Countdown to the next mass shooting

[StLucieBengal]

(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.

Where is the personal responsibility?

Sorry but the only reason we need protections from corporations is because of the monopolies created by the government.

We don’t need gov protections from disasters. That’s a regional issue for states.

We have police for dangerous people.

We have a military for dangerous countries.

[Yojimbo]

Do I really need to point out that police and military are government?

If disaster response is a “regional” issue, why does every state go running for federal funding for every fire, flood or hurricane? It’s because we support each other when in need, it’s called being a community/country.

[Bengalzona]

Perhaps the goal is not to prevent there from ever being a murder. Perhaps the goal is to prevent one dude from easily offing 20 to 60 people with readily obtainable items.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 03:48 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Do I really need to point out that police and military are government?

If disaster response is a “regional” issue, why does every state go running for federal funding for every fire, flood or hurricane? It’s because we support each other when in need, it’s called being a community/country.

Military and police are exactly what the gov is supposed to be doings.

They go for federal money because it’s not money they have to use of their own. I am more than happy to shut down fema and make it a regional issue. I live In Florida, we have hurricanes and no one should have to pay for cleanup except those of us who choose to live here in this risk. Some poor guy from Kentucky shouldn’t have to cover us.

We can still support each other with compassion. There are many groups who do relief efforts that accept donations. This doesn’t need to be a federal government issue.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 04:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Perhaps the goal is not to prevent there from ever being a murder. Perhaps the goal is to prevent one dude from easily offing 20 to 60 people with readily obtainable items.

Then we are going to have a difficult time buying cleaning products.

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 06:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then we are going to have a difficult time buying cleaning products.

Making and employing bombs or gas weapons is easier said than done, which is why the only people that do it are extremists in backwater places. Besides, in America guns are plentiful and easily obtained. Why would a homegrown nutjob ever consider one of those options?

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 07:41 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Making and employing bombs or gas weapons is easier said than done, which is why the only people that do it are extremists in backwater places. Besides, in America guns are plentiful and easily obtained. Why would a homegrown nutjob ever consider one of those options?

You can’t take away all bad things is my point. If someone wants to kill they will kill. I would rather deal with people with guns vs having to worry if someone is trying to poison us all.

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 07:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You can’t take away all bad things is my point.   If someone wants to kill they will kill.    I would rather deal with people with guns vs having to worry if someone is trying to poison us all.

Sorry, dude. But we are Post-9/11 now. That means we will forever more have someone watching to make sure no one is trying to poison us all (or blow us up, as well).

I agree that if someone wants to kill someone else, they can always find something to do it with. I think we need more efforts to limit those who want to kill as many people as they can. Getting rid of bump stocks would be a step in the right direction.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 07:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Sorry, dude. But we are Post-9/11 now. That means we will forever more have someone watching to make sure no one is trying to poison us all (or blow us up, as well).

I agree that if someone wants to kill someone else, they can always find something to do it with. I think we need more efforts to limit those who want to kill as many people as they can. Getting rid of bump stocks would be a step in the right direction.

I am as anti gov as anyone but I wish we had the nut houses back. Mainstreaming the mentally ill has been a disaster and probably leads to a lot of these killings.

[*bfine32*]

This is perhaps the most crass thread in the history of this forum.

It trivializes the recent deaths of over 70 innocent humans to the point that we should vote on when the next one occurs.

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is perhaps the most crass thread in the history of this forum.

It trivializes the recent deaths of over 70 innocent humans to the point that we should vote on when the next one occurs.

Interesting, seeing as they haven't been directly or indirectly mentioned in the thread.

Does the maker of bumpstocks re-opening sales on Tuesday trivialize the Los Vegas shooting victims?

Do the gun makers making increased profits after every mass shooting trivialize those shootings?

The simple fact is that every time there is mass shooting and the rest of us stand around with our thumbs up our butts sending thoughts and prayers but never seeking to change conditions to prevent this from happening again, then we all trivialize those deaths.

Complain about the crazy dude all you want, but their blood is on our hands.

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 07:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am as anti gov as anyone but I wish we had the nut houses back.   Mainstreaming the mentally ill has been a disaster and probably leads to a lot of these killings.

Interesting perspective.

I can't agree with the sweeping statement about the "mentally ill". The term is too generic and encompasses a wide range of conditions. A person with mild Down's Syndrome isn't the same as a person with severe paranoid schizophrenia. It's not right to treat them the same and just lock them away somewhere.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2017, 08:19 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting, seeing as they haven't been directly or indirectly mentioned in the thread.

Does the maker of bumpstocks re-opening sales on Tuesday trivialize the Los Vegas shooting victims?

Do the gun makers making increased profits after every mass shooting trivialize those shootings?

The simple fact is that every time there is mass shooting and the rest of us stand around with our thumbs up our butts sending thoughts and prayers but never seeking to change conditions to prevent this from happening again, then we all trivialize those deaths.

Complain about the crazy dude all you want, but their blood is on our hands.

The validity of whether the instances you provide trivializes the death of innocent civilians or not can be debated.

The simple fact is that the premise of this thread trivializes the event(s) and is crass in its presentation. 

I'm for any change that will reduce these events; however, not sure this is the preferred method. Perhaps an earnest discussion and a call to action would be preferred over a thread such as this.  

[StLucieBengal]

(11-09-2017, 08:28 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting perspective.

I can't agree with the sweeping statement about the "mentally ill". The term is too generic and encompasses a wide range of conditions. A person with mild Down's Syndrome isn't the same as a person with severe paranoid schizophrenia. It's not right to treat them the same and just lock them away somewhere.

I used mentally ill because I didn’t think it was necessary to obviously exclude Downs people and others similar. We have a lot of this country on meds for mental illness and we should probably weed them out.

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

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.

Uh, yeah.

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

You believe so because I am.

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?

Looks like, in your rush to set up your scorecord and finally check off that big WIN, you forgot to check your impressions against what I actually wrote.  Not sure I should keep giving you rope, but here goes:

You made a "correct point" about homicides and illegal drugs which no one was contesting and which does not address any point I made. So yes, of course I will gladly grant you your "facts." And still wonder at your carelessly policing my posts before actually reading them.  Again.

In response to Neb's question--"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 questioned the guns/alcohol analogy.

My answer: There is not concentrated public, national outrage over alcohol/alcoholism only because the effects of alcohol abuse are distributed over time and space--not in mass groupings--so they do not generate the media attention that mass shootings do.  If a drunk driver kills two people in Jonesville, NY, at 10 am and another dies of cirrhosis in Sacramento, CA, at 10:10, and third beats his wife to death in New Orleans at 10:15, there is often local outrage among families affected (and this even though "people like to get drunk/high") but it does not rise  to national attention.   (You said this was called "prohibition"?? That "fact" certainly flew over my head.)

But if, HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, a large group of alcohol-related deaths somehow occurred at once--thousands, hundreds, dozens--then I suggest HYPOTHETICALLY we would see something like the media attention which follows a mass shooting, especially if they occurred every other month--and I hasten to add now that we would see that outrage in my hypothetical mass instances "even though people like to get drunk/high" because we so frequently see it in all those typical individual instances mentioned above.   

So "thousands" came in with Neb's question and the number of alcohol-related deaths in the US each year (88,000 in the last year, according to the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), but which occur mostly one at a time in many different places.   (And no, I don't recall a mass shooting of thousands in the U.S.--so you get another "fact.")

And sorry but I still don't see "extremism" in pro-choicers who are ok with abortion before four weeks.  "Extremism" is a historically variable and malleable term suitable for propaganda, but not for responsible analysis. How often do you see people called "extremist" by one group also calling everyone else "extremists"? So you don't see me using the term.

[GMDino]

Guns are designed to kill/harm/destroy.  That's their purpose.  They have no other like say a hammer or a car or a knife.

And we all have a right to own one.

If we can't enforce laws that try to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people we might need to look at something, anything else.

Something needs to be done other than thoughts and prayers.

As to when the next one will be?  Doesn't matter.  Simple fact is there WILL be a next one and then another and another.  Because cowards think killing someone is the answer to whatever problem they have with that person or that group of people.  The difference is our reaction to the event.

Rather than treating all victims and killers as humans we box them into whatever group we want to say is more dangerous than "our" group.



But creating "enemies" and fear is how the powerful people stay powerful.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2017, 09:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like, in your rush to set up your scorecord and finally check off that big WIN, you forgot to check your impressions against what I actually wrote.  Not sure I should keep giving you rope, but here goes:

Yeah, gimme that rope baby, I need to pull a Caradine over here. 

Quote:You made a "correct point" about homicides and illegal drugs which does not address any point I made. So yes, of course I will gladly grant you your "facts." And still chuckle in wonderment at your carelessly policing my posts before actually reading them.  Again.

Good lord, and you accuse me of being obtuse.  Your inane point is that a bunch of deaths all in one event would spur the same kind of response, or at least make the analogy more appropriate.  My response is that people are well aware of the deaths related the to drug trade and yet it does nothing to curb the use of drugs.  What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.  My counter is that people are aware and don't care enough to change.  The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.  Hence your analogy was flawed from the beginning.  Keep giving me that rope boy, I'm nearly there.

I

Quote:n response to Neb's question--"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 questioned the guns/alcohol analogy.

My answer: There is not concentrated public, national outrage over alcohol/alcoholism only because the effects of alcohol abuse are distributed over time and space--not in mass groupings--so they do not generate the media attention that mass shootings do.  If a drunk driver kills two people in Jonesville, NY, at 10 am and another dies of cirrhosis in Sacramento, CA, at 10:10, and third beats his wife to death in New Orleans at 10:15, there is often local outrage among families affected (and even though "people like to get drunk/high") but it does not rise  to national attention.   (You said this was called "prohibition"?? That "fact" certainly flew over my head.)

Yes, I addressed this above, your analogy is flawed.  

Quote:But if, HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, a large group of alcohol-related deaths somehow occurred at once--thousands, hundreds, dozens--then I suggest HYPOTHETICALLY we would see something like the media attention which follows a mass shooting, especially if they occurred every other month--and I hasten to add now that we would see that outrage in my hypothetical mass instances "even though people like to get drunk/high" because we so frequently see it in all those typical individual instances mentioned above.   

The words in caps nearly gave me enough rope, nearly.  I posited that this would have zero affect on people as the number of deaths is already well known and, as I stated, people like to get high.  I still posit this, lack of caps and all.

Quote:So "thousands" came in with Neb's question and the number of alcohol-related deaths in the US each year (88,000 in the last year, according to the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), but which occur mostly one at a time in many different places.   (And no, I don't recall a mass shooting of thousands in the U.S.--so you get another "fact.")

Please, explain it again, I've got nearly enough rope that I'm starting to see stars.

Quote:And sorry but I still don't see "extremism" in pro-choicers who are ok with abortion before four weeks.  "Extremism" is a historically variable and malleable term suitable for propaganda, but not for responsible analysis.

I can only guess that you lack the intellectual capacity to process the point being made.  Maybe you gave yourself too much rope?

Quote:How often do you see extremists calling everyone else "extremists"?  You don't see me using the term.

Oh well then, point proven!  Out of curiosity, who is calling "everyone else" extremists?  

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The validity of whether the instances you provide trivializes the death of innocent civilians or not can be debated.

The simple fact is that the premise of this thread trivializes the event(s) and is crass in its presentation. 

I'm for any change that will reduce these events; however, not sure this is the preferred method. Perhaps an earnest discussion and a call to action would be preferred over a thread such as this.  

I don't see that we, as a nation, can trivialize these shootings any more than we already have. I don't see any 9/11- type monuments going up outside of Sandy Hook Elementary School. I don't hear any call to action about Columbine. As a matter of fact, I don't hear much anymore about the Los Vegas shooting.

Each shooting gets a day or two in the media and then the public forgets until the next one occurs. People are more worried about defending an overall political ideology than they are about finding a solution to a real problem.

Trivialize? It was trivialized before I got here. It will be even more trivialized when the media moves on from it after this weekend.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2017, 10:18 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Trivialize? It was trivialized before I got here. It will be even more trivialized when the media moves on from it after this weekend.

Yep. But you attributed to what you profess to abhor. 

I said after the Orlando shooting that I do not give a damn if Obama came out and banned the sell of all "assault style" long guns. I'm sure we all want the same thing: a reduction in this mass shootings. I suppose the rub comes in what can do it. I just know this thread is in poor taste and you know you are my boy.

Rules were actually in place to stop the latest shooter from obtaining such a weapon. 

[Bengalzona]

(11-09-2017, 10:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. But you attributed to what you profess to abhor. 

I said after the Orlando shooting that I do not give a damn if Obama came out and banned the sell of all "assault style" long guns. I'm sure we all want the same thing: a reduction in this mass shootings. I suppose the rub comes in what can do it. I just know this thread is in poor taste and you know you are my boy.

Rules were actually in place to stop the latest shooter from obtaining such a weapon. 

Bad taste, eh? Perhaps.

But if it evokes serious discussion on possible solutions rather than back-and-forth political rhetoric, then "bad taste" has served it's purpose.