Mass shootings

[Griever]

(02-15-2018, 01:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, this is that slippery slope that gun owners fear.

What signs?

Having too many guns?
Yelling at someone?
Cross dressing?

What is a sign that the police should force someone into a mental hospital based on the word of someone else?

Do you trust all doctors to diagnose someone?

obviously lock up any woman with short hair or wears pants

[BengalHawk62]

(02-15-2018, 03:40 PM)Wyche Wrote: See, I agree with this.  I am pro gun, but hardly a gun nut.  I have a long range 30-06 rifle, a 12 gauge pump, a .22 rifle, and no longer have a pistol, although I will purchase another one.  IF we ever got into a survival situation, I can use a combination of all of these to hunt game, and protect my family.  I personally don't see the need in automatic and rapid fire semi-automatic weapons with ridiculous magazines.  Those types of weapons help facilitate the ease of shootings like these.  There absolutely needs to be better communication regarding any mental issues and past violent crimes and the purchasing of firearms.  I don't see how these people slip through the cracks, to be honest.  I purchased my last gun two years ago, I waited 10 days before I could go pick it up.

This is my POV too.  I own a couple hunting guns, a 12 gauge pump, a 20 gauge pump, and a 16 gauge bolt action shotgun, a .22 rifle, and a .22 snub nosed pistol that doesn't shoot straight.  I'm looking to add a 9 millimeter, hopefully this year to my vast arsenal.  I feel confident enough to protect myself and my family if god forbids someone with bad intentions enters my home.  I like guns. I like my guns. But I'm not a gun nut either. Why in the f*** do you need an automatic rifle with a silencer in your possession?  What are you going to hunt and kill with one of those guns? Are you going to go shoot a squirrel with an AR-15?   Like my old man says, if you wanna play with guns like that, go join the military or local police force. 

[CKwi88]

This is half snarky and half genuine curiosity, but why in the actual hell are smoke grenades available to civilians?

With ARs I can understand that there are some (IMO bullshit) reasons to have them. But smoke grenades?

[Johnny Cupcakes]

There is certainly a problem with the availability of firearms, particularly those that can kill dozens of people in seconds. Everyone knows this. Even those who deny it in public, can privately admit it to themselves.

But the bigger issue here is societal. We have developed a violent culture that has little regard for human life, and until that changes, I don't have faith that any gun legislation will have much of an impact.

I'm not saying that we should not try, but getting rid of the guns isn't gonna get rid of the crazy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-15-2018, 03:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bill-clintons-over-the-top-fact-on-mass-shootings/2013/01/10/7040d61e-5b7a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html?utm_term=.af79145f95f3

Their source:

[url=http://www.doc.state.mn.us/org/commissioneroffice/planperf.htm][/url]


So this can actually mean they're underrepresented from 30's-70's, but it can also mean it's subjective. It's not perfect.

Understood.  With respect, your source actually bolsters my point.  I'll past the findings from your source for clarity.

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1910s: 2

1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6

You see an obvious uptick in the 30's, which I think we can al logically agree has to do with the dire economic straits people were in during that decade.  But, again, what strikes me is the low number in decades following major conflicts, in which millions of soldiers returned home, bearing the scars of these conflicts.  Guns were more easily available, outside the NFA, they were barely regulated by today's standards.  Yet the number of such shootings remained comparatively low.  Even factoring in your per capita point, which I concede as a solid counter, the numbers are significant.  There are obviously huge social factors playing into this that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.  IMO you'd have to include poorly supervised children (disintegration of the nuclear family included), narcissistic and solipsistic worldviews brought on by social media and mollycoddling children (i.e. a lack of accountability) and the sensationalism in the coverage of these events.  For some people being famous is such a goal that being famous for a bad reason is a viable alternative.  Lastly, how we deal with mental health issues.  I actually agree with GM's slippery slope argument in this regard, but there has to be a middle ground between the abuses of psychiatric commitment in the past and today's almost totally hands off approach. 

Quote:When comparing countries with mass shootings, the trend is more guns means more mass shootings. Even with the US and it's disproportional gun ownership removed from the data, it means more mass shootings when you own more guns. Same with all gun related crimes, as you said.

Sure, a point that goes hand in hand with my post. 

Quote:But, yea, this is a constitutionally protected right. We can't remove guns. 

Indeed.  It is also, IMO, a very important right.  The government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.  An 80 year old woman should have the means, if she chooses, to be able to realistically be able to defend herself from a 20 year old man.  The interesting trend to me has been the number of more left leaning people acquiring firearms do to Trump's election.  I'll completely concede that gun ownership still strongly coincides to a more right leaning ideology, but it is apparent that when people fear the potential abuses of their government they will arm themselves.  Of course, that fear is almost always predicated on the ideology of the current government and how closely it coincides with your own.

[Au165]

Saw this posted online and it kind of highlights how out of touch people are when they start throwing out "easy" solutions. This realistically works out to roughly 11.7 billion dollars a year if we just paid each one 40k, which is simply not feasible to do. Even if you cut that number down to 1 per school you are talking almost 4 billion a year which again isn't feasible to add onto school budgets.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2018, 04:26 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: This is my POV too.  I own a couple hunting guns, a 12 gauge pump, a 20 gauge pump, and a 16 gauge bolt action shotgun, a .22 rifle, and a .22 snub nosed pistol that doesn't shoot straight.  I'm looking to add a 9 millimeter, hopefully this year to my vast arsenal.  I feel confident enough to protect myself and my family if god forbids someone with bad intentions enters my home.  I like guns. I like my guns. But I'm not a gun nut either. Why in the f*** do you need an automatic rifle with a silencer in your possession?  What are you going to hunt and kill with one of those guns? Are you going to go shoot a squirrel with an AR-15?   Like my old man says, if you wanna play with guns like that, go join the military or local police force. 

Why does "need' enter into the equation when it comes to gun laws? I can't think of a reason why someone would NEED an automatic firearm, but then again, I can't think of a reason why someone would NEED a soda or marijuana or a stamp collection or a video game etc. My point is why does 'need' have to be a factor? Especially when you consider it's a constitutional right to own a gun.

I have no problem making it difficult for the wrong kinds of people to get them, but to argue "need" as a reason to ban it, doesn't fly with me.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-15-2018, 04:32 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: This is half snarky and half genuine curiosity, but why in the actual hell are smoke grenades available to civilians?

With ARs I can understand that there are some (IMO bullshit) reasons to have them. But smoke grenades?

No shit.  I don't understand that one either.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-15-2018, 04:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood.  With respect, your source actually bolsters my point.  I'll past the findings from your source for clarity.

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1910s: 2

1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6

You see an obvious uptick in the 30's, which I think we can al logically agree has to do with the dire economic straits people were in during that decade.  But, again, what strikes me is the low number in decades following major conflicts, in which millions of soldiers returned home, bearing the scars of these conflicts.  Guns were more easily available, outside the NFA, they were barely regulated by today's standards.  Yet the number of such shootings remained comparatively low.  Even factoring in your per capita point, which I concede as a solid counter, the numbers are significant.  There are obviously huge social factors playing into this that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.  IMO you'd have to include poorly supervised children (disintegration of the nuclear family included), narcissistic and solipsistic worldviews brought on by social media and mollycoddling children (i.e. a lack of accountability) and the sensationalism in the coverage of these events.  For some people being famous is such a goal that being famous for a bad reason is a viable alternative.  Lastly, how we deal with mental health issues.  I actually agree with GM's slippery slope argument in this regard, but there has to be a middle ground between the abuses of psychiatric commitment in the past and today's almost totally hands off approach. 




Sure, a point that goes hand in hand with my post. 



Indeed.  It is also, IMO, a very important right.  The government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.  An 80 year old woman should have the means, if she chooses, to be able to realistically be able to defend herself from a 20 year old man.  The interesting trend to me has been the number of more left leaning people acquiring firearms do to Trump's election.  I'll completely concede that gun ownership still strongly coincides to a more right leaning ideology, but it is apparent that when people fear the potential abuses of their government they will arm themselves.  Of course, that fear is almost always predicated on the ideology of the current government and how closely it coincides with your own.

This is a huge part of it, in my opinion.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-15-2018, 05:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why does "need' enter into the equation when it comes to gun laws? I can't think of a reason why someone would NEED an automatic firearm, but then again, I can't think of a reason why someone would NEED a soda or marijuana or a stamp collection or a video game etc. My point is why does 'need' have to be a factor? Especially when you consider it's a constitutional right to own a gun.

I have no problem making it difficult for the wrong kinds of people to get them, but to argue "need" as a reason to ban it, doesn't fly with me.

 I get what you're saying.....and in the case of the AR 15 and similar firearms, it's a legitimate stance.  However, silencers are for one thing, and one thing only.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Western Hills High School had 5000 students the year I graduated.

Now it's called Western Hills University and it includes Dater Middle School and I think another, I'm not sure so I guess you could add more students.

Back in the 80's we had a Cincinnti Police Officer who patrolled the halls and a Hamilton County Sheriff in the student parking lot along with adult hall monitors, one for each floor.

I can't remember all the entrances to the school but it's over 10 not including the vocational building that had doors leading out to the courtyard from multiple classrooms on the first floor.

Metal detectors, the people to monitor them, the amount of non-teacher hires just for West Hi would be too expensive.

I tell you what, when I was there it was asshole to belly button when the bell rang. So thankful for that early dismissal my senior year where I only had to finish English, art and vocational for graduation.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2018, 05:36 PM)Wyche Wrote:  I get what you're saying.....and in the case of the AR 15 and similar firearms, it's a legitimate stance.  However, silencers are for one thing, and one thing only.

Yep, it makes it easier to camp in the corner.

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2018, 12:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most of Nately's responses are nothing more than facetious commentary that is half-assed mockery. I like him, don't get me wrong, this isn't me calling him out for anything. You just have to understand that his opinion of the conversations that occur on here having any sort of substantial merit is one of extreme skepticism, and so engaging in them in any serious way isn't his typical direction.

(02-15-2018, 12:51 PM)Wyche Wrote: I love me some Nately.....he half-ass mocks about everything.   My initial thought was the metal detector manufacturers would be getting tax breaks was the direction his sarcasm was going.  I just wasn't sure.

C'mon, guys!

At least give the credit for the full-ass mockery he deserves.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-15-2018, 05:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: Saw this posted online and it kind of highlights how out of touch people are when they start throwing out "easy" solutions. This realistically works out to roughly 11.7 billion dollars a year if we just paid each one 40k, which is simply not feasible to do. Even if you cut that number down to 1 per school you are talking almost 4 billion a year which again isn't feasible to add onto school budgets.

You could cut 1 administrator and have more than enough to pay these guys.

[Benton]

(02-15-2018, 05:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Western Hills High School had 5000 students the year I graduated.

Now it's called Western Hills University and it includes Dater Middle School and I think another, I'm not sure so I guess you could add more students.

Back in the 80's we had a Cincinnti Police Officer who patrolled the halls and a Hamilton County Sheriff in the student parking lot along with adult hall monitors, one for each floor.

I can't remember all the entrances to the school but it's over 10 not including the vocational building that had doors leading out to the courtyard from multiple classrooms on the first floor.

Metal detectors, the people to monitor them, the amount of non-teacher hires just for West Hi would be too expensive.

I tell you what, when I was there it was asshole to belly button when the bell rang. So thankful for that early dismissal my senior year where I only had to finish English, art and vocational for graduation.

$3-4,000 per metal detector. Even for schools that big, you can still reduce the number of doors. And even if 10 is the minimum, you're talking a one time $30-40,000 purchase. Train faculty on how to use them, move on to other ways to make the buildings harder to bring guns into. Theres just under 100,000 public schools in the US. That's around $400 million (if my math is right). Last I saw, we were spending more than $11 million per day on fighting in the Middle East. So... take a month off. Let's let some people over there blow themselves up and argue with each other for the month of March. Tell them we'll resume bombing the shit out of them in April once we've taken even baby steps towards doing something.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-15-2018, 06:38 PM)Benton Wrote: $3-4,000 per metal detector. Even for schools that big, you can still reduce the number of doors. And even if 10 is the minimum, you're talking a one time $30-40,000 purchase. Train faculty on how to use them, move on to other ways to make the buildings harder to bring guns into. Theres just under 100,000 public schools in the US. That's around $400 million (if my math is right). Last I saw, we were spending more than $11 million per day on fighting in the Middle East. So... take a month off. Let's let some people over there blow themselves up and argue with each other for the month of March. Tell them we'll resume bombing the shit out of them in April once we've taken even baby steps towards doing something.

Cheaper to just have public online schools.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2018, 06:38 PM)Benton Wrote: $3-4,000 per metal detector. Even for schools that big, you can still reduce the number of doors. 

Can they though? Don't most (if not all) states have regulations requiring a certain number of entrances and egresses for buildings based on a variety of factors?

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2018, 05:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: Saw this posted online and it kind of highlights how out of touch people are when they start throwing out "easy" solutions. This realistically works out to roughly 11.7 billion dollars a year if we just paid each one 40k, which is simply not feasible to do. Even if you cut that number down to 1 per school you are talking almost 4 billion a year which again isn't feasible to add onto school budgets.

I think you miss the real point. There are some who would like to get rid of public schools altogether and have children taught at home schools or private schools. The theory is that anything outside of the military that the government pays for should be gone.

I wouldn't look for them to support anything that would keep kids alive in schools. I certainly wouldn't expect any support from them on anything that limits gun ownership for anyone in any way.

[CKwi88]

(02-15-2018, 06:53 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think you miss the real point. There are some who would like to get rid of public schools altogether and have children taught at home schools or private schools. The theory is that anything outside of the military that the government pays for should be gone.

I wouldn't look for them to support anything that would keep kids alive in schools. I certainly wouldn't expect any support from them on anything that limits gun ownership for anyone in any way.

After all, guns are a constitutional right. There's no mention of schools or education. Just get rid of schools and there will be no more school shootings.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2018, 06:57 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: After all, guns are a constitutional right. There's no mention of schools or education. Just get rid of schools and there will be no more school shootings.

Well, if you think about it, it DOES make sense. Just sayin'.