OT: Shooting in Oregon Mall

[elocomotive]

How am I being condescending. I provided links to research. I am an Epidemiologist. This is kind of exactly what I do for a living. I wish gun control could help. Evidence says.....it doesn't. Sorry.

Someone provided a link earlier in this thread about how it has worked in Japan. You are essentially discounting that in it's entirely and said it won't work here. That is short-sighted and not very imaginative. Not to mention a TON of other nations where gun control can and does work. We can't change that because why? We've always loved guns? We always treated black people like shit until 60 years ago, but that changed, didn't it? Social attitudes can change. Events such as this often catalyze that change.

I studied public policy, sociology, and the law for 7 years. I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I also have common sense. Let's play the scenario game..

What if this Connecticut fucker's mom had to wait a year to get a gun. And she had said, "fuck it, it's not worth it, I won't buy a gun." The homicide's you are talking about with the 'people will find a way to get one logic' applies mostly to criminals, and hard criminals at that. A lot of people who buy guns now might not or might fail the background check or psych check or whatever would come along with more restrictions. That's less guns out there. Then instead, maybe this psycho just stabs his mom one night and that's the end of it. Maybe she even survives and nobody dies.

I agree with you to an extent. Guns, terrorism, etc. If the person wants to kill you, they will find a way. But many crimes are crimes of convenience. The number one method to preventing your house from being robbed isn't to own a gun. It's to lock your door. You increase your risk of being robbed at night by something like 900% (can't remember the exact number, read it years ago) by just LOCKING your door. So while a gangster selling heroine is gonna get a piece from somewhere, Sally Soccer Mom might not. And less guns readily available mean less gun accidents, less guns stolen to be used for crimes, and lower stakes in violent situations. Guns up the ante, ironically while lowering the sense of responsibility of power in one's hands. So less guns out there is positive. The responsible gun owner saving the day is the exception, while violence and devastation of innocent lives is the rule with more guns.

 

[evolver115]

Just remember that the people who disagree with you have the same level of concern as you, ok?

Did u ever see me speak otherwise in regards to that? I don't believe I have. I stood up for my opinion earlier when it was questioned, but that is about as far as I went.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Someone provided a link earlier in this thread about how it has worked in Japan. You are essentially discounting that in it's entirely and said it won't work here. That is short-sighted and not very imaginative. Not to mention a TON of other nations where gun control can and does work. We can't change that because why? We've always loved guns? We always treated black people like shit until 60 years ago, but that changed, didn't it? Social attitudes can change. Events such as this often catalyze that change.

I studied public policy, sociology, and the law for 7 years. I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I also have common sense. Let's play the scenario game..

What if this Connecticut fucker's mom had to wait a year to get a gun. And she had said, "fuck it, it's not worth it, I won't buy a gun." The homicide's you are talking about with the 'people will find a way to get one logic' applies mostly to criminals, and hard criminals at that. A lot of people who buy guns now might not or might fail the background check or psych check or whatever would come along with more restrictions. That's less guns out there. Then instead, maybe this psycho just stabs his mom one night and that's the end of it. Maybe she even survives and nobody dies.

I agree with you to an extent. Guns, terrorism, etc. If the person wants to kill you, they will find a way. But many crimes are crimes of convenience. The number one method to preventing your house from being robbed isn't to own a gun. It's to lock your door. You increase your risk of being robbed at night by something like 900% (can't remember the exact number, read it years ago) by just LOCKING your door. So while a gangster selling heroine is gonna get a piece from somewhere, Sally Soccer Mom might not. And less guns readily available mean less gun accidents, less guns stolen to be used for crimes, and lower stakes in violent situations. Guns up the ante, ironically while lowering the sense of responsibility of power in one's hands. So less guns out there is positive. The responsible gun owner saving the day is the exception, while violence and devastation of innocent lives is the rule with more guns.

Didn't we have a Boston Bruins fan from the Hoop save a woman and himself by having a gun on his person?

Not being a smartass with my comment. I am very tired and just skimming people's posts tonight. I can't really concentrate concentrate on anything tonight.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Did u ever see me speak otherwise in regards to that? I don't believe I have. I stood up for my opinion earlier when it was questioned, but that is about as far as I went.

That's fine, but whenever I read someone say "fuck you" I shut off. Doesn't matter the context.

 

[dare2be]

Background checks are not enough. Think of the other deadly weapon widely used in this country, automobiles. You can own a car, but you can't legally operate it without passing a written and physical test on safety and operation. Guns should have the same requirement for an operator's license.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Anyway, night everyone. I've had enough of this day.

 

[Darkstone42]

Someone provided a link earlier in this thread about how it has worked in Japan. You are essentially discounting that in it's entirely and said it won't work here. That is short-sighted and not very imaginative. Not to mention a TON of other nations where gun control can and does work. We can't change that because why? We've always loved guns? We always treated black people like shit until 60 years ago, but that changed, didn't it? Social attitudes can change. Events such as this often catalyze that change.

I studied public policy, sociology, and the law for 7 years. I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I also have common sense. Let's play the scenario game..

What if this Connecticut fucker's mom had to wait a year to get a gun. And she had said, "fuck it, it's not worth it, I won't buy a gun." The homicide's you are talking about with the 'people will find a way to get one logic' applies mostly to criminals, and hard criminals at that. A lot of people who buy guns now might not or might fail the background check or psych check or whatever would come along with more restrictions. That's less guns out there. Then instead, maybe this psycho just stabs his mom one night and that's the end of it. Maybe she even survives and nobody dies.

I agree with you to an extent. Guns, terrorism, etc. If the person wants to kill you, they will find a way. But many crimes are crimes of convenience. The number one method to preventing your house from being robbed isn't to own a gun. It's to lock your door. You increase your risk of being robbed at night by something like 900% (can't remember the exact number, read it years ago) by just LOCKING your door. So while a gangster selling heroine is gonna get a piece from somewhere, Sally Soccer Mom might not. And less guns readily available mean less gun accidents, less guns stolen to be used for crimes, and lower stakes in violent situations. Guns up the ante, ironically while lowering the sense of responsibility of power in one's hands. So less guns out there is positive. The responsible gun owner saving the day is the exception, while violence and devastation of innocent lives is the rule with more guns.

Japan's laws also include strictly enforced storage regulations. Making it mandatory to store guns in safes and ammo in separate safes would help a great deal, as well.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Someone provided a link earlier in this thread about how it has worked in Japan. You are essentially discounting that in it's entirely and said it won't work here. That is short-sighted and not very imaginative. Not to mention a TON of other nations where gun control can and does work. We can't change that because why? We've always loved guns? We always treated black people like shit until 60 years ago, but that changed, didn't it? Social attitudes can change. Events such as this often catalyze that change.

I studied public policy, sociology, and the law for 7 years. I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I also have common sense. Let's play the scenario game..

What if this Connecticut fucker's mom had to wait a year to get a gun. And she had said, "fuck it, it's not worth it, I won't buy a gun." The homicide's you are talking about with the 'people will find a way to get one logic' applies mostly to criminals, and hard criminals at that. A lot of people who buy guns now might not or might fail the background check or psych check or whatever would come along with more restrictions. That's less guns out there. Then instead, maybe this psycho just stabs his mom one night and that's the end of it. Maybe she even survives and nobody dies.

I agree with you to an extent. Guns, terrorism, etc. If the person wants to kill you, they will find a way. But many crimes are crimes of convenience. The number one method to preventing your house from being robbed isn't to own a gun. It's to lock your door. You increase your risk of being robbed at night by something like 900% (can't remember the exact number, read it years ago) by just LOCKING your door. So while a gangster selling heroine is gonna get a piece from somewhere, Sally Soccer Mom might not. And less guns readily available mean less gun accidents, less guns stolen to be used for crimes, and lower stakes in violent situations. Guns up the ante, ironically while lowering the sense of responsibility of power in one's hands. So less guns out there is positive. The responsible gun owner saving the day is the exception, while violence and devastation of innocent lives is the rule with more guns.

Does anyone know WHY the Mom bought the guns in the first place?

A lot of literature says a barking dog is about as good of a deterrent as you can get. On some level, I also blame the sensationalism of the story. I counter your scenario with this:

This kid never saw a week long of Columbine, and then VT, and then Auroroa. he didn't see Cho and Klebold etc.. all over TV for going out in a blaze of glory. He is still unstable, shoots his Mom and then himself. Unfortunately, I don;t think we can get the horse back in the barn on that one. I go back to my example of us being attacked in a bioterrorist event that sickened 700 people that I doubt most people even knew about. It happened in the 80s, so nobody remembers.

Once again, interesting scenario, but not very modifiable. I don't know the answer. I really don't. I know what has been tried and failed, and I know there is no silver bullet.

As far as the japan thing. I dismissed it but gave evidence as to why I did so.

 

[Darkstone42]

Background checks are not enough. Think of the other deadly weapon widely used in this country, automobiles. You can own a car, but you can't legally operate it without passing a written and physical test on safety and operation. Guns should have the same requirement for an operator's license.

You should have to go through a class (also part of Japan's legislation) and pass gun safety and marksmanship exams, both written and practical.

 

[evolver115]

That's fine, but whenever I read someone say "fuck you" I shut off. Doesn't matter the context.

Well I can assure you that reaction hasn't come from me in this thread, or probably any other thread in this forum not related to playoff hockey.

 

[evolver115]

Someone provided a link earlier in this thread about how it has worked in Japan.

That was me. I spent some time in Osaka as a younger man and the Japanese culture has always intrigued me. Especially when you consider how much our culture has influenced their own since 1945.

 

[elocomotive]

Didn't we have a Boston Bruins fan from the Hoop save a woman and himself by having a gun on his person?

One tale does not trump statistics. If you own a gun, you are more likely to die or be injured by a gun. You are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault if you have a gun. I think BF4L is an exceptional gun owner from all that he says in terms of care for his weapons, knowing how to use them, lock them up, etc. Most people don't do all that stuff and the vast majority of people would probably not have handled themselves in the situation he was in properly or well. Hell, even he said his heart was racing and he was exasperated afterwards.

 

[elocomotive]

Background checks are not enough. Think of the other deadly weapon widely used in this country, automobiles. You can own a car, but you can't legally operate it without passing a written and physical test on safety and operation. Guns should have the same requirement for an operator's license.

Plus you also have to have it's safety inspected regulary. Have your abilities re-tested periodically. And you have to be of a certain age to use it.

 

[dare2be]

That's fine, but whenever I read someone say "fuck you" I shut off. Doesn't matter the context.

I don't think it was evolver that said it.

 

[puckhead]

Japan's laws also include strictly enforced storage regulations. Making it mandatory to store guns in safes and ammo in separate safes would help a great deal, as well.

from the Atlantic story earlier

In 2008, the US had over 12,000 firearm-related homicides. Japan had 11.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

One tale does not trump statistics. If you own a gun, you are more likely to die or be injured by a gun. You are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault if you have a gun. I think BF4L is an exceptional gun owner from all that he says in terms of care for his weapons, knowing how to use them, lock them up, etc. Most people don't do all that stuff and the vast majority of people would probably not have handled themselves in the situation he was in properly or well. Hell, even he said his heart was racing and he was exasperated afterwards.

At the risk of sounding condescending again, if you own a gun, you are also more likely living in a situation that would lead you to be shot. People who own guns differ from those who do not in ways outside of simple gun ownership. It is called confounding. Now, i don't know where you got the stat from, but I wonder if they controlled for that.

Now curse me out, call me an ass and speak in extremes. I can take it.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

from the Atlantic story earlier

In 2008, the US had over 12,000 firearm-related homicides. Japan had 11.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that there is a problem with gun violence in America. There is. The disagreement seems to be in how to:

1. reduce the amount of available guns
2. keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable or criminally inclined
3. reduce overall gun deaths

 

[elocomotive]

...I know what has been tried and failed, and I know there is no silver bullet.

Bad colloquialism. Again, nobody thinks that gun control is a panacea, but regulation and restrictions can be used effectively in concert with other changes in policy.

I do agree with you that some of this is simply not preventable, but I think we always picture the evil home invader when we think of crime, when convenience and ease is often a much bigger motivator. Make the cost higher and the convenience lower, while simultaneously reducing the damage innocents due to themselves by owning guns, and you will see fewer gun deaths, even if it's a small amount.

 

[evolver115]

At the risk of sounding condescending again, if you own a gun, you are also more likely living in a situation that would lead you to be shot. People who own guns differ from those who do not in ways outside of simple gun ownership. It is called confounding. Now, i don't know where you got the stat from, but I wonder if they controlled for that.

Now curse me out, call me an ass and speak in extremes. I can take it.

Are you coming to this conclusion by thinking they could shoot themselves? Or be involved in an accident?

The guns I own, and have owned serve one purpose, and that is hunting. I don't see how that makes me more likely to be shot, other than accidentally. Many generations of my family have owned guns, and none of them have been shot in this country, or even shot at.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I am going to bed. I still love you eloco, and now that I am in town, we could be having this debate over whiskey and beer.