Mass shootings

[StLucieBengal]

(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.

There will be a push for online schools. It has already started in Florida. Florida virtual gets more popular every year.

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2018, 07:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There will be a push for online schools.  It has already started in Florida.  Florida virtual gets more popular every year.

I'm sure they are more popular, with people being slaughtered inside the schools there.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-15-2018, 07:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm sure they are more popular,  with people being slaughtered inside the schools there.

You can't spell 'slaughter' without 'laughter'.

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2018, 07:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You can't spell 'slaughter' without 'laughter'.

Thank you for pointing that out. How very perverse.

[SunsetBengal]

Ever time that some lunatic goes on a killing rampage, many are so quick to point to "guns" being the problem. Is that really so?

I mean, when someone get's a DUI, we don't hear calls for banning cars or banning drinking. When a bomber kills, we don't hear calls to ban (inert whatever materials said bomber in question used for making bomb).

Why is it that when someone kills by shooting, it's always "we gotta do something about these guns"?

Folks, it isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem. People will find a way to kill, even if you were to make guns magically disappear. At my HS in the mid 80s, there were likely always at least a couple dozen pickups in the parking lot, with guns in the gun rack in the back window. We had all the same stuff to deal with; Bullying, stresses, kids on drugs, even fist fights. Never once did anyone lose it after getting their ass kicked, or from being ridiculed, or in spite of some disciplinary actions EVER go and fetch one of those guns and decide it was time to "shoot up the place".

Are people just not people anymore? I don't think that is the case. I see a strong correlation between the uptick in youth violence and the decline in parents disciplining their children. My Dad taught me to show respect for those in authority, but most of all, other people in general. And if I bucked what he was selling? He had a belt and a backhand, that got me around to his way of thinking pretty quickly. I'm not saying that his way was right, but it worked. As I got older, we just talked about things, he made me understand the wrongness in my ways and helped me to understand why. The fact that I'm going to turn 49 in 9 days, is in a way defacto proof that strong parenting works. Children left to their own devices seem to have a way of ending up either dead or in jail.

How about we take a different approach? Instead of using the lazy "blame guns" argument, let's try holding the parents who raised these monsters responsible for what they created?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-15-2018, 07:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm sure they are more popular, with people being slaughtered inside the schools there.

It’s a sad situation but there isn’t an easy solution. Thousands of children in one area with no protection is fish in a barrel for maniacs.

Need more people committee for mental issues. Browsed Sheriff is 100% correct on that issue.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 08:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I mean, when someone get's a DUI, we don't hear calls for banning cars or banning drinking.  When a bomber kills, we don't hear calls to ban (inert whatever materials said bomber in question used for making bomb).

Maybe that is because we already have laws against drunk driving and possessing dangerous explosive materials.

When McVey bombed the Murrow Building there were calls to regulate the purchase of ammonium nitrate.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 08:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe that is because we already have laws against drunk driving and possessing dangerous explosive materials.

When McVey bombed the Murrow Building there were calls to regulate the purchase of ammonium nitrate.

..

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 08:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I see a strong correlation between the uptick in youth violence and the decline in parents disciplining their children.

I don't see how that is possible considering that the rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles has dropped dramatically over the last 25 years.  The violent crime rate among juveniles today is about half of what it was in the early 90's.

When were you in high school Sunset?  Let's judge the parents of your generation based on how their children behaved.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 08:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how that is possible considering that the rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles has dropped dramatically over the last 25 years.  The violent crime rate among juveniles today is about half of what it was in the early 90's.

So, gangs are shrinking?  Mass shooters don't count?  I'm sure that you cherry picked that stat from some exclusionary set of data that likely "excuses" some extenuating circumstances, in order to make your point.  Blah!

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 08:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: let's try holding the parents who raised these monsters responsible for what they created?

(02-15-2018, 08:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

Nice consistent logic there Sunset.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 08:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nice consistent logic there Sunset.

How is that inconsistent?  I claimed that parents should be held responsible for what they created.  People want to blame the instrument of destruction, over the person doing the destruction.  Seems plausible to me.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 08:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, gangs are shrinking?  Mass shooters don't count?  I'm sure that you cherry picked that stat from some exclusionary set of data that likely "excuses" some extenuating circumstances, in order to make your point.  Blah!

No.  I am just aware of the truth while you make up whatever facts fit your narrative.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tjvc.pdf

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 08:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How is that inconsistent?  I claimed that parents should be held responsible for what they created.  People want to blame the instrument of destruction, over the person doing the destruction.  Seems plausible to me.

You can not claim that the people doing the shooting are 100% to blame  and then say the parents are also to blame.

That is why the two statements are inconsistent.

When were you in high school?

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 08:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I am just aware of the truth while you make up whatever facts fit your narrative.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tjvc.pdf

Great stuff fred.  The first says that they're omitting rape stats from 2012 forward...

The second is a .pdf from about 20 years ago.  However, I found it interesting that in the second link they show a decline in student on student crimes that includes "on the way to school".  Now, with most modern parents carrying their kids to school in their own vehicle, that alone should account for a significant drop in offenses.  I.e. take away the opportunity, no crime can be committed..  


However, I'll say this.  You can try to buffalo me with BS stats, attempting to show a decline in juvenile crime.  But, how do you explain the mass shootings by young people?  

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 09:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not claim that the people doing the shooting are 100% to blame  and then say the parents are also to blame.

That is why the two statements are inconsistent.

When were you in high school?

Right after you left.  84-87.

[BengalHawk62]

(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 really want someone to tell me why they "need" to own a military grade assault rifle. I'm not anti-guns, people do have a right to keep one for self defense, hunting, etc. But I've never met a hunter who needed to shoot deer with an AK-47.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 09:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: However, I'll say this.  You can try to buffalo me with BS stats, attempting to show a decline in juvenile crime.  But, how do you explain the mass shootings by young people?  

You can try to spin all you want, but there has been a massive drop in juvenile crime over the last 25 years.  If you disagree with my numbers then post some of your own.  But you won't because you will not be able to find any.

I do have a theory about mass shootings.  I think it is directly related to the phenomenon of "fame" over "substance".  Until the mid nineties fame was generally based on some sort of substance, but with the rise of reality TV "fame" gained a power of its own that had no relationship to substance.  So suddenly people felt like they could gain power by doing anything that made the news even if it took zero skill or substance.  Until the 90's it would have been ridiculous to be proud of doing something stupid just because it made the news.  But with the onset of reality TV "fame", even with no skill or substance behind it, became a very powerful thing.  So now the people who feel weak and powerless will do something, no matter how stupid, to be famous because they feel like that gives them power.

[Vas Deferens]

Looking for some input from those who intelligently defend gun ownership rights around here.

Something I've thought about in the past and recent convo's around here brought back up. For those who already own guns and ammunitions, what is the problem with slowing down NEW gun sales? It seems like it would at least put a damper, albeit small, on the availability of death machines going into the wrong hands and for those that already have them for personal protection, well they are fine. If i were in that situation (don't own any semi auto long guns) I wouldn't be opposed to stemming the tide of new ones on the market if for no other reason than it would drive up the value of my current possession.

Value the opinion of quite a few of you in the gun rights category around here. I don't think I'll ever be able to believe that armed citizens will be able to defend themselves against the government in this day and age, no matter how many AR 15s are in circulation. Nor do I think there is any way in hell the gov could possibly go around taking guns from people in their homes.

What am I missing?

[NATI BENGALS]

Seems to me like cruel and unusual punishment could possibly deter some of this shit.

If the shooter survives like the case here in florida. March the asshole through the street ala game of thrones and hang him in front of the world.