Countdown to the next mass shooting

[Nebuchadnezzar]

62% of gun deaths are suicides and the total of all gun deaths in 2016 is around 11,000. Take away that 62% and you have around 4000 total gun murders.

Since I can't use the self inflicted alcohol abuse, we will use only drunk driving deaths in 2016 which is over 10,000. Yes, alcohol abuse isn't sexy and the most I could find murdered by a drunk driver at one time is 4, sorry that it isn't high enough for you, it's still almost triple the amount than gun violence.

Now alcohol has no use whatsoever.

As for the only use of a gun being to kill/harm and whatever, you forget that it is also used to hunt and protect. Let's see how you fare with a stick or a knife against a wild boar, you are going to need a gun unless you're Rambo or something.

That Hero in Tennessee used his gun to hold that other church shooter until police got there. That gun didn't kill anyone. 

By the way, the guy who stopped all the death in that church as this guy went around looking to finish off people who weren't dead was an NRA Certified Gun Saftey Instructor who used an AR-15. This Hero used hi gun to stop even more people from losing their lives.

As for what can we do to stop these things? The only way is to ban all firearms, confiscate the firearms in this country, stop illegal guns from entering this country, go door to door, down every alley, look in every wall and any place someone can hide a gun and get those too. Then hope you got them all and that you can stop all the death. This is the only way to stop mass shootings and we still won't be garrenteed.

Mass shootings are horrible and no we don't just have to live with them. What we need to do is stop this arguing back and forth about banning the object and start working on the real problems which is people. Find out why someone wants to blow themselves up in the name of their god or why someone wants to murder as many people as they can with a gun. It's the person that is the problem, not the gun or the religion.

Education and facts that can not be subjective or refuted, the actions of people, stop the constant putting down of others and stop accusing one side or the other of wanting to kill or enslave the people. We have to get serious about mental health as well or it won't matter anyway.

Mental Health may be only one factor but it is the biggest factor when it comes to mass shootings.

[Vas Deferens]

GOP seems to like turning their back to loopholes. But the Luba are shitty people for talking about dead babies, not the ines taking the lobbyists cash or the poor dumb dumbs supporting them. Low T and poor financial planning is a hell of a rationale. We're all paying the price.

[Belsnickel]

(11-10-2017, 01:38 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 62% of gun deaths are suicides and the total of all gun deaths in 2016 is around 11,000. Take away that 62% and you have around 4000 total gun murders.

Since I can't use the self inflicted alcohol abuse, we will use only drunk driving deaths in 2016 which is over 10,000. Yes, alcohol abuse isn't sexy and the most I could find murdered by a drunk driver at one time is 4, sorry that it isn't high enough for you, it's still almost triple the amount than gun violence.

Now alcohol has no use whatsoever.

As for the only use of a gun being to kill/harm and whatever, you forget that it is also used to hunt and protect. Let's see how you fare with a stick or a knife against a wild boar, you are going to need a gun unless you're Rambo or something.

That Hero in Tennessee used his gun to hold that other church shooter until police got there. That gun didn't kill anyone. 

By the way, the guy who stopped all the death in that church as this guy went around looking to finish off people who weren't dead was an NRA Certified Gun Saftey Instructor who used an AR-15. This Hero used hi gun to stop even more people from losing their lives.

As for what can we do to stop these things? The only way is to ban all firearms, confiscate the firearms in this country, stop illegal guns from entering this country, go door to door, down every alley, look in every wall and any place someone can hide a gun and get those too. Then hope you got them all and that you can stop all the death. This is the only way to stop mass shootings and we still won't be garrenteed.

Mass shootings are horrible and no we don't just have to live with them. What we need to do is stop this arguing back and forth about banning the object and start working on the real problems which is people. Find out why someone wants to blow themselves up in the name of their god or why someone wants to murder as many people as they can with a gun. It's the person that is the problem, not the gun or the religion.

Education and facts that can not be subjective or refuted, the actions of people, stop the constant putting down of others and stop accusing one side or the other of wanting to kill or enslave the people. We have to get serious about mental health as well or it won't matter anyway.

Mental Health may be only one factor but it is the biggest factor when it comes to mass shootings.

Quick question with all of this: who on this forum has advocated banning firearms? Your argument seems to be hinged on that, but I haven't seen that argument being made. People have talked about restrictions, universal background checks, etc., but not banning. We are talking about regulating firearms, where they can be carried, what type can be purchased, who can purchase them.

[GMDino]

I do find it amusing how some (society, Americans, humans, whatever) can just accept that a certain number of people will die needlessly and shrug their shoulders and say there's no sense even talking about it.

When it comes to whatever they want to support, that is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do find it amusing how some (society, Americans, humans, whatever) can just accept that a certain number of people will die needlessly and shrug their shoulders and say there's no sense even talking about it.

When it comes to whatever they want to support, that is.

They aren't dying needlessly, they're being murdered by a criminal.  As soon as you can figure out a way to make criminals obey the laws then gun control laws will actually affect people being murdered by criminals.  Don't let logic get in the way of the hyperbole train though.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They aren't dying needlessly, they're being murdered by a criminal.  As soon as you can figure out a way to make criminals obey the laws then gun control laws will actually affect people being murdered by criminals.  Don't let logic get in the way of the hyperbole train though.

So we'll ignore all the accidental deaths too? Okey dokey Joe.


1000, 4000, 12,000 whatever the number of people killed annually just gets thrown into the old "Well, we can't stop them all so let's not talk about it" loop.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 12:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: So we'll ignore all the accidental deaths too? Okey dokey Joe.

Nope, let's not ignore them.  Tell me how you propose to prevent them.

Quote:1000, 4000, 12,000 whatever the number of people killed annually just gets thrown into the old "Well, we can't stop them all so let's not talk about it" loop.

I'll reiterate, how do you propose to prevent them?  Just remember, you have that pesky Constitution to have to worry about.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 12:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, let's not ignore them.  Tell me how you propose to prevent them.



I'll reiterate, how do you propose to prevent them?  Just remember, you have that pesky Constitution to have to worry about.

I guess that's why we have to talk about it.  Like I said.

Not just say "eh, 2A.  whataya gonna do?".

That was my point.  Not that *I* have all the answers or even *an" answer.  Just that we can't shrug it off.  Or the next one, or the next one...

Thanks Joe.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess that's why we have to talk about it.  Like I said.

Not just say "eh, 2A.  whataya gonna do?".

That was my point.  Not that *I* have all the answers or even *an" answer.  Just that we can't shrug it off.  Or the next one, or the next one...

Thanks Joe.

So your point is that we have to do something, but you have no idea what that something might be?  Thank the gods you're hear to make such pithy contributions.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 01:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So your point is that we have to do something, but you have no idea what that something might be?  Thank the gods you're hear to make such pithy contributions.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-10-2017, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess that's why we have to talk about it.  Like I said.

Not just say "eh, 2A.  whataya gonna do?".

That was my point.  Not that *I* have all the answers or even *an" answer.  Just that we can't shrug it off.  Or the next one, or the next one...

Thanks Joe.

First question: CAN something be done? We already have quite a few laws and regulations and procedures on the books to try to curb illegal gun use. The Texas shooting was perpetrated because someone didn't follow these laws/proecdures. 

Maybe the issue is that some people don't believe things can be done and those that do aren't proposing feasible solutions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: sadattempt.jpg

Wait, I thought you said this was an important topic and needed to be discussed?  Are you that frightened of actually contributing something of substance that you would ignore such an important issue?!

[*Nately120*]

Couldn't we just spin it that people who are killed by crazed gunmen are dying for our freedoms the same way the brave men and women who die fighting for our freedoms overseas do? Send flags to their next of kin and tell them they made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and call them heroes.

Make a memorial in DC that has the names of everyone killed in the name of the 2nd amendment.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 01:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: First question: CAN something be done? We already have quite a few laws and regulations and procedures on the books to try to curb illegal gun use. The Texas shooting was perpetrated because someone didn't follow these laws/proecdures. 

Maybe the issue is that some people don't believe things can be done and those that do aren't proposing feasible solutions.

I did address that in an earlier post:

(11-09-2017, 09:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

My second post that Joe has a problem with I guess was in response to those who don't even think we should talk about do anything at all.  I clearly explained that.  

It's not going to be an easy problem to solve, nor will everyone like any proposed solutions.

The Texas case is unique in that somehow the system that is in place already failed due to human error.  You can't eliminate THAT from any system.  But we can't just not have a discussion because it's "too soon" or "too long ago" or "nothing can be done" or "we already do enough".

Every tragedy needs to have d discussion.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 01:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: First question: CAN something be done? We already have quite a few laws and regulations and procedures on the books to try to curb illegal gun use. The Texas shooting was perpetrated because someone didn't follow these laws/proecdures. 

Maybe the issue is that some people don't believe things can be done and those that do aren't proposing feasible solutions.

Ahh, a cogent point!  I was beginning to forget what those looked like.  Here's the truth of the matter, gun violence is only solvable at the root level; i.e. poverty, lack of opportunity, illegal drug use, mental illness, etc.  

Banning a certain type of gun, bullet, or magazine will do absolutely nothing to curb gun violence of prevent mass shooting.  After Vegas politicians shit their pants over bump fire stocks.  Bump fire stocks suck and no serious shooter would use one.  They exist for two reasons, to allow the handicapped to shoot a fire arm easier and as a stupid range toy.  The Vegas shooter could have done a lot more damage if he actually took a few seconds to aim for every shot.  The ultimate point is that the law won't prevent a determined murderer, just like it didn't in France during the Bataclan shootings.  If you have time, money and intelligence, or honestly just two of those three, you can perpetrate a mass shooting in any country on Earth.

Here's the bottom line, the time in which we could have put the brakes on private firearm ownership is long in the past.  Laws banning certain firearms gives the illusion of doing something when it fact it doesn't prevent anything as criminals will not follow the law banning the fire arm.  Let us not forget that the country to our south is awash in guns and drugs, both of which make it over our border in the thousands every day.  Laws only affect the law abiding and sometimes not even then.  Vermont had minimal compliance with its "assault weapon" registry to the point that the laws authors admitted it was a failed law as no one followed it.  Law enforcement has far better things to do than spend time chasing down otherwise lawful gun owners.

If people are serious about stopping gun related crime then do the following three things; 1.  Lock up people who use a gun in the commission of a crime for a long time, especially repeat offenders.  Do not let them plead down.  2.  Start actually funding mental health and allow people to be committed and held on an involuntary basis (this one is ripe for abuse so care must be used).  3.  Start youth intervention programs in high risk areas and so so around 6-8 years old.  Waiting until children are teenagers for this type of intervention is far too late.  These programs already exist, they are just often times poorly run or conceived.  Get input from police, sheriffs, probation and parents about what works with the youth population and target those areas.  Lastly, no plan will save anyone so don't close a program because it only prevented 40% of the youth it served from turning to illegal activity.

Not a single one of these suggestion infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens and all three of them would have a discernible effect on gun related crime.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Texas case is unique in that somehow the system that is in place already failed due to human error.  You can't eliminate THAT from any system.  But we can't just not have a discussion because it's "too soon" or "too long ago" or "nothing can be done" or "we already do enough".

It's not unique at all.  It's unique to you because you only know what you read from media sources.  Prohibited persons acquiring a gun legally is hardly unique.  I've said it many times, before passing a bunch of new laws try actually enforcing the ones on the books, like prosecuting straw man purchasers.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-10-2017, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's not going to be an easy problem to solve, nor will everyone like any proposed solutions.

Okay, but first step is figuring out if there is a problem, and if so, what is it? You can't jsut say we have a "gun" problem. What does that mean? Do we have a mass shooting problem? Do we have a murder problem?

You can't address a problem without first addressing what that problem is. Everyone might not agree with the problem, but the more specific you can get in stating the problem the more effective you'll be in finding a solution.

Many times - usually after a tragedy like this - people are quick to say there's a problem in this country but then make some grandiose and vague statement as to the problem. That's not helpful and it's why a consensus is hard to find. 

(11-10-2017, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Texas case is unique in that somehow the system that is in place already failed due to human error.  You can't eliminate THAT from any system.  But we can't just not have a discussion because it's "too soon" or "too long ago" or "nothing can be done" or "we already do enough".

Every tragedy needs to have d discussion.  

Sure, but there is a time for it and doing it immediately after (or even during the tragedy) is NOT hte time to do it. You can NOT propose solutions based on feelings and that's exactly what will happen if you look for solutions too soon. One needs to be as objective as possible and tha'ts nearly impossible when you're still reeling emotionally from a tragedy. 

For example, you're dad - who's been happily married to your mom for over 50 years - passes away. Do you discuss with your mom selling the house and/or her moving into a nursing home and/or your father's will before the funeral, during the funeral, immediately after the funeral, or at some point when she seems to finally starting to come to grips with the loss of her husband? 

It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm hoping you get my point. 

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 02:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Okay, but first step is figuring out if there is a problem, and if so, what is it? You can't jsut say we have a "gun" problem. What does that mean? Do we have a mass shooting problem? Do we have a murder problem?

You can't address a problem without first addressing what that problem is. Everyone might not agree with the problem, but the more specific you can get in stating the problem the more effective you'll be in finding a solution.

Many times - usually after a tragedy like this - people are quick to say there's a problem in this country but then make some grandiose and vague statement as to the problem. That's not helpful and it's why a consensus is hard to find. 

I can agree with this. That's why discussion is good.

Again, I was making a general comment (true in the middle of the thread) about people who do NOT want to talk about it. I didn't quote anyone here or accuse anyone here. Just a statement on my amusement at such people. Perhaps I could have started a fresh thread about that, but I didn't see a need for that.

(11-10-2017, 02:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, but there is a time for it and doing it immediately after (or even during the tragedy) is NOT hte time to do it. You can NOT propose solutions based on feelings and that's exactly what will happen if you look for solutions too soon. One needs to be as objective as possible and tha'ts nearly impossible when you're still reeling emotionally from a tragedy. 

For example, you're dad - who's been happily married to your mom for over 50 years - passes away. Do you discuss with your mom selling the house and/or her moving into a nursing home and/or your father's will before the funeral, during the funeral, immediately after the funeral, or at some point when she seems to finally starting to come to grips with the loss of her husband? 

It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm hoping you get my point. 

I get your point. But to add to that if it was my friend's father I might talk about such things with other people and then him later. Just talking about it doesn't mean we have to talk to the actual victims or even that we don't care about them and their feelings. It's just human nature (to me) to talk about things when they happen.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2017, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do find it amusing how some (society, Americans, humans, whatever) can just accept that a certain number of people will die needlessly and shrug their shoulders and say there's no sense even talking about it.

When it comes to whatever they want to support, that is.

This thread is not about abortion. 

[*PhilHos*]

(11-10-2017, 02:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I can agree with this.  That's why discussion is good.

Again, I was making a general comment (true in the middle of the thread) about people who do NOT want to talk about it.  I didn't quote anyone here or accuse anyone here.  Just a statement on my amusement at such people.  Perhaps I could have started a fresh thread about that, but I didn't see a need for that.



I get your point.  But to add to that if it was my friend's father I might talk about such things with other people and then him later.  Just talking about it doesn't mean we have to talk to the actual victims or even that we don't care about them and their feelings.  It's just human nature (to me) to talk about things when they happen.

Here's the thing: the only people that NEED to talk about it in terms of stopping the "problem" are those in authority. Sure, we the masses can talk about it and even help in finding the solution, but if someone not in authority is tired of the rhetoric and doesn't want to talk about it, so what?