More mass shootings

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

Quote

And this points out one of the biggest problems with trying to control them. They found ten guns in this guy's house and car. And that's not all that unusual. Add that to the fact that businesses are stamping new guns out daily like they were cd players and you can see why any form of control that doesn't do something to deal with the number of guns is doomed. There are just too many of them and too many sources for getting them.

So then, just bury your head in the sand and say "nothing can be done"? Bullshit. America put men onto the moon. This is a much smaller problem. Just like the moon program it only takes the will to git'er done.

My saying that we have to somehow limit the number of guns before we can make any progress is burying my head in the sand. If you're wanting me to wave a magic wand and make them disappear in a puff of smoke then I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. And If you think that the number of guns in the US is a smaller problem than Apollo I think you're out of touch with the situation.

[normiss 800]

I continue to miss the people saying they want all guns to simply poof.
I continue to misunderstand why gun nuts claim this.

OK, more dead kids on the news. Film at 11. and 12. and every hour after ad nauseaum.

[billvon 2,991]

>And If you think that the number of guns in the US is a smaller problem than Apollo I
>think you're out of touch with the situation.

While I agree that the gun culture in the US is a huge problem, you may be underestimating the amount of effort it took to pull off the Apollo program. Put that amount of effort into reliable biometric-security guns and you'd make a lot of progress on both accidental shootings and stolen guns used in crime.

[wmw999 2,447]

Getting rid of a significant portion of the easy-access guns won't be any easier than it is for a 500-lb man to lose 350 of those pounds without surgery, or any more detectable in the beginning.

Doesn't mean it's not worth trying to figure out. And the dude might have to try a few different diets, and add exercise, and eventually skin surgery, and never make his goal weight of 150. Might never go below 200, and still be overweight, but still WAY better. Complex problems generally don't have an easy, or even a single difficult, answer.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gowlerk 2,191]

What I'm saying is that the job is doable. But it requires will, and the willing is lacking.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What I'm saying is that the job is doable. But it requires will, and the willing is lacking.

Agreed.

Same as the will is lacking to require by law cell phones makers to disable email, text, etc apps if the phone is moving more than 10-mph, forcing car manufacturers by law to use gps so the vehicle knows the speed limit and limit the vehicle to that speed, and requiring all new cars to have breathalyzers installed, tied to the ignition. These things would have major impacts on the number of fatalities on our roads, but the will is lacking.

Same for guns. To have any sort of impact, you are going to have to restrict the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners. People that don’t own guns don’t care how much gun rights get restricted. Doesn’t affect them. They only see an upside to any gun restrictions.

Derek V

[gowlerk 2,191]

Distracted driving likely kills a similar number of people as gun violence. I don't really know for sure, but the point is interesting. I will note that sometime in the future self driving cars will probably bring that to an end. But I will concede that it has nothing at all to do with a will or plan to stop the carnage.

Quote

To have any sort of impact, you are going to have to restrict the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners. People that don’t own guns don’t care how much gun rights get restricted. Doesn’t affect them. They only see an upside to any gun restrictions.

Yes, absolutely. In order to solve the problem gun owners would have to have rights they currently enjoy taken away from them. That is why buybacks, restrictions that come into play over time and grandfathering would all be needed. But even with that many would strongly object to the end of the current free for all that exists. And they can and would be very emotional about any crimping of their right to have the tools of war as toys to play with. That is why the will is lacking. It's far easier to just continue muddling through that to confront the heavy lift required.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 800]

With that "logic", we'll need to just remove your heart now, before disease sets in.

[Hooknswoop 19]

You missed my point. Go back to being holier than thou.

Derek V

[yoink 321]

Hooknswoop

Quote

What I'm saying is that the job is doable. But it requires will, and the willing is lacking.

Same for guns. To have any sort of impact, you are going to have to restrict the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners. People that don’t own guns don’t care how much gun rights get restricted. Doesn’t affect them. They only see an upside to any gun restrictions.

Derek V

I agree, unfortunately.

But currently the cost of the legal, responsible gun ownership is about 1 mass shooting every 2 - 5 days. All we're really arguing about is whether that price is too high or not...

I've said before that I don't think piecemeal restrictions are the right way to solve the problem. They limit the rights of responsible gun owners with very little benefit other than political point-scoring. The reason I believe in the solution I've presented is because it gives gun owners all of those rights back, for the cost of a single one - not being able to fire a weapon in a public area without it being preapproved. That was the least intrusive and restrictive measure I could think of in relation to actual firearm use.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I agree, unfortunately.

But currently the cost of the legal, responsible gun ownership is about 1 mass shooting every 2 - 5 days. All we're really arguing about is whether that price is too high or not...

I've said before that I don't think piecemeal restrictions are the right way to solve the problem. They limit the rights of responsible gun owners with very little benefit other than political point-scoring. The reason I believe in the solution I've presented is because it gives gun owners all of those rights back, for the cost of a single one - not being able to fire a weapon in a public area without it being preapproved. That was the least intrusive and restrictive measure I could think of in relation to actual firearm use.

I agree with you.

But, I am not willing to give up my right to carry a firearm to protect myself. It’s not just someone else with a gun, but any situation where my life, or my family’s lives are in danger that I may need it.

I don’t think gun control is going to go anywhere and little gains for large restrictions. The gains are going to made in law enforcement, enforcing the current laws, policing poorer areas, and reducing the size of those areas. Focus on programs that have been proven to work in poorer areas. Bring those areas up and gun crimes will go down. A win-win-win.

Derek V

[normiss 800]

Then you muddled your point by comparing unintentional careless behavior with intentional mass murder with a weapon capable of such.
I'm not sure how much risk is posed with an iPhone compared to a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stop, but ok.
Moar dead kids it is.

You compare death numbers then attack me for doing the same.
Thanks for the attack though, I'm not holy in any measure, but insults are very helpful in discussing opinions.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Somehow Yoink and Gowlerk were able to understand.....

Let’s try this;

There are roughly the same number of firearm related fatalities and vehicle related fatalities per year in the US. We could take measures to drastically reduce the traffic fatalities, but we don’t. I don’t see any traffic fatalities threads here, discussing the latest traffic accident and how we have to do something, anything, if it saves just one life. Why is that?

An iPhone does not pose as much risk as a firearm, but some using an iPhone while driving a vehicle does. I think you intentionally missed that point.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

What I am asking is if the goal is saving lives, why not go after the low hanging fruit?

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

wmw999

Getting rid of a significant portion of the easy-access guns won't be any easier than it is for a 500-lb man to lose 350 of those pounds without surgery, or any more detectable in the beginning.

Doesn't mean it's not worth trying to figure out. And the dude might have to try a few different diets, and add exercise, and eventually skin surgery, and never make his goal weight of 150. Might never go below 200, and still be overweight, but still WAY better. Complex problems generally don't have an easy, or even a single difficult, answer.

Wendy P.

Not one 500 pound person. It's more like trying to eliminate obesity in general.

[gowlerk 2,191]

Quote

We could take measures to drastically reduce the traffic fatalities, but we don’t.

Actually we have and we do. The deaths per mile have fallen by a crazy amount since the peak in the 60s before seat belts, airbags, MAD, crash tests, better highways. Tons of effort and cash has been spent on this and continues to be spent. And motor vehicles are very necessary to the way we live.

On the other hand nearly nothing has been done in your country to curb gun deaths. And firearms as toys are completely unneeded except to enrich a few arms producers.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 800]

Well, we already have been spending millions per year for many years on reducing auto fatalities. We have screamed about doing something...speed limits, speed bumps and humps, DUI enforcement, license suspensions, improvements in car safety, improvements in traffic control, I could go on...but you will intentionally ignore those points.
I've not heard anyone complain about vehicles sensors that provide automated braking to prevent an accident, much like we could do with with weapons if we started an effort of cranial extraction.
Cars are safer now, require training, licensing, registration, inspections, and insurance.
Your turn.

Also, with regards to negligent driving behavior you cannot compare that with intentional attacks with guns resulting in mass murder. However, I can set my phone to not function while driving as well as the bluetooth interface on my truck. Motion sensing is a function of the operating system on a number of phones now. We could do that with weapons too. The IOT works.
If your fridge can tell you when you need milk, you can put a tracer on your wife's car that will notify you when she gets to her boyfriend's house, you can track your kids with GPS, you can have geographic limits on functions of devices....it's a fairly simple add to weapons.
We do still need to support existing gun laws....I'm still confused why the 14 year old kid arrested a few days ago with a cache of weapons in his parents house....his parents aren't in jail. It's deadly irresponsible gun ownership.
Massively defended too.

I'm not intentionally missing anything, we NEED to have a serious gun discussion as a nation, yet it continues to be ignored, insulted when questioned, and entirely dismissed as the root of the problem.
That's complete insanity.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Actually we have and we do. The deaths per mile have fallen by a crazy amount since the peak in the 60s before seat belts, airbags, MAD, crash tests, better highways. Tons of effort and cash has been spent on this and continues to be spent. And motor vehicles are very necessary to the way we live.

We could reduce them by much more very easily, but we don’t. Why is that? Where is the moral outrage, “It's only children.
Who cares if they [die in preventable car crashes]?”

Quote

On the other hand nearly nothing has been done in your country to curb gun deaths. And firearms as toys are completely unneeded except to enrich a few arms producers.

I disagree.

Derek V

[gowlerk 2,191]

Quote

we NEED to have a serious gun discussion as a nation, yet it continues to be ignored, insulted when questioned, and entirely dismissed as the root of the problem.
That's complete insanity.

That is easily explained. The people who love their gun rights so much know that the whole situation is wrong. So they mostly just refuse to even discuss it. It's not insanity, it's a strategy.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Your turn.

We could much, much more. But that would limit individual freedoms. As a society, we are willing to pay a price, roughly equal to the number of firearm fatalities for the freedoms to drive above the speed limit if we choose, or after drinking, or distracted, etc. we could sacrifice these freedoms and see a dramatic decrease fatalities, but we don’t. Why?

I am more than happy to have the discussion, but you don’t want to hear that further restrictions to the 2nd amendment are a non-starter. There are other ways of having a positive impact that I am willing to support. Telling people they don’t care and come off as you are the only one willing to make a difference, and don’t expect the conversation to continue.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

> We could take measures to drastically reduce the traffic fatalities, but we don’t.

We do. We pass tough laws against drunk driving that inconvenience people who are responsible drivers. We pass laws that require vehicle registration to ensure compliance with safety laws (among other things) even though it's annoying to have to register your car every year. We pass laws that require driver's licenses to ensure a minimum level of competence, even though that penalizes excellent drivers who shouldn't have to prove it. We pass laws that require insurance on cars, in part to discourage unsafe drivers. (Financial penalties for unsafe driving.) That's a financial burden on safe drivers, too. We pass laws that require airbags, seatbelts, seatbelt use, brakes, ABS, CHMSL's and crash safety. That's also a financial burden on drivers. We pass laws that prohibit speeding, and reckless driving, and driving through airport ticketing areas, and through the middle of malls, and on most national park trails. That's a severe inconvenience to the people who can do those things safely.

As a result, the fatality rate per mile has been dropping steadily for decades.

Let's do the same for guns. It will be as annoying for gun owners as it is for drivers - but gun owners are not exempt from living in the same society as car owners.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

We do

We could more more, but we don’t. Because we, as a society, accept the current of freedoms vs. fatalities from vehicles.

Quote

Let's do the same for guns.

Why take away freedoms, when there are other solutions? Is the conversation about more gun restrictions or reducing firearm fatalities?

Derek V

[normiss 800]

You're simply ignoring factual evidence of the efforts to reduce auto fatalities of ALL ages.
If restriction to the 2nd (unlike what the Supreme Court has ruled), then as a nation we fully support mass murder.
This is exactly why the NRA has gotten zero $ from me for years.

I'd much prefer to part of a database of legal and responsible gun owners, than a database of humans murdered at the hands of an idiot with a military style weapon.

Again, to me this is complete insanity at the point this has gotten to in this country.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You're simply ignoring factual evidence of the efforts to reduce auto fatalities of ALL ages.

No, I’m not. We will add crumple zones and air bags, but not restrict cars to the speed limit. Why? Because that is a restriction on a freedom. That is the difference, that is where we draw the line.

You’re ok with further restrictions on firearms, but not vehicles.

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

"You're simply ignoring factual evidence of the efforts to reduce auto fatalities of ALL ages. "

And you're ignoring a lot of people working very hard to do something about gun violence in the US. Is it working? This is a huge country that's awash in guns, so who knows how bad it would be otherwise? The job won't be finished until there are no more gun deaths, but that doesn't mean we haven't accomplished anything towards that goal and it sure as hell doesn't mean that some people aren't trying.