A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Cow Poke]

I agree with the absolute. However, their chanxce of success would have been reduced, perhaps significantly. True?

We can't know that. It's like assuming that the grandfather's place was the ONLY place they could have obtained weapons. IF we make this one of those little exercises where you have to stick to assumptions, and you assume that the grandfather's place was the ONLY place they could have obtained weapons, then yes.

But no.

[carpedm9587]

So while waiting for studies, go back to preaching of white privilege? Maybe move out of 100% white neighborhood too, mr rich 1%!!!

Demi - can you please take the flaming elsewhere? So far, this thread has been pretty civil. I'd like to keep it that way.

[carpedm9587]

True, and I came to a point where I got tired trying to keep up, and was moving out of the IT field anyway, so.... I'll leave that to younger guys.

Like me!

[carpedm9587]

True - but the 'active shooter' is not "the vast majority of the population', and is at the center of this debate. He/she would be a fool not to become proficient with their weapon of choice.

And, again, the 'active shooter' isn't the "vast majority".

It might slow down the "average person", but it won't do squat to the sufficiently motivated active shooter in a gun-free zone. It's simply a "feel good" measure.

Are you suggesting that the active shooters in the array of mass shootings we've had have been "proficient" in their chosen weapons? If so, I'd like to know the basis for that claim.

[Cow Poke]

Been thinking about this a whole lot.

I think this whole gun debate is like the "to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" adage.

It's like the whole focus is "guns are the problem, so the entire discussion has to be about guns". Even to the exclusion of other options.

Even when other factors are brought up, it's like, "yeah, well... but GUNS!"

[Cow Poke]

Are you suggesting that the active shooters in the array of mass shootings we've had have been "proficient" in their chosen weapons? If so, I'd like to know the basis for that claim.

Two words. common sense

In the most recent example, the kid seemed obsessed with guns, and firing guns... you honestly believe, if he only had 8 round magazines, he wouldn't have practiced reloading faster?

(And, not so much "proficient" in their choice of weapons, but in the handling of them)

[carpedm9587]

We can't know that. It's like assuming that the grandfather's place was the ONLY place they could have obtained weapons. IF we make this one of those little exercises where you have to stick to assumptions, and you assume that the grandfather's place was the ONLY place they could have obtained weapons, then yes.

But no.

CP - if the grandfather had shown due diligence in securing his weapons - it would have reduced the chances of these boys getting their arms from that source. If there was a general law requiring due diligence in securing firearms, it is hard to make the case that this would have no impact on the probability of a shooter getting access to firearms.


Not to mention you have missed several REALLY good digs in my last posts...

[Cow Poke]

I agree with the absolute. However, their chance of success would have been reduced, perhaps significantly. True?

This came to mind --- "nothing is foolproof to the sufficiently motivated fool". We (you guys ) have to stop thinking statically - that if we block X, the potential shooter will just say "aw shucks" and give up. He'll explore Y, Z, A, D, 1216, blue....

[Cow Poke]

CP - if the grandfather had shown due diligence in securing his weapons - it would have reduced the chances of these boys getting their arms from that source.

Probably so.

If there was a general law requiring due diligence in securing firearms, it is hard to make the case that this would have no impact on the probability of a shooter getting access to firearms.

Did I ever claim "no impact"? And this would assume that everybody follows the law. Have you ever not worn a seat belt? Have you ever seen others not wearing a seat belt?

Try slowing down a bit and reread the very absolute post to which I was responding....

Had that principle been in effect in Arkansas, the two boys who ambushed their classmates would never have succeeded

There are so many variables here, you simply cannot know this is true!

[carpedm9587]

Been thinking about this a whole lot.

I think this whole gun debate is like the "to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" adage.

It's like the whole focus is "guns are the problem, so the entire discussion has to be about guns". Even to the exclusion of other options.

Even when other factors are brought up, it's like, "yeah, well... but GUNS!"

No - I think you are mischaracterizing the discussion. There are multiple factors involved, obviously, but guns is one of them. Those strongly advocating for gun rights seem to continuously insist that we NOT look at the guns. The fact is, we have to look at the guns AND all of the other factors. But to NOT look at the tool is, IMO, not a reasonable way of proceeding.

When we were poisoned by tylenol in unsecured bottles - we looked at the bottles
When we were poisoned by lead - we looked at the lead
When we were kills by automobiles - we looked at the automobiles
When babies died in cribs - we looked at the cribs

So when people are being killed by guns - we should be looking at the guns - as well as the people using them and their reason for using them.

[carpedm9587]

Two words. common sense

In the most recent example, the kid seemed obsessed with guns, and firing guns... you honestly believe, if he only had 8 round magazines, he wouldn't have practiced reloading faster?

(And, not so much "proficient" in their choice of weapons, but in the handling of them)

So your position is that limiting the magazine size would have had NO impact on the number of people killed in these situations?

[carpedm9587]

This came to mind --- "nothing is foolproof to the sufficiently motivated fool". We (you guys ) have to stop thinking statically - that if we block X, the potential shooter will just say "aw shucks" and give up. He'll explore Y, Z, A, D, 1216, blue....

A dedicated killer will find a way to kill - there is no question about it. But making tools that make that killing easy readily available seems to me an exercise in folly, especially when there is really no reason why these tools HAVE to be readily avaiable.

A man walks onto a plane a tries to blow it up with a bomb in his shoes - and now EVERY person boarding a plane in the U.S. has to remove and screen their shoes - and this is seldom challenged. But when a teenager blows away 17 kids with an assault riffle and we say, "gee, maybe we should look at how easy it is to get assault rifles?" we suddenly have a problem? Because we're talking about guns instead of shoes and guns are in the constitution but shoes are not?

The logic of this escapes me completely...

[Cow Poke]

So your position is that limiting the magazine size would have had NO impact on the number of people killed in these situations?

Negative, that is not my position. My position is that it's not a significant factor at all. It would not have any impact of significance.

[Jedidiah]

If the gun owner was negligent in securing their firearms, and they were then used in the commission of a crime, you don't think there is some responsibility there?

There is too much leeway in what is negligent in securing their firearms. In my opinion if your house is locked and your gun is inside it is secured. If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun it is on him.

[carpedm9587]

Probably so.

Did I ever claim "no impact"? And this would assume that everybody follows the law. Have you ever not worn a seat belt? Have you ever seen others not wearing a seat belt?

Try slowing down a bit and reread the very absolute post to which I was responding....

There are so many variables here, you simply cannot know this is true!

I agree that the absolute way in which Teal worded her post is unwarranted. MY post was about reducing the probability. It was NOT an absolute. If we can put in place a law that has the potential to reduce the probability of a mass shooting, without significantly impacting anyone's freedom (i.e., lockup your guns, or face the consequences if they are used to harm others), why would anyone be against it? We are weighing the inconvenience and cost of having to maintain a reasonable gun locker against possible loss of life. How can these even begin to compare?