Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
glassgowkiss

Yet another shooting

Recommended Posts

do you really object to tvash's main practical argument above: comprehensive background checks?

 

would such checks actually have prevented this incident? or a large percentage of the previous 50 mass shootings?

 

new laws seem to appeal to a certain "type" of person. I'm more for things that actually work and address the issue they claim to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, we are worried about the wrong things:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

 

According to the CDC in 2013 these are the numbers of Americans killed by each category, fun read:

Motor vehicle accidents: 35,369

Alcoholic liver disease: 18,146

Pneumonia: 53,282

Leukemia: 23,428

Malignant neoplasm of the pancreas (wtf?): 38,996

Homicide by gun: 11,208

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess 19 000 committing suicides with guns or getting accidentally shot do not matter?

Fact is, since 2001 over 406K were killed with guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you really object to tvash's main practical argument above: comprehensive background checks?

 

would such checks actually have prevented this incident? or a large percentage of the previous 50 mass shootings?

 

new laws seem to appeal to a certain "type" of person. I'm more for things that actually work and address the issue they claim to

you didn't answer the question, but i'll answer yours

 

the conversation about gun rights is bigger than the conversation about any particular tragedy - the reality though is that it's only these sensational tragedies that produce the juice to actually get the bigger conversation going

 

no, it doesn't look like back-ground checks would have done much in this instance - I don't know about other mass shootings (beside perhaps the Virginia tech one? I seem to recall there was some good documentation of mental health issues w/ that guy).

 

the point is the vast majority of gun deaths aren't by crazy psychos in mass shootings - it's nickel and dime bullshit caused by depression and suicide and felons doing criminal things, right? seems more fertile ground for background checks putting a dent in the body count then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the desire to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, or those who are suicidal. Perfectly reasonable, but certainly made difficult by how common guns are in most U.S. households.

 

What is your solution for all the guns currently out on the streets and in homes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it doesn't look like back-ground checks would have done much in this instance - I don't know about other mass shootings (beside perhaps the Virginia tech one? I seem to recall there was some good documentation of mental health issues w/ that guy).

 

Mass shooting occcurs.

Lefties demand tougher gun control laws.

Repeat ad nauseam.

 

Should crazy people have guns? Obviously not. But someone can pass a background check, get a gun, then go crazy/snap/whatever.

 

And the articles out now claim this kid had Asbergers. Know anyone else like that Ivan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's no correlation between 'crazy' and gun violence, so, yes, 'crazies' have as much right to have a gun as the morons who subscribe to this fiction. Drug n booze abuse and violent behavior are highly correlated with gun violence, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckshot's full of shit, of course. add suicide and accident and gun deaths move to 2nd place in his list.

 

but even so, 11000 is a few more Japan, which averages a whopping 10.

 

but hey, nothing to do, right? shit happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the articles out now claim this kid had Asbergers. Know anyone else like that Ivan?

yeah...me :) probably explains why i don't own anything more lethal than ice tools n' a baseball bat :P

 

pat, do you happen to know how things parse out, comparing nippon to us true-blood 'mericans, when their non-gun suicides are thrown into gun-death comparisons? a wonkish question for sure, but that shit's up your alley. my assumption is still way more folks die needlessly here than there, but it'd be nice to check the math :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah...me :) probably explains why i don't own anything more lethal than ice tools n' a baseball bat :P

 

you seem to be a mess but I don't see you going postal on anyone any time soon

 

not so sure about the other miscreants on this fine forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have any higher percent of wackos, or almost-wackos than the rest of the world. The clear difference is that ours have easy access to firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you seem to be a mess but I don't see you going postal on anyone any time soon

 

not so sure about the other miscreants on this fine forum

you wax hysteric - christ, if you can count on solid-gold seattle libtards for anything, it's their essential good-heartedness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would such checks actually have prevented this incident? or a large percentage of the previous 50 mass shootings?

 

new laws seem to appeal to a certain "type" of person. I'm more for things that actually work and address the issue they claim to

 

depends on what qualities are created to allow one to pass a background check. if criminal history is the sole determinant then yeah, it would not have done any good in this one case.

 

but if a broader range of qualities for failure of background test is created, it would be very useful. For example, if you fail out of army bootcamp, (how the F does one fail out of army bootcamp unless you are insane?) then you are not stable enough to own a gun. All the qualities would be geared towards determining mental stability.

 

requiring gun owners insurance would naturally create that system. licensing would partially create that environment

 

I realize the knee jerk reaction is the fear that the system will evolve to exclude the mass majority of folks and be the threat to our freedom when the gubermint takes over. I don't prescribe to that fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would such checks actually have prevented this incident? or a large percentage of the previous 50 mass shootings?

 

new laws seem to appeal to a certain "type" of person. I'm more for things that actually work and address the issue they claim to

 

depends on what qualities are created to allow one to pass a background check. if criminal history is the sole determinant then yeah, it would not have done any good in this one case.

 

but if a broader range of qualities for failure of background test is created, it would be very useful. For example, if you fail out of army bootcamp, (how the F does one fail out of army bootcamp unless you are insane?) then you are not stable enough to own a gun. All the qualities would be geared towards determining mental stability.

 

requiring gun owners insurance would naturally create that system. licensing would partially create that environment

 

I realize the knee jerk reaction is the fear that the system will evolve to exclude the mass majority of folks and be the threat to our freedom when the gubermint takes over. I don't prescribe to that fear.

 

Gene,

 

The problem is we can not punish people or deny them rights because of what they MIGHT do. And more and more often in these cases we see troubled people who snap and act out. There are warning signs, yes, and in some cases mental diagnoses, but we as a society we don't lock up, force meds, or deny rights to them. And the left is certainly on board with that.

 

There are many reasons someone could fail boot camp, and that would not necessarily preclude someone from being a responsible gun owner. There really are no litmus tests that you could apply to catch all these cases that we see. I think the bigger issue is our culture and how we tend to let people on the fringe an fall through the cracks coupled with a culture of violence in entertainment and a myriad of other factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is we can not punish people or deny them rights because of what they MIGHT do. And more and more often in these cases we see troubled people who snap and act out. There are warning signs, yes, and in some cases mental diagnoses, but we as a society we don't lock up, force meds, or deny rights to them.

 

There really are no litmus tests that you could apply to catch all these cases that we see. I think the bigger issue is our culture and how we tend to let people on the fringe an fall through the cracks coupled with a culture of violence in entertainment and a myriad of other factors.

 

there is no one gun violence solution possible other than making all guns illegal. what people are trying to get is a middle ground solution. Will any solution work completely? of course not. But if a solution has even a 30% reduction, then it could be considered a success.

 

"how we tend to let people on the fringe an fall through the cracks coupled with a culture of violence in entertainment and a myriad of other factors."

 

if we can't shove meds down any suspected crazy person and also keep a freedom of speech, then are we doomed to a society of violence? at some point, as a civilized and advances society, we must move beyond the idea that gun ownership is a right. Yeah yeah I know it is in the constitution but imagine in the future looking back at now. it just seems so barbaric and ridiculous that gun ownership is a right and health and welfare are not.

Much like now and LGBT rights. Society looks so stupid that it took so long to get it right.

 

"but we as a society we don't lock up, force meds, or deny rights to them. And the left is certainly on board with that."

 

I think your generalization of the left is completely off. If anything, I believe conservatives are more on board with locking people up and denying rights such as voting rights and a myriad of others. but I digress and that is another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it doesn't look like back-ground checks would have done much in this instance - I don't know about other mass shootings (beside perhaps the Virginia tech one? I seem to recall there was some good documentation of mental health issues w/ that guy).

 

Mass shooting occcurs.

Lefties demand tougher gun control laws.

 

And NRA blocks EVERY attempt to even start addressing the issue

 

Repeat ad nauseam.

 

Should crazy people have guns? Obviously not. But someone can pass a background check, get a gun, then go crazy/snap/whatever.

 

And the articles out now claim this kid had Asbergers. Know anyone else like that Ivan?

 

Fact is- the system does not work. However NRA is basically a terrorist organization. These shootings ARE acts of domestic terrorism, and if treated as such could be largely eliminated. The truth is gun=death industry is interested in such shootings. Every time it happens, the gun sales go up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is we can not punish people or deny them rights because of what they MIGHT do.

 

How does a licensing system for firearms punishing people? To legally drive a car on a road, you have to have a valid license. Commit a DUI and you will find your license suspended. This is how you regulate, allowing people to follow the rules to drive, and get stupid off the road. By the token of your "logic" anyone turning 16 should be able to jump into a car and just simply start driving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but we as a society we don't lock up, force meds, or deny rights to them.

 

Well, it's EXACT thing you have posted and advocated earlier, which I have reported to the admin- because such acts constitute of advocating abuse, plain and simple. It just shows how morally fucked up your belief system is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is we can not punish people or deny them rights because of what they MIGHT do.

we deny epileptics the right to drive a car b/c they might have seizures while driving, no?

 

color-blind folks are denied pilot's licenses b/c they might crash their planes

 

people are denied security-clearances frequently on the basis that their past indicates a chance they will be untrustworthy in the future

 

we deny convicts voting rights based on some hazy fear they'll use that power to a nefarious end

 

this isn't "minority report"

 

what exactly is the thing we're trying to solve? mass-shootings are admittedly hard, but then they're only a very small part of the gun-death problem. if total gun-deaths are what we're going after, it's an easier nut to crack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is we can not punish people or deny them rights because of what they MIGHT do.

we deny epileptics the right to drive a car b/c they might have seizures while driving, no?

 

color-blind folks are denied pilot's licenses b/c they might crash their planes

 

people are denied security-clearances frequently on the basis that their past indicates a chance they will be untrustworthy in the future

 

we deny convicts voting rights based on some hazy fear they'll use that power to a nefarious end

 

this isn't "minority report"

 

what exactly is the thing we're trying to solve? mass-shootings are admittedly hard, but then they're only a very small part of the gun-death problem. if total gun-deaths are what we're going after, it's an easier nut to crack.

 

and the ACLU supported the "right" to create and view child porn "art" rather than arrest such sick f***s before they rape little kids

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×