Terrorists strike yet again

[Spectre]

In somewhat related news, CBS fires one of its top lawyers after she says the victim in Las Vegas didn't deserve sympathy because country music fans are typically Republican.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...athy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

Yeah, there was some teacher (!) that made a similar Twitter post, then deleted it followed by her entire account to try to cover her ass. Unfortunately, it didn't work. No word on if she's been fired yet.

 

[NecroJoe]

In somewhat related news, CBS fires one of its top lawyers after she says the victim in Las Vegas didn't deserve sympathy because country music fans are typically Republican.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...athy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

Yeah, there was some teacher (!) that made a similar Twitter post, then deleted it followed by her entire account to try to cover her ass. Unfortunately, it didn't work. No word on if she's been fired yet.

 

[MWF]

Let me address the "jihadists with trucks vs people with guns" issue.

Remember in school when some arsehole did something bad, nobody would fess up and rat on him and so the whole class got a detention? Well grown-up life is a bit like that too. As Jim Jeffries said, as a society we all have to march to the beat of the slowest drummer. But we also need to weight the pros and cons of anything before we act.

Well let's do that shall we?

Motor vehicles:
Pros: Transport us, our families and a shit load of goods/services around the country/globe and are a necessity in modern society as things stand.
Cons: People die in road traffic collisions, from pollution and occasional at the hands of those intent on malice aforethought.
Verdict? Not ideal be the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Firearms:
Pros: Necessary for armed forces and police services globally to protect and serve their citizens. Used in regulated skilled sports and where necessary to put food on the table.
Cons: They are frequently misused by people who have no business having access to them in the first place, they are too readily available and as a consequence a shit load of people die every years unnecessarily.

 

[Mally Dangerous]

How 'bout all y'all boys step back and take a breath.

 

[Spectre]

And these are the kind of people who called Trump supporters "deplorables." Think they project much at all?

 

[_HighVoltage_]

It is rather upsetting that after several years of discussing guns and the relevant laws, policies, etc, right here on FG, some still think that you can walk into Walmart in the US and walk out with a machine gun without a background check. MWF's post I think illustrates the real issue really well: no matter how many times facts about guns get presented, some people just refuse to look at them and continue to default to trusting their emotions and the ignorant crap spewed by the media. Pigs are more likely to fly upside-down than us finding out that this dipshit actually legally owned a machine gun!

The really disappointing part is that yes, he has been over here and he has seen the restrictions we have and how you can't simply buy a legal automatic weapon - but he's conveniently forgotten everything I and every other DFW FGer he's met has told him about them. I found it most disappointing as I thought him better than that and have expressed such privately.

At this point, I am beginning to regret taking him shooting because the point (besides fun) was to educate him so at least he would have a solid factual basis from which to debate; it appears the effort was a total failure.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that the "real issue" is people like MWF or I misunderstanding facts about guns and gun laws. Let's say, through some miracle, you manage to educate us. How would our changed perspective, and your success in educating us, impact the odds of other mass shootings happening?

If you were able to educate all liberals to better understand guns and gun laws, will that help prevent future massacres from happening?

If not, then I'd like to argue that our misunderstanding is not "the real issue" here. The real issue is, what can we (collectively) do to prevent this from happening again?

 

[Spectre]

Let me address the "jihadists with trucks vs people with guns" issue.

Remember in school when some arsehole did something bad, nobody would fess up and rat on him and so the whole class got a detention? Well grown-up life is a bit like that too. As Jim Jeffries said, as a society we all have to march to the beat of the slowest drummer. But we also need to weight the pros and cons of anything before we act.

Jim Jeffries was wrong. That line of thought leads to bullshit like the Handicapper General and the rest of the clusterfuck depicted in Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. If you want to live in such a society, go right ahead. I am not so inclined.

And I hate to tell you, but you left out something from that school analogy - at least in my experience. After the detention at my schools, the responsible party would then get his ass kicked by the rest of the class as a stern warning to not do that shit again.

Motor vehicles:
Pros: Transport us, our families and a shit load of goods/services around the country/globe and are a necessity in modern society as things stand.
Cons: People die in road traffic collisions, from pollution and occasional at the hands of those intent on malice aforethought.
Verdict? Not ideal be the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Firearms:
Pros: Necessary for armed forces and police services globally to protect and serve their citizens. Used in regulated skilled sports and where necessary to put food on the table.
Cons: They are frequently misused by people who have no business having access to them in the first place, they are too readily available and as a consequence a shit load of people die every years unnecessarily.

It is easier to get access to a car or truck in Europe than it is to get ahold of a legal fully automatic weapon in the US, even by means of theft from a legitimate owner. Extending your logic we should also ban knives because those kill more people in the US annually than rifles do, and certainly we could replace knives with sporks, right?

You also left out the part about firearms being used in legitimate self defense against animals and humans. People who live in places where angry bears or boars live, for example, need a good powerful weapon. In many cities in the US, the police aren't going to be coming in cases of civil unrest so you're on your own - with what do you propose to hold off the angry mob short of firearms? I've actually been in that position in reality, as you damn well know, so it's not just a theoretical.

 

[JimCorrigan]

I think the Kurds, Catalans, and Rohingya may also have something to say about the right to defend themselves against government-sponsored tyranny.

 

[Spectre]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say that the "real issue" is people like MWF or I misunderstanding facts about guns and gun laws. Let's say, through some miracle, you manage to educate us. How would our changed perspective, and your success in educating us, impact the odds of other mass shootings happening?

Because then we could move past stupid knee-jerk proposals that have been tried over and over and over yet don't work (ban this, ban that, ban something else, ban something based on purely because it looks evil, ban this for no discernable reason anyone rational can see) and move on to discussing things that *would* work if expanded or *could* work but haven't been tried. A case in point is Project Exile - you commit a crime with a gun? You don't get to go to a nice local prison where all your friends and family can easily come visit you and tell you how awesome you were. No, we ship your happy ass to the other side of the country where nobody knows you, nobody cares about you and your only contact is letters. This has been shown to cut way down on gun crimes in those so processed.

We could move on past the looks of the hardware and discuss the actual functions and real power levels - many of the weapons used in these events are described as "high power" yet they are so weak that it is illegal to hunt deer with them because they're not powerful enough to humanely dispatch an animal. So, you ban those (because they look evil) and what do you have left? *Actual* high powered weapons that are far more likely to kill with just one hit. Brilliant!

We could talk about implementing mandatory gun familiarization and more importantly gun safety programs in this country so as to reduce the 'forbidden fruit' effect and using familiarity to reduce worship of the objects. Gun safety classes in school would reduce accidental shootings and perhaps even cut down on intentional mass shootings (though admittedly the stats suggesting that are tenuous at best). But as it is, liberals absolutely freak out any time safety classes are mentioned.

If you were able to educate all liberals to better understand guns and gun laws, will that help prevent future massacres from happening?

That depends on whether you believe liberals are sane or not. (Had to say it, someone would have complained if I didn't.) More seriously, if both sides of the issue were of equal understanding of guns and gun laws *and* the real world effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun laws, it could indeed help prevent future massacres by making more effective and less ridiculous laws. My own point of view is that it might make it possible to move on to figuring out how to deal with the people actually behind these events instead of constantly getting hung up by one side's (perhaps willful in some cases) complete incomprehension of what it is they are trying to regulate.

Interesting related reading from the Guardian, by the way: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/22/gun-rights-supporters-national-rifle-association-nra

If not, then I'd like to argue that our misunderstanding is not "the real issue" here. The real issue is, what can we (collectively) do to prevent this from happening again?

Despite the claims made by some in this very thread, the problem is not guns. The problem is *people* as it always is. It is worth remembering that the worst mass murder in US history was still not carried out with a firearm. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 680 more with a single large truck bomb back in 1995. No amount of gun control would have stopped him and he used nothing that wasn't commonly available over the counter. In fact, even today you can still easily replicate his OKC bomb without ever alerting the authorities, with legal purchases and never breaking the law until you assemble the device. Edit: No, I am not assembling one and no I am not going to tell you how to do it so don't even ask.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the Kurds, Catalans, and Rohingya may also have something to say about the right to defend themselves against government-sponsored tyranny.

So might the Irish, though not the post WW2 events.

 

[MWF]

But it's the same specious argument. Just because someone can legally access the device(s) to commit an atrocity like this it doesn't mean that you should stop trying to prevent same by other means.

Rocket technology and, to some extent thanks to the internet, the information and tools exist in the public domain for the determined person to create a short-range nuclear missile that could kills thousands if not millions. It still boils down to the problem of "people".

The point that so many fail to understand and accept it that, while certain very determined people will be arseholes in spite of of the best efforts of a civilised society, the harder we make it for the small percentage who are determined to be utter wankers the better it is for the rest of us.

 

[Spectre]

Here's a recent exchange we had right here on FG's guns thread that should help illustrate some about how ridiculous these gun control laws promulgated and passed by people completely ignorant about the realities of guns are: https://forums.finalgear.com/off-topic/the-gun-thread-34352/page-191/#post2433396 - from there to the end of the page, basically.

 

[MacGuffin]

Gun stocks jump, following historical pattern after a mass shooting

 

[Spectre]

But it's the same specious argument. Just because someone can legally access the device(s) to commit an atrocity like this it doesn't mean that you should stop trying to prevent same by other means.

But in this case, as in others, the problem is that you're making it *easier* to choose different and perhaps harder to control means. Australia's ban meant the nutters moved to mass arson... and it still didn't stop the mass shootings.

Rocket technology and, to some extent thanks to the internet, the information and tools exist in the public domain for the determined person to create a short-range nuclear missile that could kills thousands if not millions. It still boils down to the problem of "people".

Please let me know where I can obtain refined and enriched fissile material to create the nuclear part of the missile via the internet. Enquiring minds wish to know.

The point that so many fail to understand and accept it that, while certain very determined people will be arseholes in spite of of the best efforts of a civilised society, the harder we make it for the small percentage who are determined to be utter wankers the better it is for the rest of us.

Orrrrr we could throw the utter wankers in prison/otherwise teach them a lasting lesson and not have the problem. To return to your school analogy, it was very rare for assholes to repeat class-detention-earning performances when the rest of the class 'remonstrated' with them after their first offense.

- - - Updated - - -

Gun stocks jump, following historical pattern after a mass shooting

To be fair, it wouldn't have been worse in the final reckoning, now would it?

Also, the concert was a gun-free-zone, so add one more to the "massacres mostly only occur in gun free zones" file.

 

[NecroJoe]

I mean...a crowd full of thousands of people with handguns wouldn't have made things better, would it have? Shooting 30+ stories up?

 

[Spectre]

Terrorists strike yet again

I mean...a crowd full of thousands of people with handguns wouldn't have made things better, would it have? Shooting 30+ stories up?

I was referring specifically to the 'rifles' pic. The distance from the venue to the shooter's building was between 300 and 400 meters and that's before you take elevation into account. Nobody has said that concealed pistols would have made a difference - but the rifle so mockingly depicted would have easily made such a shot. Nor is it realistic to expect people to carry such a rifle to a concert - nobody says that is a realistic expectation. The author of the picture clearly is ridiculing carry advocates by proposing that this is what they would say.

However, in such an absurd world where people would have carried such large rifles en masse into the concert - the end result wouldn't have possibly been much worse, now would it? Remember what ended the very similar University Of Texas clock tower shootings - civilians bringing heavy rifles to bear en masse and suppressing the shooter so he couldn't kill any more, allowing police and civilians to scale the tower and finally end the bastard.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

For the sake of argument, let's say I agree and we move to discuss what can be actually done:

Because then we could move past stupid knee-jerk proposals that have been tried over and over and over yet don't work (ban this, ban that, ban something else, ban something based on purely because it looks evil, ban this for no discernable reason anyone rational can see) and move on to discussing things that *would* work if expanded or *could* work but haven't been tried. A case in point is Project Exile - you commit a crime with a gun? You don't get to go to a nice local prison where all your friends and family can easily come visit you and tell you how awesome you were. No, we ship your happy ass to the other side of the country where nobody knows you, nobody cares about you and your only contact is letters. This has been shown to cut way down on gun crimes in those so processed.

This is punishment, not prevention. Decrease in gun crimes among people who have already committed them. Doesn't prevent them in the first place. And in this specific case, the shooter killed himself. All punishment tactics become useless.

We could move on past the looks of the hardware and discuss the actual functions and real power levels - many of the weapons used in these events are described as "high power" yet they are so weak that it is illegal to hunt deer with them because they're not powerful enough to humanely dispatch an animal. So, you ban those (because they look evil) and what do you have left? *Actual* high powered weapons that are far more likely to kill with just one hit. Brilliant!

We could talk about implementing mandatory gun familiarization and more importantly gun safety programs in this country so as to reduce the 'forbidden fruit' effect and using familiarity to reduce worship of the objects. Gun safety classes in school would reduce accidental shootings and perhaps even cut down on intentional mass shootings (though admittedly the stats suggesting that are tenuous at best). But as it is, liberals absolutely freak out any time safety classes are mentioned.

You said it yourself - chances of reducing intentional shootings are small.

That depends on whether you believe liberals are sane or not. (Had to say it, someone would have complained if I didn't.) More seriously, if both sides of the issue were of equal understanding of guns and gun laws *and* the real world effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun laws, it could indeed help prevent future massacres by making more effective and less ridiculous laws. My own point of view is that it might make it possible to move on to figuring out how to deal with the people actually behind these events instead of constantly getting hung up by one side's (perhaps willful in some cases) complete incomprehension of what it is they are trying to regulate.

If you are talking about "the people behind these events," then again, you are talking punishment, not prevention, and that is missing the point. I don't think there is actual disagreement regarding how to punish mass shooters, is there?

Despite the claims made by some in this very thread, the problem is not guns. The problem is *people* as it always is. It is worth remembering that the worst mass murder in US history was still not carried out with a firearm. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured 680 more with a single large truck bomb back in 1995. No amount of gun control would have stopped him and he used nothing that wasn't commonly available over the counter. In fact, even today you can still easily replicate his OKC bomb without ever alerting the authorities, with legal purchases and never breaking the law until you assemble the device. Edit: No, I am not assembling one and no I am not going to tell you how to do it so don't even ask.

Okay, let's not ban guns. Guns are not the problem. Let's address the problem - the people that use them for ill. How do you propose we do that? If it is people that are the problem, how do we identify those that pose a problem? Some of the hypocrisy on this, generalize and stereotype a large group of people and instate a travel ban on them? Collect personal information on their social media usage? Those last two questions are rhetorical, of course. But the rest of the post is serious.

 

[Spectre]

This is punishment, not prevention. Decrease in gun crimes among people who have already committed them. Doesn't prevent them in the first place.

You forget there is also a deterrent value in this - areas that Project Exile operated in usually showed a decrease in gun crime overall because criminals were thinking about the consequences.

And in this specific case, the shooter killed himself. All punishment tactics become useless.

Something in common with the jihadist types, yes.

You said it yourself - chances of reducing intentional shootings are small.

The accidental shootings issue is something often cited by people pushing ineffectual gun bans.

If you are talking about "the people behind these events," then again, you are talking punishment, not prevention, and that is missing the point. I don't think there is actual disagreement regarding how to punish mass shooters, is there?

Unfortunately, there is. Some want them committed to a mental facility, others want the death penalty, etc.

Okay, let's not ban guns. Guns are not the problem. Let's address the problem - the people that use them for ill. How do you propose we do that? If it is people that are the problem, how do we identify those that pose a problem? Some of the hypocrisy on this, generalize and stereotype a large group of people and instate a travel ban on them? Collect personal information on their social media usage? Those last two questions are rhetorical, of course. But the rest of the post is serious.

Let's look at some low hanging fruit then, such as Cho - the Virginia Tech shooter. He was legally judged incompetent and barred from owning guns, yet he managed to get them anyway because the dual background check systems failed.

Here is a question - why do we allow citizens that have been judged as too dangerous to be allowed legal access to firearms to walk around free in a world that contains things that can very easily be made as dangerous or more dangerous than firearms? We have made the determination that a particular individual is to be denied an implement of force - why do we then say they can vote (which is, as Jefferson said, also force) or drive a vehicle, which can be used to mow down multitudes?

In my opinion, any citizen that cannot be legally permitted weapons needs to be incarcerated or committed for their protection and protection of society. If Cho had been incarcerated at the time of his hearing, he would not have shot up VT.

Adam Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter. He had been adjudged mentally incompetent and was legally barred from owning weapons. If he had been committed to a mental facility, Sandy Hook would not have happened.

James Holmes was the Aurora shooter. He was reported to his campus police as a dangerously unstable individual by his psychiatrist. The police did nothing. If he had been committed to a mental institution as he would have been in decades past, nobody would have been killed in that movie theater.

 

[Cellos88GT]

2) The Las Vegas mass shooting...

What's your rationale for this statement?

Every gun owner I know is an irrational Trump supporter. This act was committed by an irrational gun owner. If he had voted for Trump, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I don't remember MWF screaming about how France needed better truck control even though it was but the latest in a rash of truck-caused mass casualty attacks in France and Europe as a whole.

I don't know about the rest of the EU but France has definitely taken measures to control truck traffic in populated walking areas. Marseille had regular patrols, truck driver check points, and a number of concrete barriers running along walking areas.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the Kurds, Catalans, and Rohingya may also have something to say about the right to defend themselves against government-sponsored tyranny.

...and what have another Syria where outside political powers get involved, closing the window on any kind of reasonable outcome for the people?

I'm sorry but the notion of gun owners having the firepower to defend themselves against the U.S. Military is bordering tinfoil hat levels of crazy...

 

[Mally Dangerous]

Every gun owner I know is an irrational Trump supporter. This act was committed by an irrational gun owner. If he had voted for Trump, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Yeeaaaahh, I don't know homie, I know you said the owners that you know but I know plenty of gun owners who can't stand Trump.

 

[Cellos88GT]

Yeeaaaahh, I don't know homie, I know you said the owners that you know but I know plenty of gun owners who can't stand Trump.

Look I recognize that this is an internal bias, I just have yet to meet a rational Trump supporter make any cognitive logical argument about anything. I despise Trump supporters, they've ruined this country IMO.