Countdown to the next mass shooting

[BengalHawk62]

You know.....its only a matter of time before someone does something like this at a ball game.  either college or pro football.  it wouldn't be that hard.  set up shop across the highway in the local hotel with a room facing inside the stadium.  sneak up 20-30 guns, ammo, etc.  booby trap the door, detach the smoke alarms, and wa-la.  you're all set up. 

[Goalpost]

I’m surprised bump stocks haven’t been outlawed yet. Ridiculous

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We all know the left wants to ban guns, just say it.

I don't know any sensible liberals that feel this way. There are extremists on both sides, but the non-extremist liberals do not feel this way.

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: But where's the outrage for the pain, suffering and deaths caused by alcohol every year which is much more than what guns cause?

A lot of that is self-inflicted. The damage that isn't we do see a lot about, it just isn't as sexy as gun violence.

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Seriously, more death is cause by alcohol every year than guns and gun violence and those deaths are because someone drinks too much, it doesn't count the drunk driving deaths or the deaths of those who are beaten to death by a drunk who's pissed off that they are a loser. What about the damaged lives of children who have to endure drunk parents who beat or rape their children? 

Well, your first category, you say it yourself. Self-inflicted. The rest of it, there are a lot of efforts regarding these things just, again, not as sexy. There also isn't a multi-billion dollar lobbying effort on behalf of alcohol saying "nothing can be done to stop this! Regulating it is pointless!"

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: At least a gun has a purpose, alcohol has no purpose whatsoever...none.

Alcohol had a purpose at one time, I agree it doesn't any longer.

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I understand, mass shootings are terrible and they will continue to happen as long as we ignore the problem which is mental health. But if you are going to condemn one, condemn all things that cause pain, suffering and death.

Mental health is but one factor. What is interesting is that the underlying causes of gun violence are very similar to alcohol abuse in certain segments of the population. If we address socioeconomic issues, healthcare, etc., then there is a potential for a happier, healthier, less violent culture.

[BengalHawk62]

(11-08-2017, 02:02 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I’m surprised bump stocks haven’t been outlawed yet.  Ridiculous

But....but....but, a bump stock never killed anyone! 

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2017, 02:02 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I’m surprised bump stocks haven’t been outlawed yet. Ridiculous

You thought Congress would do something.

[Dill]

(11-08-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We all know the left wants to ban guns, just say it.

But where's the outrage for the pain, suffering and deaths caused by alcohol every year which is much more than what guns cause?

I understand, mass shootings are terrible and they will continue to happen as long as we ignore the problem which is mental health. But if you are going to condemn one, condemn all things that cause pain, suffering and death.

I'm a leftist with no mental health history and I don't want my non-semi-atuomatic guns without 30-round magazines banned.  I'm thinking not all of us "know" what the left wants.

If the death and suffering resulting from alcohol abuse in a single year occurred all at one time in one place there would be plenty of outrage.  Even if only a faction of that total number: a thousand or five-hundred or three-hundred.

In fact, there IS plenty of outrage. It is just distributed across time and space differently than a mass shooting event.

No conceivable reason why one has to condemn "all things that cause pain" or shut up about mass shootings.
Not a good life plan.

[Bengalzona]

(11-08-2017, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You thought Congress would do something.

Surprisingly enough, that would have been one thing they could have done that would have had bi-partisan support and some support from the NRA as well.

[Yojimbo]

I’m pretty far left, but I don’t like the idea of banning much of anything (outside of harmful pollutants). This is supposed to be the land of the free. I am in favor of treating guns as just as dangerous as a vehicle, which would mean classes and license for owning guns.

[Bengalzona]

(11-08-2017, 05:14 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m pretty far left, but I don’t like the idea of banning much of anything (outside of harmful pollutants). This is supposed to be the land of the free. I am in favor of treating guns as just as dangerous as a vehicle, which would mean classes and license for owning guns.

That pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-08-2017, 05:14 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m pretty far left, but I don’t like the idea of banning much of anything (outside of harmful pollutants). This is supposed to be the land of the free. I am in favor of treating guns as just as dangerous as a vehicle, which would mean classes and license for owning guns.

Once self driving cars are rolling then it will be near impossible to drive a car. Especially in cities. The stats will show they are safer and the days of ya driving ourselves will eventually be over.

That is ofc unless we stop the state from taking over every portion of our lives.

We can’t legislate people to be better people. We just have bad people. Anyone clamoring for more laws is just a supporter of the government taking over our lives.

Sorry but no one’s death is worth everyone having to live that way.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2017, 05:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Surprisingly enough, that would have been one thing they could have done that would have had bi-partisan support and some support from the NRA as well.

Yeah, well, overwhelming majorities also want universal background checks. Also, the NRA has influence, but not as much as a lot of people think.

(11-08-2017, 05:14 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’m pretty far left, but I don’t like the idea of banning much of anything (outside of harmful pollutants). This is supposed to be the land of the free. I am in favor of treating guns as just as dangerous as a vehicle, which would mean classes and license for owning guns.

(11-08-2017, 06:19 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

I'm in the same boat, but I've laid out my thoughts in detail elsewhere.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2017, 09:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Once self driving cars are rolling then it will be near impossible to drive a car.   Especially in cities.   The stats will show they are safer and the days of ya driving ourselves will eventually be over.  

That is ofc unless we stop the state from taking over every portion of our lives.  

We can’t legislate people to be better people.   We just have bad people.   Anyone clamoring for more laws is just a supporter of the government taking over our lives.  

Sorry but no one’s death is worth everyone having to live that way.

I'm confused by this. Are you against laws making murder, theft, rape, etc., illegal? That is "legislating people to be better people." It's why I've never understood this argument.

[Yojimbo]

(11-08-2017, 09:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Once self driving cars are rolling then it will be near impossible to drive a car. Especially in cities. The stats will show they are safer and the days of ya driving ourselves will eventually be over.

That is ofc unless we stop the state from taking over every portion of our lives.

We can’t legislate people to be better people. We just have bad people. Anyone clamoring for more laws is just a supporter of the government taking over our lives.

Sorry but no one’s death is worth everyone having to live that way.

That is literally the number one role of government, to keep the population safe from dangerous people/countries/corporations/disasters.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2017, 09:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That is literally the number one role of government, to keep the population safe from dangerous people/countries/corporations/disasters.

Would that fall under insuring domestic tranquility or promoting the general welfare?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2017, 05:11 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm a leftist with no mental health history and I don't want my non-semi-atuomatic guns without 30-round magazines banned.  I'm thinking not all of us "know" what the left wants.

Cool, you're good with your guns but not with mine so that doesn't make you an extremist?  You're the gun control version of the anti-abortionist whose cool with abortion, as long as it occurs within the first four weeks of pregnancy.

Quote:If the death and suffering resulting from alcohol abuse in a single year occurred all at one time in one place there would be plenty of outrage.  Even if only a faction of that total number: a thousand or five-hundred or three-hundred.

No there wouldn't, for one simple reason, people like to get drunk/high.  It's no secret that a large percentage of our homicides occur because of criminal activity directly linked to the selling of illegal drugs.  That hasn't made a dent in people actually buying these drugs has it?

Quote:In fact, there IS plenty of outrage. It is just distributed across time and space differently than a mass shooting event.

Yeah, it was called prohibition, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Quote:No conceivable reason why one has to condemn "all things that cause pain" or shut up about mass shootings.
Not a good life plan.

Talk about them all you want, just bring actual facts to the table instead of foisting your uninformed opinion on us.

[jmccracky]

(11-08-2017, 09:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, well, overwhelming majorities also want universal background checks. Also, the NRA has influence, but not as much as a lot of people think.



I'm in the same boat, but I've laid out my thoughts in detail elsewhere.

I concur. 

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 12:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, you're good with your guns but not with mine so that doesn't make you an extremist?  You're the gun control version of the anti-abortionist whose cool with abortion, as long as it occurs within the first four weeks of pregnancy.

No there wouldn't, for one simple reason, people like to get drunk/high.  It's no secret that a large percentage of our homicides occur because of criminal activity directly linked to the selling of illegal drugs.  That hasn't made a dent in people actually buying these drugs has it?

Yeah, it was called prohibition, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Talk about them all you want, just bring actual facts to the table instead of foisting your uninformed opinion on us.

An anti-abortionist who is "cool" with abortion during the first four weeks is an extremist??  

So there WOULDN'T be a lot of outrage if a thousand people died in one place at one time from alcohol abuse. ok.

For the simple reason people like to get high.

People across the nation in every community angered over alcoholic family members, spousal abuse, alcohol-related traffic deaths distributed over a year instead of one mass event = "prohibition"? What? 

I believe you are correct that many homicides are linked to illegal drugs and have had little effect on the volume of such sales. 

LOL thanks for all the "actual facts" and "informed opinion." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2017, 01:57 AM)Dill Wrote: An anti-abortionist who is "cool" with abortion during the first four weeks is an extremist??

No, they'd be disingenuous.  Since the point flew a few miles over your head I'll explain further.  Many (most?)  women don't even know they're pregnant until after that four week period would be up.  If I have to explain even further I'll actually be disappointed in you.

Quote:So there WOULDN'T be a lot of outrage if a thousand people died in one place at one time from alcohol abuse. ok.

Lol, were did "thousands" come in.  When was the last time "thousands" of people were killed in one mass shooting?  If you didn't have hyperbole your post count would be halved.

Quote:For the simple reason people like to get high.

Uh, yeah.

Quote:People across the nation in every community angered over alcoholic family members, spousal abuse, alcohol-related traffic deaths distributed over a year instead of one mass event = "prohibition"? What? 

Again, point flew right over your head.  You're going to get a crick in your neck if you're not careful.

Quote:I believe you are correct that many homicides are linked to illegal drugs and have had little effect on the volume of such sales. 

You believe so because I am.

Quote:LOL thanks for all the "actual facts" and "informed opinion." 

Wait, you just said I made a correct point that countered your assertion and in the next sentence ridiculed me for not having made a factual or informed point.  Did you go off your meds or something?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-08-2017, 09:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm confused by this. Are you against laws making murder, theft, rape, etc., illegal? That is "legislating people to be better people." It's why I've never understood this argument.

Just because you make something illegal does not mean you change people from doing these crimes.

Taking away guns from everyone doesn’t stop people from killing.

Making me pay additional taxes to have a third trash pickup for recyclables doesn’t mean that any of us actually use the bin they provide for anything else than a second trash bin.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Just because you make something illegal does not mean you change people from doing these crimes.

I agree, but then why have laws against these things?

(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Taking away guns from everyone doesn’t stop people from killing.

I agree, but it is one of the most efficient and methods available to the average citizen.

(11-09-2017, 12:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Making me pay additional taxes to have a third trash pickup for recyclables doesn’t mean that any of us actually use the bin they provide for anything else than a second trash bin.

This is why single-stream is the way to go.