In other news...

Cancer · October 30, 2017

Is there some political context? Does this dissolve a coalition; was the challenge made with intent to disrupt one party or other? That's a context I haven't found elsewhere.

Bazza · October 30, 2017

Marrow escape: report of wartime bomb in Germany leads to courgette discovery

Enforcer84 · November 6, 2017

'No way to prevent this,' Says only nation where it regularly happens.

Tech priest support · November 6, 2017

https://www.theonion.com/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-the-unfortunate-price-of-p-1819580360

Sociotard · November 6, 2017

I suspect much will be made of the Texas church shooter being shot by an armed citizen. I poked through a few conservative forums and the sentiment that people should not go to church unarmed was expressed

DasBroot · November 6, 2017

Those arguments never cease to annoy me:

In a true firefight even a regular person who goes to the range once or twice a week is more likely to panic and shoot their own foot (if they're lucky) than do anything useful. The first time we get an 'everyone is armed' example of one of these shootings (someone shoots up a gun show or something) I think you'd see twice the fatalities and causalities - only a third of which could be attributed to the attacker's weapon.

Old Man · November 6, 2017

59 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

I suspect much will be made of the Texas church shooter being shot by an armed citizen. I poked through a few conservative forums and the sentiment that people should not go to church unarmed was expressed

Of course. Churches and elementary schools should be bristling with assault rifles. What could go wrong?

Sociotard · November 6, 2017

Gun shows are fairly unpopular targets for spree shooters, who want the big numbers. Offices, churches, schools, theaters etc are much more common. That's coming out as a anti-gun-control argument and I don't mean it to. But the fact remains, your scenario seems unlikely.

9 Faith leaders on the "thoughts and prayers" bit said after every tragedy

Pattern Ghost · November 6, 2017

2 hours ago, DasBroot said:

In a true firefight even a regular person who goes to the range once or twice a week is more likely to panic and shoot their own foot (if they're lucky) than do anything useful.

I think we've seen plenty of examples of foot shooters in the news. Concealed carriers who drop their weapon, or people like the lady who left her gun in her purse with her kid and got shot for it. On the other hand, you can find literally scores of videos of civilian defensive shootings where the concealed carrier put his or her bullets on target effectively. So, this is also a gross exaggeration.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, IMO.

As far as mass shootings go, there does seem to be an interesting tendency of the shooters running off and committing suicide when faced with any kind of armed opposition, whether from civilian or law enforcement intervention. I find it kind of baffling, but then again I find the concept of gunning down a bunch of people equally baffling. What is it in their particular psychological make up that makes them insist on being the one to take themselves out rather than stand and fight? Kind of weird.

On the one hand, we have the incident in Texas and the one in the Oregon mall a while back where the shooter facing a civilian concealed carrier fled and shot themselves. (AFAICT from the TX one. Heard on the radio he died of self inflicted gunshot.) On the other hand, we have the concealed carrier in the Tacoma mall shooting who was paralyzed by the shooter and the case of the Sikh temple shooter who shot several defenders, though I think those were unarmed. So, it could go either way.

What the government (FBI?) has been teaching is to get out of the area ASAP as priority one, to take cover or concealment or hide as priority two, and if you can't do either effectively, to employ force in any way possible, including setting up ambushes. This seems to me to be the best policy, whether you're carrying a concealed weapon or not. I do think that if it comes down to the final option of applying force, I'd rather be armed.

The bigger question to me is what makes these people tick? I don't know that I'd personally want to get into their heads, but I think someone needs to.

In the meantime, we're going to have to find some other way to curtail their insanity. This inevitably leads to a whole lot of nonsense remarks from both sides of the gun control debate. IMO, the rhetoric on both sides is political in nature and doesn't even attempt to address the issue. I'll give just one example from each side, because this is getting long:

NRA/Pro-gun side: It's a mental health issue! OK, sure. You'd have to be somewhat disturbed or at least really angry to do something like this. That's a given. So, we should study this and other problems, right? As far as I know, no pro-gun organization has a fund set up to study the psychology of mass shooters. The gun lobby is notorious for blocking the CDC from studying gun violence. The CDC is seen by the pro-gun side as biased, and to hold a left wing political agenda. Fine, if you're not going to let that organization study the issue, why not call for, as a minimum, uniform crime reporting standards across the country? Then the FBI can have a better data set that can be studied by literally everybody and any body. (Note: The anti-gun lobby isn't doing this either. Just whining a lot about the restriction on the government studies. The obvious work around is better reporting and spending some of your budget on funding independent studies.)

Gun control side: Reinstate the assault weapon ban! No. Las Vegas and San Bernardino both demonstrate the flaw with the AWB: Specificity. Because it's not the shoulder thing that goes up that kills you. You need to go much broader in order reduce the capability of mass shooters. However, we have that pesky 2nd Amendment, which according to Heller does represent an individual right, to which self defense is a component. So, why do the "gun safety" lobby keep pointing to the ineffectual AWB and to examples like the UK and Australia which are two solutions that aren't workable here? If you're going to control the tools used, you need to have the will to enact more stringent regulations without stepping over the line of hindering personal defense. You also have to have the will to take a generational approach. First, you draw up a broad category of banned weapon, one that isn't feature specific or overly technical. IOW, a category that can't easily be engineered around. Then you make production, sales and transfers of that category, including inheritance, illegal. You regulate transportation of the restricted items. Then you wait a generation. But nobody seems to have the will to do that. I'd define it as any centerfire long arms* with a magazine capacity over 5 or a detachable magazine. This would allow for five shot rifles and shotguns for home defense, including ARs with fixed magazines (which do have many merits for home defense). Sure, you'll still have a ton of high capacity, removable magazine fed weapons to contend with until their current owners kick the bucket, but confiscation is pretty untenable in the US, especially in the current political climate.

Eh, this is probably a bit too rambling. Sorry.

*I didn't go into handguns for space reasons. They're a bit trickier to boil down a simple regulation for that meets my personal criteria of both hindering mass shooters and allowing for personal defense.

pinecone · November 6, 2017

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think we've seen plenty of examples of foot shooters in the news. Concealed carriers who drop their weapon, or people like the lady who left her gun in her purse with her kid and got shot for it. On the other hand, you can find literally scores of videos of civilian defensive shootings where the concealed carrier put his or her bullets on target effectively. So, this is also a gross exaggeration.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, IMO.

As far as mass shootings go, there does seem to be an interesting tendency of the shooters running off and committing suicide when faced with any kind of armed opposition, whether from civilian or law enforcement intervention. I find it kind of baffling, but then again I find the concept of gunning down a bunch of people equally baffling. What is it in their particular psychological make up that makes them insist on being the one to take themselves out rather than stand and fight? Kind of weird.

On the one hand, we have the incident in Texas and the one in the Oregon mall a while back where the shooter facing a civilian concealed carrier fled and shot themselves. (AFAICT from the TX one. Heard on the radio he died of self inflicted gunshot.) On the other hand, we have the concealed carrier in the Tacoma mall shooting who was paralyzed by the shooter and the case of the Sikh temple shooter who shot several defenders, though I think those were unarmed. So, it could go either way.

What the government (FBI?) has been teaching is to get out of the area ASAP as priority one, to take cover or concealment or hide as priority two, and if you can't do either effectively, to employ force in any way possible, including setting up ambushes. This seems to me to be the best policy, whether you're carrying a concealed weapon or not. I do think that if it comes down to the final option of applying force, I'd rather be armed.

The bigger question to me is what makes these people tick? I don't know that I'd personally want to get into their heads, but I think someone needs to.

In the meantime, we're going to have to find some other way to curtail their insanity. This inevitably leads to a whole lot of nonsense remarks from both sides of the gun control debate. IMO, the rhetoric on both sides is political in nature and doesn't even attempt to address the issue. I'll give just one example from each side, because this is getting long:

NRA/Pro-gun side: It's a mental health issue! OK, sure. You'd have to be somewhat disturbed or at least really angry to do something like this. That's a given. So, we should study this and other problems, right? As far as I know, no pro-gun organization has a fund set up to study the psychology of mass shooters. The gun lobby is notorious for blocking the CDC from studying gun violence. The CDC is seen by the pro-gun side as biased, and to hold a left wing political agenda. Fine, if you're not going to let that organization study the issue, why not call for, as a minimum, uniform crime reporting standards across the country? Then the FBI can have a better data set that can be studied by literally everybody and any body. (Note: The anti-gun lobby isn't doing this either. Just whining a lot about the restriction on the government studies. The obvious work around is better reporting and spending some of your budget on funding independent studies.)

Gun control side: Reinstate the assault weapon ban! No. Las Vegas and San Bernardino both demonstrate the flaw with the AWB: Specificity. Because it's not the shoulder thing that goes up that kills you. You need to go much broader in order reduce the capability of mass shooters. However, we have that pesky 2nd Amendment, which according to Heller does represent an individual right, to which self defense is a component. So, why do the "gun safety" lobby keep pointing to the ineffectual AWB and to examples like the UK and Australia which are two solutions that aren't workable here? If you're going to control the tools used, you need to have the will to enact more stringent regulations without stepping over the line of hindering personal defense. You also have to have the will to take a generational approach. First, you draw up a broad category of banned weapon, one that isn't feature specific or overly technical. IOW, a category that can't easily be engineered around. Then you make production, sales and transfers of that category, including inheritance, illegal. You regulate transportation of the restricted items. Then you wait a generation. But nobody seems to have the will to do that. I'd define it as any centerfire long arms* with a magazine capacity over 5 or a detachable magazine. This would allow for five shot rifles and shotguns for home defense, including ARs with fixed magazines (which do have many merits for home defense). Sure, you'll still have a ton of high capacity, removable magazine fed weapons to contend with until their current owners kick the bucket, but confiscation is pretty untenable in the US, especially in the current political climate.

Eh, this is probably a bit too rambling. Sorry.

*I didn't go into handguns for space reasons. They're a bit trickier to boil down a simple regulation for that meets my personal criteria of both hindering mass shooters and allowing for personal defense.

Not trying to argue, one reason for the self shooting is Control. Many spree criminals/shooters seem to be reacting to a perceived lack of control in their lives. Shooting gives them a feeling of power and control, and they don't want to surender that, they'd rather die. That is often why If they can be talked down they do surrender, it's a sort of emotional storm that is driving them.

Curing That is real challenging. My own perceptions of society is that indiviguals are less and less valued, creating even more alienation.

Enforcer84 · November 6, 2017

While they don't want the FCC to regulate them, they do want the FCC to overturn State Laws that protect user Privacy.

Verizon this time.

death tribble · November 6, 2017

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41880153

The Paradise Papers show how some are avoiding, not evading tax. Part of it is a bit snobbish as The Queen is taken to task for having $10 million in an offshore account. However you then hear what others have got and it struck me as 'Really ?'

For example one of the British lords put $200 million in offshore accounts.

The Queen does not have to pay tax. She chooses to and she paid £19 million in tax last year so $10 million is chicken feed.

gewing · November 6, 2017

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think we've seen plenty of examples of foot shooters in the news. Concealed carriers who drop their weapon, or people like the lady who left her gun in her purse with her kid and got shot for it. On the other hand, you can find literally scores of videos of civilian defensive shootings where the concealed carrier put his or her bullets on target effectively. So, this is also a gross exaggeration.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, IMO.

As far as mass shootings go, there does seem to be an interesting tendency of the shooters running off and committing suicide when faced with any kind of armed opposition, whether from civilian or law enforcement intervention. I find it kind of baffling, but then again I find the concept of gunning down a bunch of people equally baffling. What is it in their particular psychological make up that makes them insist on being the one to take themselves out rather than stand and fight? Kind of weird.

On the one hand, we have the incident in Texas and the one in the Oregon mall a while back where the shooter facing a civilian concealed carrier fled and shot themselves. (AFAICT from the TX one. Heard on the radio he died of self inflicted gunshot.) On the other hand, we have the concealed carrier in the Tacoma mall shooting who was paralyzed by the shooter and the case of the Sikh temple shooter who shot several defenders, though I think those were unarmed. So, it could go either way.

What the government (FBI?) has been teaching is to get out of the area ASAP as priority one, to take cover or concealment or hide as priority two, and if you can't do either effectively, to employ force in any way possible, including setting up ambushes. This seems to me to be the best policy, whether you're carrying a concealed weapon or not. I do think that if it comes down to the final option of applying force, I'd rather be armed.

The bigger question to me is what makes these people tick? I don't know that I'd personally want to get into their heads, but I think someone needs to.

In the meantime, we're going to have to find some other way to curtail their insanity. This inevitably leads to a whole lot of nonsense remarks from both sides of the gun control debate. IMO, the rhetoric on both sides is political in nature and doesn't even attempt to address the issue. I'll give just one example from each side, because this is getting long:

NRA/Pro-gun side: It's a mental health issue! OK, sure. You'd have to be somewhat disturbed or at least really angry to do something like this. That's a given. So, we should study this and other problems, right? As far as I know, no pro-gun organization has a fund set up to study the psychology of mass shooters. The gun lobby is notorious for blocking the CDC from studying gun violence. The CDC is seen by the pro-gun side as biased, and to hold a left wing political agenda. Fine, if you're not going to let that organization study the issue, why not call for, as a minimum, uniform crime reporting standards across the country? Then the FBI can have a better data set that can be studied by literally everybody and any body. (Note: The anti-gun lobby isn't doing this either. Just whining a lot about the restriction on the government studies. The obvious work around is better reporting and spending some of your budget on funding independent studies.)

Gun control side: Reinstate the assault weapon ban! No. Las Vegas and San Bernardino both demonstrate the flaw with the AWB: Specificity. Because it's not the shoulder thing that goes up that kills you. You need to go much broader in order reduce the capability of mass shooters. However, we have that pesky 2nd Amendment, which according to Heller does represent an individual right, to which self defense is a component. So, why do the "gun safety" lobby keep pointing to the ineffectual AWB and to examples like the UK and Australia which are two solutions that aren't workable here? If you're going to control the tools used, you need to have the will to enact more stringent regulations without stepping over the line of hindering personal defense. You also have to have the will to take a generational approach. First, you draw up a broad category of banned weapon, one that isn't feature specific or overly technical. IOW, a category that can't easily be engineered around. Then you make production, sales and transfers of that category, including inheritance, illegal. You regulate transportation of the restricted items. Then you wait a generation. But nobody seems to have the will to do that. I'd define it as any centerfire long arms* with a magazine capacity over 5 or a detachable magazine. This would allow for five shot rifles and shotguns for home defense, including ARs with fixed magazines (which do have many merits for home defense). Sure, you'll still have a ton of high capacity, removable magazine fed weapons to contend with until their current owners kick the bucket, but confiscation is pretty untenable in the US, especially in the current political climate.

Eh, this is probably a bit too rambling. Sorry.

*I didn't go into handguns for space reasons. They're a bit trickier to boil down a simple regulation for that meets my personal criteria of both hindering mass shooters and allowing for personal defense.

More death of a Thousand Cuts huh? And how do you come up with 5 round magazines? And people wonder why we don't want to compromise

Pattern Ghost · November 6, 2017

2 hours ago, pinecone said:

Shooting gives them a feeling of power and control, and they don't want to surender that, they'd rather die.

Good point.

Pattern Ghost · November 6, 2017

24 minutes ago, gewing said:

More death of a Thousand Cuts huh? And how do you come up with 5 round magazines?

Pretty much, yes. If you're going to attack the problem by regulating the tools used, that's how you'd do it. Five is fairly arbitrary, but we're talking long arms. Seems a reasonable level of compromise between hindering mass killers and still allowing for defensive use of long arms. Hit probability with rifles and shotguns at close range is astronomically higher than with handguns, and centerfire rifle and shotgun rounds are orders of magnitude more powerful than handguns. Call it ten rounds, whatever.

The point is, the left hasn't got the political will to actually do something that would curb the mass shootings. And even that proposal has holes in it.

And people wonder why we don't want to compromise

I'm not advocating either position, just pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of will on both sides to address the issue.

We could also, for example, look into the role of the media in glamorizing these events and immortalizing the shooters. But the left likes the first amendment better than the second, so putting gag orders on the media is another approach that won't work.

Tech priest support · November 7, 2017

When mass shootings start happening to rich people something will be done about them.

Old Man · November 7, 2017

Something will finally be done about rich people? I can't wait

st barbara · November 7, 2017

If they want to reinstate the "Assault weapons" ban I think that they need to be more specific in their definition of an "assault weapon". I don't know what that definition should look like but something like "any semi automatic shoulder arm with a detatchable magazine" would seem to be a starting point for such a definition.

Edited November 7, 2017 by st barbara

In other news...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

dmjalund

Old Man

Zeropoint

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members