Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[oxmixmudd]

So a refusal on your part to acknowledge the fact that your post came across as condescending. Got it.

It wasn't condescending.

"having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority."

It was simply a way of pushing back against constant and demeaning name calling.



"Hey Sparko - you think we could add a rule against name calling to the campus decorum? Seems a civilized thing to do - I certainly would never miss it.

No - what was that? Oh, too many people enjoy it and need a fall back when they can't think of a better argument? Oh, well, ok ..."

Now see - THAT was condescending.

I asked you to post examples, not give your own biased interpretation of what you think I said or did.

Ah - but that would be how you would describe each and every example I gave. After all, you don't lose it - by definition right?

MM Dictionary -

"losing it": How other people react to my constant name calling and mockery.

"not losing it": How I react to any other person that says something I don't like.



Does that about sum it up?

So again, no point.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

It wasn't condescending.

"having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority."

It was simply a way of pushing back against constant and demeaning name calling.

Like I said, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your post came across as condescending.

How you might have intended it is irrelevant. Like my dad always says, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Ah - but that would be how you would describe each and every example I gave. After all, you don't lose it - by definition right?

MM Dictionary -

"losing it": How other people react to my constant name calling and mockery.

"not losing it": How I react to any other person that says something I don't like.



Does that about sum it up?

So again, no point.

Your inability and unwillingness to link to actual examples is noted.

Good day.

[oxmixmudd]

Like I said, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your post came across as condescending.

I can't completely control how a person perceives what I write, but what I am actually saying is this:

If you call people names, you deserve to be condescended to and have no right to complain even if that is how the response appears to you.

So I am not particularly concerned about people who call me various condescending names thinking that my reply to that name calling might have been condescending - even if I had no intent it actually be condescending.

Have you never heard the phrase "Turnabout is fair play"?

Jim

[Mountain Man]

If you call people names, you deserve to be condescended to and have no right to complain even if that is how the response appears to you.

I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out your apparent hypocrisy and watching you twist in the wind as you do everything you can to avoid taking the responsibility for your own words and actions.

Sticks and stones, luv.

[Littlejoe]

It is very hard to know what would actually reduce the number and frequency of mass shootings. But high capacity, high velocity, low recoil weapons that can be bought without any sort of filtering requirement is the type of weapon that makes this sort of crime very much easier to accomplish. It's not that it can't be done with other weaponry by someone determined enough to do it, it's that it doesn't take a whole lot of training or smarts to be successful with something like an AR15 so more people can and are successfully executing these kinds of attacks.

You admit that we really DON'T know what would reduce them, but then go on to pretty much blame AR's? So, do you have any practical experience with AR's specifically the 5.56 (or .223 civilian version), because I have. I will not hunt deer or hogs with one. Despite their high velocity, they're inadequate for those animals. It's actually illegal in some states to hunt with that caliber for that very reason. Deer in my neck of the woods are not as big as their northern counterparts. A large buck here runs 150 -160 lbs. A large doe runs 115 - 125 lbs. I used to hunt with a .223, but after the 3rd lost deer, I stopped using it. I use a .270 now and have never had one lost deer. (Now, I did lose a wild boar with my .270, but I didn't look too hard, wounded hogs can be very dangerous and it was dark quickly after) My LEO buddies that I hunt with seemed to think their AR would be a good hog gun...they found out that unless they shot them in the head, they were going to lose the animal.

So, despite your protests, the AR 15 is actually not as deadly as you think. It's still a gun and still dangerous, but there are others that are as deadly or much more so.

But does it really make sense to do nothing, and to push back against all efforts to reduce accessibility to these weapons? With what I'm proposing, your sister would still have had an AR15. I'm not talking ban per se. Just tight controls. Jump through the right hoops, show you are a responsible sane person with the skills to use the weapon and you can still buy it. You just can't head down to the local gun store and walk out 15 minutes later with an AR15 and 200 rounds of ammunition (assuming the area you live in doesn't impose single purchase limits on ammunition).

I apologize but, I think I must have missed (or I forgot) your proposed solution. Could you please restate it? (Unless that's it above?)
You realize that only half (52%) of the perpetrators involved involved in mass shootings had been indentified as having a disorder. The New York Times found this in their analysis of mass shootings from 1949 - 1999. This seems to confirm something we've known to be a problem for a long time...namely...it's really difficult for psychiatrists to identify mass shooters...
If we can somehow cut it in half, by screening who can and who cannot get ANY weapon then that would be a plus! Because, I'll bet a dime to a donut hole that only a few of those who were mentally ill and commited a mass shooting used an AR style weapon.

I hope you are wrong about what it would take to stop or at least put a dent in what we see. There are advantages to being able to own guns, the 2nd amendment has a valid purpose. But I really don't believe a country full of people toting immensely powerful weaponry is a very good answer. We've had that before in the west and in Chicago. We KNOW that is a bad idea. But we will not really know if controls can work until several years - maybe decades due to the number already owned - after a program that restricts access to these sort of weapons is put in place. Strict gun laws DO work in the countries that have them. They don't have 'this weeks mass shooting event' in their news headlines. The question is, can there be something between the rather draconian restrictions found in those countries and what we expect here in terms of the 2nd amendment that is also effective.

Jim

I hope I'm wrong as well, until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to carry a concealed hand gun anywhere I'm allowed to. And restaurants and stores that want to be "gun free zones" will lose my business. I don't donate to or patronize, Good Will, Starbucks, or AMC Theatres (just to name a few) any longer for that reason. But, there's an old saying, and armed society is a polite society...
We DON'T know it was a bad idea, because as Sparko pointed out, that was largely dime store novel legend and Hollywood myth.
Strict gun laws in other countries MAY work for mass shootings, (Aus had one fairly recently did they not?) but not mass murders/killings. Also, just about every case of gun restrictions has resulted in a rise in Violent Crime. Just look at the UK...here's a very recent update: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...-mass-killings

See, it goes back to what I said early, mankind is ingenious at figuring out way around anything! No gun? No problem...

Can there be something more effective and not as draconian? How about more money to law enforcement, and more pressure on them to prosecute those that try to buy weapons legally when they shouldn't be able to. And why when this is brought up is the burden always shifted to our side to "make it happen"? Increase the speed and accuracy of the databases that are used to screen out those not qualified? Mandatory stiff sentences for use of a gun in the commission of any crime. That would be a good start...

[rogue06]

I hope I'm wrong as well, until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to carry a concealed hand gun anywhere I'm allowed to. And restaurants and stores that want to be "gun free zones" will lose my business. I don't donate to or patronize, Good Will, Starbucks, or AMC Theatres (just to name a few) any longer for that reason. But, there's an old saying, and armed society is a polite society...
We DON'T know it was a bad idea, because as Sparko pointed out, that was largely dime store novel legend and Hollywood myth.
Strict gun laws in other countries MAY work for mass shootings, (Aus had one fairly recently did they not?) but not mass murders/killings. Also, just about every case of gun restrictions has resulted in a rise in Violent Crime. Just look at the UK...here's a very recent update: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...-mass-killings

See, it goes back to what I said early, mankind is ingenious at figuring out way around anything! No gun? No problem...

Can there be something more effective and not as draconian? How about more money to law enforcement, and more pressure on them to prosecute those that try to buy weapons legally when they shouldn't be able to. And why when this is brought up is the burden always shifted to our side to "make it happen"? Increase the speed and accuracy of the databases that are used to screen out those not qualified? Mandatory stiff sentences for use of a gun in the commission of any crime. That would be a good start...

Earlier I compiled a list of mass killings this century using Wikipedia that didn't involve firearms



And the last I checked France's stringent gun control laws didn't stop the mass shootings in Paris in 2015 where 137 were killed and 352 wounded. Almost all of the worst massacres involving firearms were done by paramilitary groups conducting raids on villages and camps -- things no form of gun control could prevent.

[oxmixmudd]

You admit that we really DON'T know what would reduce them, but then go on to pretty much blame AR's?

No - that is a complete mischaracterization of what I've said. These debates can never be fruitful if people can't stop twisting the words of other people into things they didn't say.

I said that the class of weapon of which the AR15 is a member make this sort of crime easier. And as a result it is reasonable to assume that taking the time to screen potential buyers for known red flags could help reduce their use in such crimes.

So, do you have any practical experience with AR's specifically the 5.56 (or .223 civilian version), because I have. I will not hunt deer or hogs with one. Despite their high velocity, they're inadequate for those animals. It's actually illegal in some states to hunt with that caliber for that very reason. Deer in my neck of the woods are not as big as their northern counterparts. A large buck here runs 150 -160 lbs. A large doe runs 115 - 125 lbs. I used to hunt with a .223, but after the 3rd lost deer, I stopped using it. I use a .270 now and have never had one lost deer. (Now, I did lose a wild boar with my .270, but I didn't look too hard, wounded hogs can be very dangerous and it was dark quickly after) My LEO buddies that I hunt with seemed to think their AR would be a good hog gun...they found out that unless they shot them in the head, they were going to lose the animal.

So, despite your protests, the AR 15 is actually not as deadly as you think. It's still a gun and still dangerous, but there are others that are as deadly or much more so.

To say that is like the fellow watching an airplane fly giving reasons why they can't actually fly. AR15's and an AK47 were the guns used in the vegas shooting, the worst mass shooting in American history, and it was very, VERY effective. And it keeps re-appearing in shooting after shooting. It is very popular. And it is very effective, regardless of your protests to the contrary. Maybe there are weapons available that could be even MORE effective. Who knows. Fortunately that hasn't become common knowledge yet. Or common enough that the average person that cracks and decides to kill as many people as possible knows to pursue access of these other weapons.

I apologize but, I think I must have missed (or I forgot) your proposed solution. Could you please restate it? (Unless that's it above?)
You realize that only half (52%) of the perpetrators involved involved in mass shootings had been indentified as having a disorder. The New York Times found this in their analysis of mass shootings from 1949 - 1999. This seems to confirm something we've known to be a problem for a long time...namely...it's really difficult for psychiatrists to identify mass shooters...
If we can somehow cut it in half, by screening who can and who cannot get ANY weapon then that would be a plus! Because, I'll bet a dime to a donut hole that only a few of those who were mentally ill and commited a mass shooting used an AR style weapon.

It may well be that short of banning guns entirely we can't stop these events. My point is that, given most of us value the 2nd Amendment at least partially, why not at least try to do something less that a complete ban and see if it can have a useful effect. To me it seems the horror of these events warrants' something a little less callous than statments that amount to "well we don't know if it will work, so we just need to leave it as it is.", or "that's just the cost of having the 2nd amendment - get over it". (I am not implying you have said those words, but in many ways the statements you and others make resisting any attempts to reduce these shootings boil down to statements not dissimilar to them).

I hope I'm wrong as well, until proven otherwise, I'm going to continue to carry a concealed hand gun anywhere I'm allowed to. And restaurants and stores that want to be "gun free zones" will lose my business. I don't donate to or patronize, Good Will, Starbucks, or AMC Theatres (just to name a few) any longer for that reason. But, there's an old saying, and armed society is a polite society...
We DON'T know it was a bad idea, because as Sparko pointed out, that was largely dime store novel legend and Hollywood myth.
Strict gun laws in other countries MAY work for mass shootings, (Aus had one fairly recently did they not?) but not mass murders/killings. Also, just about every case of gun restrictions has resulted in a rise in Violent Crime. Just look at the UK...here's a very recent update: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

And I prefer to be in gun free areas if they are public places. I view the possibility of the accidental death of a family member through a mistaken identity or accidental discharge to be higher than the possibility I will defeat an attacker by having a gun not locked up in a safe place.

https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...-mass-killings

See, it goes back to what I said early, mankind is ingenious at figuring out way around anything! No gun? No problem...

You are right that taking away guns will not stop people from finding ways to kill other people. But it is harder to make that decision quickly and without a great deal of preparation using other methods. And that in itself is a deterrent for those acting on immediate emotion.

Can there be something more effective and not as draconian? How about more money to law enforcement, and more pressure on them to prosecute those that try to buy weapons [il]legally when they shouldn't be able to. And why when this is brought up is the burden always shifted to our side to "make it happen"? Increase the speed and accuracy of the databases that are used to screen out those not qualified? Mandatory stiff sentences for use of a gun in the commission of any crime. That would be a good start...

I agree, those would and should all be part of any effort designed to address this problem.


Jim

[Littlejoe]

No - that is a complete mischaracterization of what I've said. These debates can never be fruitful if people can't stop twisting the words of other people into things they didn't say.
I said that the class of weapon of which the AR15 is a member make this sort of crime easier. And as a result it is reasonable to assume that taking the time to screen potential buyers for known red flags could help reduce their use in such crimes.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I agree and made something similar to that point in my last post which you agreed with by making the databases better/more comprehensive, better regulated. There's still the issue (I think) of HIPAA laws that have to be addressed to get mental health issues into the system properly.

To say that is like the fellow watching an airplane fly giving reasons why they can't actually fly. AR15's and an AK47 were the guns used in the vegas shooting, the worst mass shooting in American history, and it was very, VERY effective. And it keeps re-appearing in shooting after shooting. It is very popular. And it is very effective, regardless of your protests to the contrary. Maybe there are weapons available that could be even MORE effective. Who knows. Fortunately that hasn't become common knowledge yet. Or common enough that the average person that cracks and decides to kill as many people as possible knows to pursue access of these other weapons.

Thanks for the mischaracterization... I fully admitted they were a gun and were dangerous ...
Reading your counterpoint shows me that we fundamentally disagree on this point. The Vegas shooter wasn't very, VERY effective because of his weapon choice, no, it was because of his bump stock (which has now been banned and I don't have any issues with the ban BTW) giving him an incredible rate of fire, his distance masking the sound of gun shots, his choice of where to set up, and the large tight-knit crowd, the loud music of the concert and and his difficulty in being located and breached...the perfect storm IMO.
There are platforms available that are more effective and more lethal, but their not well known because the AR "assault rifle" gets all the billing. The bottom line is this...AR's are not FUNCTIONALLY different than other semi-automatics...heck, my uncle has a semi-auto 30.06 hunting rifle that is tack driving accurate, talk about deadly....The normal rate of fire for an AR is no better or worse than his hunting rifle...or any other semi-autos, and certainly no faster than a pistol.

It may well be that short of banning guns entirely we can't stop these events. My point is that, given most of us value the 2nd Amendment at least partially, why not at least try to do something less that a complete ban and see if it can have a useful effect. To me it seems the horror of these events warrants' something a little less callous than statments that amount to "well we don't know if it will work, so we just need to leave it as it is.", or "that's just the cost of having the 2nd amendment - get over it". (I am not implying you have said those words, but in many ways the statements you and others make resisting any attempts to reduce these shootings boil down to statements not dissimilar to them).

It makes as much sense as let's randomly pick a weapon and ban it....we don't know if that will work but let's inconvenience thousands just to find out. Action for actions sake alone is meaningless. At LEAST do some studies with unbiased researchers (on either side or at least the same number on each side)
Callousness is in the eye of the beholder IMO. But, when it's placed in it's proper perspective I don't see it that way. We make that same value judgment for cars that kill as many or more than guns...but because cars have value other than as a weapon, then we just accept that we can get into a car and not die. Why is this more of a horror than a man with his child on his shoulders at a parade getting blown up...it's not (and I don't think you think that it's not a horror), but no one wants to ban pressure cookers. A box truck driven into a crowd could easily be used in a immediate emotion mass killing...honestly, you get sick and go to the hospital, but according to Johns Hopkins up to a quarter MILLION die each year from it. There's so MANY more ways your likely to die than a mass shooting that it boggles the mind that it even gets a percentage of the play...

The problem I think really is the slippery slope. Looking at other countries, they would start with a ban on this, then a ban on that, and it became more and more draconian with each step. It's happened in other countries (and other states) that the track record is there in plain sight. You and I both know that the push will never go away no matter how many concessions are made from the Pro-Gun side. There will always be pressure to totally disarm, we just don't kid ourselves like you do.

And I prefer to be in gun free areas if they are public places. I view the possibility of the accidental death of a family member through a mistaken identity or accidental discharge to be higher than the possibility I will defeat an attacker by having a gun not locked up in a safe place.

To each his own. And, do you have any statistics that show public places have accidental gun shootings or deaths of any frequency whatsoever?

You are right that taking away guns will not stop people from finding ways to kill other people. But it is harder to make that decision quickly and without a great deal of preparation using other methods. And that in itself is a deterrent for those acting on immediate emotion.

No...not really. AND I don't think many mass shootings (certainly not a majority) are actors acting on immediate emotion. Your earlier example - Las Vegas was certainly planned for a while. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

I agree, those would and should all be part of any effort designed to address this problem.


Jim

Again, glad we can at least agree on something.

[Sparko]

It seems like you are just at the "well, we gotta do something!" stage Jim. So you want to restrict AR15s. But that is just a feel good, going through the motions thing.


Maybe we could just paint all AR15s pink so nobody wants to use them in mass shootings because they won't look cool.

[oxmixmudd]

It seems like you are just at the "well, we gotta do something!" stage Jim. So you want to restrict AR15s. But that is just a feel good, going through the motions thing.


Maybe we could just paint all AR15s pink so nobody wants to use them in mass shootings because they won't look cool.

I could only expect that if i was truthful about the situation, some of you would be derogatory and sarcastic. The truth is, we dont know it wont work either. There is an old saying : it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

In the 60s and 70s the automotive industry fought tooth and nail the idea of airbags. For many of the sorts of reasons we are hearing from you and little joe. It wont help, they might go off accidentaly and the solution is worse than the cure, people wont use their seatbelts, its too expensive and so on. That all changed when chrysler went out on a limb and started putting in airbags. Then two chrysler lebarons topped a hill and hit each other head on at 55 mph. Both cars had airbags. Both drivers walked away.

We wont know if restrictions on the sort of weapon the ar15 is will help until we try. AFAIK, we have not been in a society with monthly mass shootings made possible by semi automatics ever until now. To try and to fail would be far better than to just accept this is the way things must be.

Jim

[Sparko]

I could only expect that if i was truthful about the situation, some of you would be derogatory and sarcastic.

I was actually trying to lighten the mood.

The truth is, we dont know it wont work either. There is an old saying : it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

You are just spinning your wheels and throwing out ideas that would, if implemented, inconvenience millions of law abiding citizens, and you have no idea if it would work, or even make things worse. What if instead of using an AR15, they moved on to something even worse like a semiauto shotgun with a drum magazine? Can you imagine the damage? And they will move on to other weapons. So eventually you have to try to ban everything. They UK is now banning knives.

In the 60s and 70s the automotive industry fought tooth and nail the idea of airbags. For many of the sorts of reasons we are hearing from you and little joe. It wont help, they might go off accidentaly and the solution is worse than the cure, people wont use their seatbelts, its too expensive and so on. That all changed when chrysler went out on a limb and started putting in airbags. Then two chrysler lebarons topped a hill and hit each other head on at 55 mph. Both cars had airbags. Both drivers walked away.

But your idea is like making someone have to get a background check to buy a car, and then restrict cars to only move at 10MPH and be made out of rubber so drunk drivers can't hurt anyone.

We wont know if restrictions on the sort of weapon the ar15 is will help until we try. AFAIK, we have not been in a society with monthly mass shootings made possible by semi automatics ever until now. To try and to fail would be far better than to just accept this is the way things must be.

Jim

See above.

[rogue06]

Speaking of which next week I'm going to be participating in a bacon tasting survey or test put on by Smithfield and get paid somewhere between $25 and $35 to do it.


Life is good.

It was $35 and they indicated we would have all the bacon we could eat.

They never saw me eat bacon

[Sparko]

It was $35 and they indicated we would have all the bacon we could eat.

They never saw me eat bacon

You only ate two pieces, didn't you?

[rogue06]

You only ate two pieces, didn't you?

When I finished the last of it I asked if they would be bringing more out and they responded no. I told them that it was supposed to be all the bacon you can eat to which they replied that it was all that any reasonable person could eat. I smiled broadly and said, oh so we're adding an asterisk to it now.

[Sparko]

When I finished the last of it I asked if they would be bringing more out and they responded no. I told them that it was supposed to be all the bacon you can eat to which they replied that it was all that any reasonable person could eat. I smiled broadly and said, oh so we're adding an asterisk to it now.

They ran out because I was in the kitchen.