Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[JimL]

After giving it much thought (about 1 second so far) I have come to the conclusion that congress SHOULD try to repeal the 2nd amendment.

And so too are others beginning to come to that conclusion.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/cons...ite-arguments/

Hey, turns out you might not be as dumb as you look Sparko.

[Adrift]

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but you are in no way shape of form an ilk of JimL. You do not seem to depend on stupid statements to make your points.

Well I suppose that's a start.

[Mountain Man]

And so too are others beginning to come to that conclusion.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/cons...ite-arguments/

Hey, turns out you might not be as dumb as you look Sparko.

Oh, look, THE NEW YORK TIMES' token conservative (but not really) tows the liberal party line. That's so compelling. No, really.

[Teallaura]

Mass shootings happen because psychopaths know that their victims are unlikely to be armed. This, too, is the result of gun control laws that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to buy and carry guns.

Two words: body armor.

The fact is, the possibility of armed resistance isn't going to stop a determined killer, any more than abolition would. Like the lunatic that killed in LV, a determined killer can and will overcome that little possibility. No, the real reason we don't see this kind of killing routinely is because existing gun laws make it difficult enough that only the absolutely determined will succeed.

[Mountain Man]

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but you are in no way shape of form an ilk of JimL. You do not seem to depend on stupid statements to make your points.

Adrift is a good man. And I say that as someone who has occasionally butted heads with him over the years; although I'm not sure which one of us has the thicker skull.

[Teallaura]

Speculation and wishful thinking.

Case law and history.

[Adrift]

Worked real well with prohibition didn't it.

Prohibition actually worked better than most people realize.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

[Mountain Man]

Two words: body armor.

The fact is, the possibility of armed resistance isn't going to stop a determined killer, any more than abolition would. Like the lunatic that killed in LV, a determined killer can and will overcome that little possibility. No, the real reason we don't see this kind of killing routinely is because existing gun laws make it difficult enough that only the absolutely determined will succeed.

You're basically saying there's nothing we can do to stop mass murder.

[JimL]

Adrift is a good man. And I say that as someone who has occasionally butted heads with him over the years; although I'm not sure which one of us has the thicker skull.

Hmmm, that is a tough call. No, actually, on second thought, I think you're much thicker MM.

[Adrift]

None of these banned items are protected by the Constitution.

Like I said earlier, I'm okay with changing the Constitution.

[Adrift]

I believe, without data, that the real cause of the increase in violence we think we see is population density. You see the same sort of thing when you put too many rats too close together. We need to ban cities of over 10,000 people.

I think that's definitely one of many parts of the problem.

[Mountain Man]

Hmmm, that is a tough call. No, actually, on second thought, I think you're much thicker MM.

It's just an eggshell compared to the reinforced concrete block you call a head.

[Teallaura]

You're basically saying there's nothing we can do to stop mass murder.

There's no absolutely perfect way that will avoid any and all such cases - you do realize it's exactly the same basis as your 'but killers will use knives' argument, right? I reject that argument as silly - perfection might be the goal but it's not achievable. What is achievable is to minimize such cases - preferably down to almost nil.

What we can do is make it hard as heck for mass killers to obtain the necessary fire power. In so doing, we make it far more likely that a given killer will get caught or be frustrated before the killing can happen.

Which, as I argued earlier, is happening. If you could pick up an M-16 at Wally World with the groceries and minus any paperwork, there would be bullets sprayed in anger every day. That layer of complication gives the irrational time to regain their senses and law enforcement a chance to catch the vicious.

[Teallaura]

Worked real well with prohibition didn't it.

Um, I didn't argue for abolition - that's Adrift. And, as he pointed out, a lot of the 'Prohibition didn't work' is simply hype.

I don't LIKE gun ownership but I don't see a sound basis to completely outlaw it (which I would really, really prefer) so I don't support gun abolition.

Gun control, however, does work. The question is does it need to be stricter - Adrift argues yes, I'm not yet ready to take a position.

[Adrift]

When referring to being in cars, I meant per amount of usage (time or miles or some such). My understanding is that when adjusted for amount of usage, being on the road is one of the riskiest things people commonly do.

I agree. Unfortunately it's become so part of our everyday lives that it's very complicated to get away from it. It's become a necessary evil. Lots of nations in Europe are attempting to get away from the use of automobiles through fantastic public transportation and bicycle friendly roadways. I think they're probably on the right path.

Gun usage at a range is a common usage of guns, so it would be unreasonable to discount it when evaluating the riskiness of average gun use.

Nah, I just can't buy that. We don't have nearly the safety precautions and direct monitoring by experts on roadways that we have on the gun ranges. I really do think it's an apples and oranges comparison.

And that the risk is affected by the range being a controlled environment only reinforces my point. The risk per use isn't inherent to the object. If, for another example, everyone in school had lots of gun safety and marksmanship training, then gun usage would be up, but gun accidents would go down. Likely the risk from common gun usages like hunting and range shooting, would go down.

I'm not sure I follow, and maybe that's because I don't accept your reasoning as seen above.

Your claim was :


So in my example of gun training in school, usage would go up but risk per usage would go down, and it is not obvious that gun deaths would increase.

I think training in a school atmosphere would be fine, and agree that it could potentially be made relatively safe. Perhaps we could go one better and leave all of our guns at schools so that we don't risk danger to the unmonitored student (or other family member/guest) at home or on the way home. What sort of school were you imagining? Hopefully not, like, a grade or high school. Even one accident in a safe school environment would see parents outraged.

The riskiness of guns (or ladders) per usage is affected by more than just its inherent properties. It may be the case that people when using guns typically seek more training and take greater precautions and seek out more controlled environments than people in an average ladder use. Gun use per usage may, in practice, be less risky than ladder use per usage, despite their inherent properties. And whether that is true in any given time and place might vary due to many factors.

My gut feeling is that it isn't. I know that's not enough to convince anyone, but it's just something, I, personally, can't shake. I've been around guns long enough, both professionally, and as a civilian to feel that there's a risk assessment in them that I feel is higher than there is in ladders. I think I'd be surprised to find out that was a very controversial view outside of this forum.