OT - Mass shootings and gun control - OT

billt01

Huh?

JohnInCarolina

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/915192081550684161

Wait... what?

DoubleEgger

billt01 said:

Huh?

Answer my question rather than deflecting with a meme. Are you or are you not in favor in Trump's wall and the ban on people from certain countries? You claim that laws won't prevent violence so I'm interested in your take on these regulations  that had GOP intent on reducing violent crime. 

DoubleEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/915192081550684161

Wait... what?

He's such an idiot 

Focker

Killit_and_Grillit said:

@DoubleEgger but people who were getting VA benefits (which is federal disability check) and is considered a mental disability were flagged under a write in. 

Thats what im saying about how the law gets chopped up after it's written. You can hide a lot in 700 pages of BS. 

Reading comprehension, actually comprehension in general (comparing 1st to 2nd), isn't his strong suit.

DoubleEgger

Can't you see that grown people are talking Focker? 

DoubleEgger

Focker said:

Killit_and_Grillit said:

@DoubleEgger but people who were getting VA benefits (which is federal disability check) and is considered a mental disability were flagged under a write in. 

Thats what im saying about how the law gets chopped up after it's written. You can hide a lot in 700 pages of BS. 

Reading comprehension, actually comprehension in general (comparing 1st to 2nd), isn't his strong suit.

You're a bigger moron than Trump. Do they not teach civics in the corn field? ALL of our constitutional rights are equal. 

stlcharcoal

Killit_and_Grillit said:

DoubleEgger said:

If you are getting disability checks from the Feds because you are mentally ill, you don't have any business owning a gun. 

@DoubleEgger that was a big concern for Soldiers when Obama suggested just that years ago. 

The VA will slap a "PTSD" sticker on anyone who had any kind of combat trauma and needed to see a counselor or took some anti anxiety meds...and classify them the same as someone who was truly Looney Tunes and mentally ill. 

I had both types of Soldiers as a leader in the Army. That law would disqualify both to own a gun. One absolutely shouldn't have one. The other absolutely should. 

This is the problem with blanket legislation. And you and I know by the time that law gets chopped up by politicians it will have so many loopholes that ONLY the people we didn't want having them would get a pass. 

Edit: We need to get your SMG with my SMG for a little play date. I'm sure they'll get along fine

Along the same lines, if you're a pilot you have to report ANY medical professional visit and medication.  So, whether you get an allergy pill or see a marriage counselor, it has to be reported......otherwise you're facing revocation if the feds find out.  This has most pilots specifically NOT going to the doctor for health issues, or if they do, it's underground and no records are being kept.  Because of this blanket rule of, you see a shrink, and have a diagnosis of anxiety, then you lose your pilot medical certificate for X months because you're obviously suicidal.  Same goes if you get heat stroke or something, then an unconscious event is going to spark all kinds of downtime.  It is a very long and costly process to get a medical certificate back (special lawyers and doctors make their living getting pilots back in the air.)

Where I'm going with this is, if you start placing all these restrictions on people through their medical records, then they're not going to seek the help they need.......or they're going to get their pills for Mexico.  It would shock you to know how many pilots are in the sky at this very minute on black market anti-depressants and anxiety meds because they can't get a legal prescription (or even talk to a doctor about them) without fear of being grounded.  I'm not making a case for pilots being able to take these meds, I'm just saying that when you slap a label on (and thus restrict) people, they're going to find a way around it--which is going to be MORE dangerous.

JohnInCarolina

Waking up to a world in which Donald Trump is still President but Tom Petty is gone kind of sucks donkey balls.

DoubleEgger

stlcharcoal said:

I'm just saying that when you slap a label on (and thus restrict) people, they're going to find a way around it--which is going to be MORE dangerous.

So the same goes for the Wall and the travel ban right? 

billt01

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

Huh?

Answer my question rather than deflecting with a meme. Are you or are you not in favor in Trump's wall and the ban on people from certain countries? You claim that laws won't prevent violence so I'm interested in your take on these regulations  that had GOP intent on reducing violent crime. 

ok..

I really don't care about a wall. So I guess I am neutral.

I think its comical how some people think laws govern lawless individuals.

Free will and grit.

If ANYONE wants to do ANYTHING bad enough, be it legal or illegal/good or bad, they will achieve their goal.

If they don't, its the usually individuals fault..

DoubleEgger

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

Huh?

Answer my question rather than deflecting with a meme. Are you or are you not in favor in Trump's wall and the ban on people from certain countries? You claim that laws won't prevent violence so I'm interested in your take on these regulations  that had GOP intent on reducing violent crime. 

DoubleEgger

billt01 said:

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

Huh?

Answer my question rather than deflecting with a meme. Are you or are you not in favor in Trump's wall and the ban on people from certain countries? You claim that laws won't prevent violence so I'm interested in your take on these regulations  that had GOP intent on reducing violent crime. 

ok..

I really don't care about a wall. So I guess I am neutral.

I think its comical how some people think laws govern lawless individuals.

Free will and grit.

If ANYONE wants to do ANYTHING bad enough, be it legal or illegal/good or bad, they will achieve their goal.

If they don't, its the usually individuals fault..

What about the travel ban? Is that regulation a waste of time? 

billt01

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

Huh?

Answer my question rather than deflecting with a meme. Are you or are you not in favor in Trump's wall and the ban on people from certain countries? You claim that laws won't prevent violence so I'm interested in your take on these regulations  that had GOP intent on reducing violent crime. 

ok..

I really don't care about a wall. So I guess I am neutral.

I think its comical how some people think laws govern lawless individuals.

Free will and grit.

If ANYONE wants to do ANYTHING bad enough, be it legal or illegal/good or bad, they will achieve their goal.

If they don't, its the usually individuals fault..

What about the travel ban? Is that regulation a waste of time? 

only a hindrance to anyone or group wanting to do what they want to do... 



 

JohnInCarolina

Let's just scrap all laws.  The bad guys will always be able to break them, so what's the point really?!?!?

billt01

JohnInCarolina said:

Let's just scrap all laws.  The bad guys will always be able to break them, so what's the point really?!?!?

Because the majority of the world is tilted to the "good" side. Legislation has really nothing to do with that, just human nature and free will.

I believe it has to do with how children are taught. There is good and bad, right and wrong.

There is a small population, generally speaking, who tilt to the "bad" side. 

And there is no way to get them back over...or to "fix" them...

There is no law to do it...

DoubleEgger

Laws are deterrents by design. The level of deterrence is determined by the individual. When the chances of getting caught are slim and the punishment is not great, it's not much of a deterrent (speeding, etc). When the punishment is greater (felonies, jail time, etc.) and the chances are greater of getting caught, it naturally deters people. They are far more speeders than bank robbers. With the punishment of thievery being so high in certain Middle Eastern jurisdictions, they do not have a theft problem. Theft is very prevalent all over the globe as the typical punishment isn't that great. 

billt01

DoubleEgger said:

Laws are deterrents by design. The level of deterrence is determined by the individual. When the chances of getting caught are slim and the punishment is not great, it's not much of a deterrent (speeding, etc). When the punishment is greater (felonies, jail time, etc.) and the chances are greater of getting caught, it naturally deters people. They are far more speeders than bank robbers. With the punishment of thievery being so high in certain Middle Eastern jurisdictions, they do not have a theft problem. Theft is very prevalent all over the globe as the typical punishment isn't that great. 

So if if you have 100 people wanting to do something bad..

80 of those are deterred by the thought of going to jail

15 of those are deterred by the thought of dying

5 of those could give a $#!+ about any of the above..

The bad gets done..

my point there is always going to be someone to get it done. 

Free will and grit

DoubleEgger

billt01 said:

DoubleEgger said:

Laws are deterrents by design. The level of deterrence is determined by the individual. When the chances of getting caught are slim and the punishment is not great, it's not much of a deterrent (speeding, etc). When the punishment is greater (felonies, jail time, etc.) and the chances are greater of getting caught, it naturally deters people. They are far more speeders than bank robbers. With the punishment of thievery being so high in certain Middle Eastern jurisdictions, they do not have a theft problem. Theft is very prevalent all over the globe as the typical punishment isn't that great. 

So if if you have 100 people wanting to do something bad..

80 of those are deterred by the thought of going to jail

15 of those are deterred by the thought of dying

5 of those could give a $#!+ about any of the above..

The bad gets done..

my point there is always going to be someone to get it done. 

Free will and grit

It's all about minimizing probability. That's what makes a society safe. 

billt01

DoubleEgger said:

billt01 said:

DoubleEgger said:

Laws are deterrents by design. The level of deterrence is determined by the individual. When the chances of getting caught are slim and the punishment is not great, it's not much of a deterrent (speeding, etc). When the punishment is greater (felonies, jail time, etc.) and the chances are greater of getting caught, it naturally deters people. They are far more speeders than bank robbers. With the punishment of thievery being so high in certain Middle Eastern jurisdictions, they do not have a theft problem. Theft is very prevalent all over the globe as the typical punishment isn't that great. 

So if if you have 100 people wanting to do something bad..

80 of those are deterred by the thought of going to jail

15 of those are deterred by the thought of dying

5 of those could give a $#!+ about any of the above..

The bad gets done..

my point there is always going to be someone to get it done. 

Free will and grit

It's all about minimizing probability. That's what makes a society safe. 

but..

if someone wants something happen, no law is going to stop the individual or group.

so back to the beginning of the banter...

gun laws (at any level) would not have fixed what happened in Vegas or Columbine or Sandy Hook...

if you don't care, your don't care..no law fixes that...

SkySaw

Gun control is an unmentionable topic in the US. As soon as it is brought up it degrades into guns don't kill people, people kill people or you can't control bad guys argument. Bad guys abuse their wives and children - sick guys commit mass murders, and sick people aren't dissuaded by rationality. The mass murder numbers for the US are scary, well beyond any other developed nation. It's obvious that basic steps like stopping the sale of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons would reduce deaths, and wouldn't impinge on anyone's right to protect their home and family, but the whole thing has become unmentionable. The first step to making it something that can be discussed is to recognize that there is a problem. Look at the stats on gun-related deaths in the US, any of them (including the ridiculous yah, but take out the suicides arguments), and tell me that the US doesn't have a problem. 

YukonRon

Bottom line in all this BS, a man took weapons into a casino, which are believed to have some of the best security available, used modified high powered weapons, to kill as many as he could, prior to allegedly committing suicide.

Weapons and tactics are secondary, the issue is the mentally insane and fanatical extremists.

Eliminate the flow of fire arms, something else, perhaps even more deadly, will be used in their place. Oklahoma City, Boston, NY, DC, Atlanta, and churches here in the south, are all the evidence one needs to understand.

I love my country, but violence is woven throughout our history and culture. 

With the best protection on earth, people are not immune to deranged individuals who have a plan. We have had many examples, in our history, of presidents who have been shot.

No individual is safe, but the odds are closer for your survival if you have a way to fight back.

Hans61

Sunk?

Hans61

It’s sinking 

YukonRon

Hans61 said:

Sunk?

on its way down

JohnInCarolina

YukonRon said:

Bottom line in all this BS, a man took weapons into a casino, which are believed to have some of the best security available, used modified high powered weapons, to kill as many as he could, prior to allegedly committing suicide.

Weapons and tactics are secondary, the issue is the mentally insane and fanatical extremists.

Eliminate the flow of fire arms, something else, perhaps even more deadly, will be used in their place. Oklahoma City, Boston, NY, DC, Atlanta, and churches here in the south, are all the evidence one needs to understand.

I love my country, but violence is woven throughout our history and culture. 

With the best protection on earth, people are not immune to deranged individuals who have a plan. We have had many examples, in our history, of presidents who have been shot.

No individual is safe, but the odds are closer for your survival if you have a way to fight back.

I'm sure things would've worked out much better in LV had more of the crowd been armed and started indiscriminately shooting back at the hotel.  

JohnInCarolina

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/914844996016250880

thetrim

JohnInCarolina said:

Waking up to a world in which Donald Trump is still President but Tom Petty is gone kind of sucks donkey balls.

At least guys can't go in the girls restroom in your State.  

thetrim

If mental illness were a hindrance to gun ownership, no one on here would have guns.  

Foghorn

It's possible that no law - or its enforcement - may have stopped this tragedy.  But as someone who has grown weary of telling parents that their child is dead because a friend or sibling accidentally killed him/her (or him/her self) with one of mommy or daddy's guns, I'm pretty convinced we can do better. 
Many (most? - I honestly don't remember) of these situations were in households where the guns are locked in one part of the house and the ammunition is locked in another part of the house and only the parents have the keys or know the combinations.  But any 12 year old can find a way to get into every part of the house.  We all did when we were that age.

The data that shows that when you put a gun in your house you significantly increase the likelihood that you or a family member will die a gun death is pretty convincing.

With people making analogies to motor vehicles, we've made some progress in reducing death and disability with airbags, seat belts, and outlawing 3 wheel ATVs.

Using that approach, what about smart gun technology that recognizes the owner or approved user(s)?  It exists.  Gun manufacturers and the NRA have just bullied anybody who tries to enter that marketplace by getting gun owners to boycott them because they fear that a law mandating that technology would be forthcoming.  Would it really be that bad?

I don't think anybody is happy about all the gun violence in the US.  I'm trying to find a potential solution that allows us all to move forward.  When surveyed over 80% of gun owners favor stricter gun laws (such as not allowing people on the "no fly" list to purchase guns).  The problem is that the debate is being waged by those on the political extremes, when there is almost certainly some middle ground whereby we could make some incremental improvement (such as reducing suicide or homocide by 5 or 10%) in our current situation.  

What say ye?