isn't acknowledging that improved economic outlooks would assist in reducing violence generally, it's just that there are significant disagreements on how to do that which are better suited for their own thread or the 2016 election thread that here.   Heck, even those of us on the "gun control" "side" have discussed solutions that don't necessarily involve less guns or more control over guns.  I know I've said that I'm fine with limited and trained armed guards in "gun free" zones such as schools, and others have echoed that sentiment.   Finally, this is the Gun Control Debate Thread.  You're naturally going to see gun control pros and cons discussed at length.  Gun control IS definitely a part of the discussion with regards to the reduction of gun violence; addressing economics, mental health, and culture and society won't cure all the curable ills.  So getting all worked up over people talking about gun control, in a gun control thread, and not talking about other issues intertwined in gun violence to your satisfaction is not a problem with the gun control side, it's your personal problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Might seem simple but what about an executive order banning media from mentioning the name or anything about any of these shooters Sure it would be challenged in court and eventually overthrown but 1-might be fun to see the internet shaming of the news org that challenges it 2-maybe news organizations would get the message As it stands now no news org will volunteer to be the first, as it will simply give their competition ratings The attention whoring is the very heart of the mass shooter issue  Remember once hearing a supposed quote, supposedly attributed to von Bismark:  For every one of the numerous and complex issues facing our society, today, there is a simple and obvious solution.  And it's Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 As always, The Onion delivers  http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/you-take-away-guns-and-someones-just-gonna-invent--51477 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Might seem simple but what about an executive order banning media from mentioning the name or anything about any of these shooters  I'd hate it as a rule or law, but I actually imposed that rule on the newsroom I ran at Radio VR. The event was important to cover, the shooter's name not so much. You actually can cover motives, symptoms, and other problems pretty well without mentioning the name.  I did make a point of emphasis, however, in naming heroes. Like the security guard who stopped the shooter at the Holocaust Museum shooting a few years back. We tend to forget the heroes and remember the villains. Burg,  I'm not sure that I want to be holding up Israel as the people we should be modeling ourselves after.  Either due to morality, civil rights, or effectiveness. It's an interesting parallel though. It works better than I expected as I explored it.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I'd hate it as a rule or law, but I actually imposed that rule on the newsroom I ran at Radio VR. The event was important to cover, the shooter's name not so much. You actually can cover motives, symptoms, and other problems pretty well without mentioning the name. Â I did make a point of emphasis, however, in naming heroes. Like the security guard who stopped the shooter at the Holocaust Museum shooting a few years back. We tend to forget the heroes and remember the villains. You commie manipulator of the media, you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 This is an over-generalization by far, and simply not true across everyone on the gun control side of things. Just as lumping all pro-gun individuals as using NRA talking points is overly general.  Like I said earlier, round n round we go... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Might seem simple but what about an executive order banning media from mentioning the name or anything about any of these shooters Yes. The Great Leader issuing proclamations about what the media can and can't do. That will definitely go over well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Remember once hearing a supposed quote, supposedly attributed to von Bismark:  For every one of the numerous and complex issues facing our society, today, there is a simple and obvious solution.  And it's Wrong.   HL Mencken actually.  Just as lumping all pro-gun individuals as using NRA talking points is overly general.  Like I said earlier, round n round we go...   Actually, we only do it when said individuals actually are using NRA talking points.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Just as lumping all pro-gun individuals as using NRA talking points is overly general.  Like I said earlier, round n round we go...  Well, there's a bit of a difference here.  If a person IS using an NRA talking point, then it's not unfair to point out that they are, actually, using an NRA talking point.  Compare that to above, where the argument was made that "they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns" and that "The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society."  This is factually not accurate, in light of the fact that Congressional Democrats have put forth bills to repeal the CDC ban, and Obama made an executive order about it.  Further, on mental health, the ACA has significantly expanded mental health services by requiring most plans to cover mental health and substance use disorder.  Now, if you're talking about someone saying someone is using an NRA talking point when they factually aren't, that's different, or if you're talking about someone saying you ARE a member of the NRA, when you aren't, that's different.  This thread is long, so my memory of specific instances of comparisons to NRA talking points may be incomplete, but as far as I remember, most comparisons were of the first order, not the second or third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I like folk that learn, except when they still infer there is a ban on gun research.  Don't you even listen to Obama when he says there is no ban on gun research?.....He  is a Harvard Law man even.         Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I like folk that learn, except when they still infer there is a ban on gun research.  Don't you even listen to Obama when he says there is no ban on gun research?.....He  is a Harvard Law man even.  This is more of a PSA for other people peeking in here than at you TWA, since we've done this song and dance before.  If you want more info. check post #517. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Three school shootings in one day: Â http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/ http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/10/09/reports-of-shooting-near-tsu-campus-school-on-lockdown/73656646/ http://abc7.com/news/upland-elementary-school-on-lockdown-following-shooting;-1-injured/1026041/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) The attention whoring is the very heart of the mass shooter issue  I don't think this is true in general.  For example, I don't think it had anything to do with Sandy Hook or the VA tech shooting.  And even in this case where I'm aware of his posts, I'm struck by the fact that he picked what seems to have been a relatively target poor area or done in a poor manner to kill people that he knew.  If I wanted to get famous killing people, I'd kill more people and become more famous by going to my local Costco on a Saturday afternoon and start shooting into the eating area or around the check outs.  I'd end up with more dead people and the sheer randomness of the crime would be more shocking/scarier to people.  These people are targeting people they know on the basis of that they somehow have been wronged, and they are holding the people that they think did it responsible.  He started with is teacher.  Even if there wasn't the fame part of it, I think this guy still might have shoot up his classroom. Edited October 10, 2015 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Pretty sure the Va Tech killer mailed his manifesto to NBC News That makes Newtown the outlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 These people are targeting people they know on the basis of that they somehow have been wronged, and they are holding the people that they think did it responsible.  He started with is teacher.  Even if there wasn't the fame part of it, I think this guy still might have shoot up his classroom. There's a fictional book I really liked (Gregory MacDonald's Flynn, in which the title character is investigating what appears to be an act of terrorism), includes a quote in which the hero's wife tells him that often what appears to be the most heinous crimes turn out to be "some poor schnook with a grievance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Have we agreed that the only way to stop all of these mass murders is to take away all the guns yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Have we agreed that the only way to stop all of these mass murders is to take away all the guns yet?  No.  We've been a little preoccupied with trying to stop as many as possible without stepping on Constitutional rights, because eliminating all mass murders is an unrealistic goal, but eliminating many/most should be very possible with reasonable (albeit complex in implementation) reforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts