Author Topic: Another Mass Shooting  (Read 675 times)

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2017, 08:40:33 PM »
Here's my 2 cents worth (ok, maybe 15 cents) on this issue:
I feel like I don't fit in anywhere on the issue of guns. It seems like such an all-or-nothing issue.  I am not a member of the NRA, but I do believe that responsible, sane Americans should be allowed to own weapons.
Especially growing up in Alaska, and spending many years of my adult life there, a weapon equals food for your family, and protection for yourself and your family. We would have never gone on our trips into the woods without a gun. We never had to use ours, for protection or signalling, but we knew plenty of people who would have been dead without one.
I also support owning a weapon for self-or home-defense. Again, I have known a woman whose shotgun saved her life/health/property (she wasn't sure what the intruder was after,  only that he turned and ran when he saw the gun aimed at his head.)
These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over.
Now, I think it's wise and prudent to outlaw modifications on weapons, silencers, bum stocks (whatever it's called), among other stuff. I don't mind a limit on the number of weapons a person can own. I don't mind a mandatory waiting period before someone can purchase a gun. I support thorough background checks.
These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over.
Some new laws would be a logistical nightmare / witch hunt, trying to enforce the newly passed law, ie. limiting the number of weapons you can own. I have no idea how this would be accomplished and it could be that lawmakers are afraid of the uprising that instituting these laws would cause.
I feel like these issues are more complicated and possibly riotous than at first thought. Not saying we shouldn't try. Just saying I don't envy the enforcers.

For what it's worth, Dragonia I agree with almost all your points, but that may be because I grew up out in the sticks myself. I don't agree with limiting the number of arms one person may own. That's because I don't see how it would prevent gun violence. After all, it just takes one gun to kill, and only one gun can be fired by a person at a time. So what if that person happens to own four other guns or twelve? Also, that sort of law would enflame the gun zealots, some of whom are all too willing to contemplate living out their "armed patriot" fantasies.

Instead, I'd support a stringent trigger lock and locked secure gunsafe storage law for weapons. I also think it's worth seriously considering making it mandatory for all weapons sold after a certain date to be equipped with smart gun technology.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 06:14:57 PM by Recusant »
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2017, 11:31:06 PM »
I see your points regarding hunting for food - the only real justification for any kind of hunting in my mind. However I am sorry that there are those who have to rely on "wild food" to survive in a modern, industrial nation. But I would have thought trapping would be a surer method of gaining this anyway.

Your prtection point I have heard so often before, it scales al the way up to having enough thermo-nuclear wespons to "protect" yourself by wiping out civilization. There are two reasons for needing such protection, a) because your fellow vitizens are "protecting" themselves against the likes of you, who carry protection against them, and, b) your society is so damaged by mental health problems and disadvantaged members that your life is almost constantly at risk; at home, at work, just out shopping etc. That latter makes your society the equal of those in Honduras, Somalia and other 2nd, 3rd world states.

So, the final outcome is, as Father Bruno said, that you have a very sick society, so sick it cannot, in the whole, recognise its own disease. No true insight, no rational balance. "Mutual protection" is just another facet of "mutual paranoia".
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 12:37:31 AM by Dave »
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6420
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2017, 07:57:34 AM »
There are very loud people that are the all or nothings. And the NRA has been pushing the idea that any gun regulation is or will lead to a complete gun ban.

Most people want some common sense gun regulations. I want some studies done, but the NRA has squashed that too with their ban on gun violence research by government agencies. Any gun research that has been don in the last 30 years has been from private sources. We don't have a good idea about what exactly will work in our case, or what is a good direction to take because we've been blinded by the NRA.

At the very least, legislation could be put in place that expires in a few years.

But something has to be done. There are a few people trying to replicate the Mumford Act nationwide. I'm down with that.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dragonia

  • Out of the Religious Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Gender: Female
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2017, 01:37:45 PM »
....
Also, that sort of law would incite the gun zealots, some of whom are all too willing to contemplate living out their "armed patriot" fantasies.

Yes, definitely the biggest potential problem with this kind of a law, who knows how widespread the standoffs would be.

Instead, I'd support a stringent trigger lock and locked secure gunsafe storage law for weapons. I also think it's worth seriously considering making it mandatory for all weapons sold after a certain date to be equipped with smart gun technology.

I could support these, except the smart gun controls, which sounds good in principle, there are just some bugs that need to be worked out of the cracks.

I see your points regarding hunting for food - the only real justification for any kind of hunting in my mind. However I am sorry that there are those who have to rely on "wild food" to survive in a modern, industrial nation. But I would have thought trapping would be a surer method of gaining this anyway.
This is funny to me that you feel sorry for those people! So many people wouldn't want their life any other way! Not only is your meat healthy and wild, but it's almost free, and it's definitely a way of being in touch with where your food comes from. Trapping is a horrible alternative, in my opinion. A creature being caught in a trap, terrified, probably in pain, hormones tainting the meat.....its better to just get a clean shot and kill instantly.
I truly miss the caribou and moose that we had access to up in AK.
Your prtection point I have heard so often before, it scales al the way up to having enough thermo-nuclear wespons to "protect" yourself by wiping out civilization. There are two reasons for needing such protection, a) because your fellow vitizens are "protecting" themselves against the likes of you, who carry protection against them, and, b) your society is so damaged by mental health problems and disadvantaged members that your life is almost constantly at risk; at home, at work, just out shopping etc. That latter makes your society the equal of those in Honduras, Somalia and other 2nd, 3rd world states.

So, the final outcome is, as Father Bruno said, that you have a very sick society, so sick it cannot, in the whole, recognise its own disease. No true insight, no rational balance. "Mutual protection" is just another facet of "mutual paranoia".
I believe there are more than these two reasons for needing such protection. It's not an "either/or" issue. There is a lot of nuance and while I don't believe we live in a sick society, I acknowledge that there are sick/addicted/lawless/desperate people who I prefer to have defense against. There are break-ins all the time, everywhere, and I wouldn't hesitate to defend my family against whatever bad intentions are in that person's head.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~ Plato (?)

Dragonia

  • Out of the Religious Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Gender: Female
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2017, 01:46:16 PM »
There are very loud people that are the all or nothings. And the NRA has been pushing the idea that any gun regulation is or will lead to a complete gun ban.

Most people want some common sense gun regulations. I want some studies done, but the NRA has squashed that too with their ban on gun violence research by government agencies. Any gun research that has been don in the last 30 years has been from private sources. We don't have a good idea about what exactly will work in our case, or what is a good direction to take because we've been blinded by the NRA.

At the very least, legislation could be put in place that expires in a few years.

But something has to be done. There are a few people trying to replicate the Mumford Act nationwide. I'm down with that.
I agree. The NRA is alarmist and it seems they just stir up paranoia. I can't stand it.
And the Mulford Act seems pretty reasonable in a civilized society. Law enforcement would have their hands full at first....
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~ Plato (?)

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2017, 02:57:53 PM »
Phew, Dragonia, too much there to really answer pint by point (or too much fudfly editing on a tablet to do so and not going to fire up the laptop this time of night with my tired eyes!)

Not so funny that I expressed such things sbout those who hunt oir food when I think about it. We are at a different part of our history than the US is. Amongst the "country folk" when I was a kid there were far more people catching (often clandestinely since just about every square mile of England is owned by others who have exclusive hunting rights on it, or by the governmenypt with very tight rules,) game of some kind. We live at a much smaller scale here, most live within easy ride of a supermarket (or four) and a long way (in the way the English think of distance, like 50 miles or more) from accessible hunting territory. Then it is a case of a rather difficult to acquire shotgun licence. A rifle licence needs all kinds of extra boxes to tick, reasons to have and hoops to jump through. Then you have to have the land owners express permission and a whole volume of rules to stick to. And, possibly, a very full wallet. When I bought a shotgun licence, back in about 1965, I simply filled in a short form, showed the lady in the post office proof of my age and address and paid 7 shillings and 6 pence, £0.375, the equivalent of about $7 today.

So, it is a case that I was applying the mindset applicable to a long history whereas the US if far closer to the mindset that applied to its establishment, a mindset that many US  citizens hold onto with a very strong grip and, maybe, they would be willing to defend it with a similar level of violence as that used to build the nation in the first place! That last may be an exageration but the US does seem to tend towards being a violent nation looking from here, though we do see it through the biased filter of the news media. The already hinted at possibility of a new "civil war" over gun ownership and use, religion, human rights etc does not seem so improbable.

With your present president; a proven liar, a man who ignores normal presidential behaviour, who openly insults citizens in need of assistance etc, etc, etc, I doubt that anything is outside the limits of speculation.

The US and the UK are maybe quite a long way apart in more than just miles. I hope it stays that way, though I fear that it will not.

Elsewhere, I saying we need to get into the mindset of others to understand them. I realised the gulf between East and West whilst looking to the East, then ignored the gulf looking towards the West!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6010
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2017, 06:09:50 PM »
Here's my 2 cents worth (ok, maybe 15 cents) on this issue:
I feel like I don't fit in anywhere on the issue of guns. It seems like such an all-or-nothing issue.  I am not a member of the NRA, but I do believe that responsible, sane Americans should be allowed to own weapons.
Especially growing up in Alaska, and spending many years of my adult life there, a weapon equals food for your family, and protection for yourself and your family. We would have never gone on our trips into the woods without a gun. We never had to use ours, for protection or signalling, but we knew plenty of people who would have been dead without one.
I also support owning a weapon for self-or home-defense. Again, I have known a woman whose shotgun saved her life/health/property (she wasn't sure what the intruder was after,  only that he turned and ran when he saw the gun aimed at his head.)
These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over.
Now, I think it's wise and prudent to outlaw modifications on weapons, silencers, bum stocks (whatever it's called), among other stuff. I don't mind a limit on the number of weapons a person can own. I don't mind a mandatory waiting period before someone can purchase a gun. I support thorough background checks.
These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over.
Some new laws would be a logistical nightmare / witch hunt, trying to enforce the newly passed law, ie. limiting the number of weapons you can own. I have no idea how this would be accomplished and it could be that lawmakers are afraid of the uprising that instituting these laws would cause.
I feel like these issues are more complicated and possibly riotous than at first thought. Not saying we shouldn't try. Just saying I don't envy the enforcers.

I have similar views.  There is a middle ground on this that will preserve individual freedoms in accordance with American culture, but at the same time limit the Las Vegas/Sandy Hook events.

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6010
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2017, 06:24:25 PM »
I like to go back to the beginning.  America grew out of a reaction against the overreach of King George's England and the abuse of his troops.  The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Let's look at the text.  "A well regulated Militia", in my opinion, refers to a citizens militia like the Minute Men of New England.  It can take action when, for whatever reason, government cannot or will not act.  But it must be "well regulated".  You regulate with regulations, and regulations limit things.  If I had to organize a citizen's militia to protect my neighborhood if civil law broke down, I would not want the insane, the criminal, or enemies of the country such as terrorists in my group.  These types of people don't need weapons.  That takes regulation.

Second, a citizen's militia should be composed of individuals who have, more or less, the same armament as the average American foot soldier.  US infantrymen don't have automatic weapons.  The standard weapon is one M16A3 or M16A4, semi automatic.  That's enough to protect one's family or take up arms against a foe.  The Las Vegas shooter had 23 weapons in his room (I think).  There is no reason for this sort of excess.

The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   Nobody in the government is seriously advocating total abolition of firearms. People in the US will continue to have the right to keep and bear arms.  But that does not mean that individuals can own nuclear weapons.  There is a limit, and the question is simply where that limit is.  There is a middle ground between "no limitations" and "abolition of arms".  That's where we need to have the discussion, but that gets lost in the emotional fog. 

 

BooksCatsEtc

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • The Cure for Boredom is Curiosity. There is No Cure For Curiosity.
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
  • Gender: Female
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2017, 10:35:42 PM »
The Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   Nobody in the government is seriously advocating total abolition of firearms. People in the US will continue to have the right to keep and bear arms.  But that does not mean that individuals can own nuclear weapons.  There is a limit, and the question is simply where that limit is.  There is a middle ground between "no limitations" and "abolition of arms".  That's where we need to have the discussion, but that gets lost in the emotional fog.

That's the problem I'm seeing -- that each side assumes the other are extremists, that there is no moderate position.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2017, 11:16:58 PM »
Your are saying things that I have long thought, Bruce! I said elsewhere that a training period, in use, safety and maintenance, including ethics, should be mandatory before a permit to buy and own a firearm will be issued. Also much tighter control on the types of weapon available, as you say.

But, really, why does a nation like the US need such a militia at all in the 21st century? I know that the Swiss maintain an armed (but officially trained) public because they have been surrounded by historically aggressive neighbours for centuries. In any modern world war, even a conventional one, I feel that resistance movements (the only justifucation for such a militia) in a scenario where any nation invading the US would require massive aerial overkill to come anywhere near success, would be pretty futile - unless they still massively outnumbered the occupying enemy troops and had an almost endless supply stock. I doubt that any such invader would play by the Geneva Convention rules, attacks on their troops would almost certainly incur retaliation against unarmed civilians. After all, it is really the real estate and resources and/or an end to the "American-Way-of-Life", and its perceived threat to their own, that the enemy wants - not millions of dependant and resentful "prisoners" that must be maintained and controlled 24/7. Recent actions seem to indicate that most potential enemies seem to consider some form of mass extermination of the enemy a valid weapon of war and control.

Is it possible that this hanging on to an historical, but possibly obsolete, ammendment is really an excuse to justify a national tendency towards violence? Aggression as much as defence? A large part of the early, and possibly later, immigrant "psychotype" was concentrated on those fleeing oppressive or genocidal regimes or seeking to "make their fortune". Justifiably, in some ways, being willing to fight against the chance of recurrence of those experiences or for that ambition became the norm. After a very few generations such might become a national stereotype, an officially accepted policy. But it has stepped out of the debating room and into the physicality of violence so many times.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

SisterAgatha

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2017, 12:04:46 PM »
I wonder if it is any conincidence that the shooting took place in Las Vegas, with all its gambling, prostitutes and alcohol as opposed to some sleepy little town in Iowa or Kentucky, where people go to church every sunday.

Not saying it has anything to do with it..just food for thought.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2017, 12:12:31 PM »
I wonder if it is any conincidence that the shooting took place in Las Vegas, with all its gambling, prostitutes and alcohol as opposed to some sleepy little town in Iowa or Kentucky, where people go to church every sunday.

Not saying it has anything to do with it..just food for thought.

Well, "Sister" it is quite easy to do the research, why not do your own analysis and tell us unbelievers just how sinful this world is withiut an imaginary magical friend in our lives.

Or shut up and go bother soneone else.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Father Bruno

  • Deranged Psychopathic Twinkle Toes
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4691
  • Gender: Male
  • Save water. Shower together!
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2017, 02:08:20 PM »
I wonder if it is any conincidence that the shooting took place in Las Vegas, with all its gambling, prostitutes and alcohol as opposed to some sleepy little town in Iowa or Kentucky, where people go to church every sunday.

Not saying it has anything to do with it..just food for thought.

Here's something you can fucking nibble on, how about a sleepy little classroom filled with 5 and 6 year olds, at a place called Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Nothing irks me more than blaming victims, saying they may have deserved to be shot and killed.

Go Away.
Every taco is hand rolled with exotic Mexican spices by genuine Mayan Virgins.
Or. Carlos, depending on who's available.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Has an Invisible Dragon in Their Garage
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2017, 05:27:42 AM »
Heard on BC World Service news that the sickness in American society is even sicker than we first thought. Victims, even those in hospital, are being accused of being "victim actors" in a fake event, presumably designed to cast the gun laws in a bad light. Fake events not required, too many real ones.

Found these:

http://www.snopes.com/las-vegas-shooting-rumors-hoaxes-and-conspiracy-theories/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories

But it seems that Youtube is attempting to stop this slander from being spread:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/youtube-las-vegas-shooting-second-shooter-false-flag-conspiracy-theories-search-results-change-a7987236.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/3789111/youtube-search-results-conspiracy-videos/
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Ecurb Noselrub

  • No Wall in my name!!!
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6010
  • Gender: Male
Re: Another Mass Shooting
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2017, 12:04:09 PM »
Your are saying things that I have long thought, Bruce! I said elsewhere that a training period, in use, safety and maintenance, including ethics, should be mandatory before a permit to buy and own a firearm will be issued. Also much tighter control on the types of weapon available, as you say.

But, really, why does a nation like the US need such a militia at all in the 21st century? I know that the Swiss maintain an armed (but officially trained) public because they have been surrounded by historically aggressive neighbours for centuries. In any modern world war, even a conventional one, I feel that resistance movements (the only justifucation for such a militia) in a scenario where any nation invading the US would require massive aerial overkill to come anywhere near success, would be pretty futile - unless they still massively outnumbered the occupying enemy troops and had an almost endless supply stock. I doubt that any such invader would play by the Geneva Convention rules, attacks on their troops would almost certainly incur retaliation against unarmed civilians. After all, it is really the real estate and resources and/or an end to the "American-Way-of-Life", and its perceived threat to their own, that the enemy wants - not millions of dependant and resentful "prisoners" that must be maintained and controlled 24/7. Recent actions seem to indicate that most potential enemies seem to consider some form of mass extermination of the enemy a valid weapon of war and control.

Is it possible that this hanging on to an historical, but possibly obsolete, ammendment is really an excuse to justify a national tendency towards violence? Aggression as much as defence? A large part of the early, and possibly later, immigrant "psychotype" was concentrated on those fleeing oppressive or genocidal regimes or seeking to "make their fortune". Justifiably, in some ways, being willing to fight against the chance of recurrence of those experiences or for that ambition became the norm. After a very few generations such might become a national stereotype, an officially accepted policy. But it has stepped out of the debating room and into the physicality of violence so many times.

A militia could be necessary in the event of local breakdown of order, or in the event of revolution, government downfall, or invasion.  All of these happen in the 21st Century.  They may not be likely, but they are possible.