Another mass casualty event

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

@DieChecker

Of course it prevents something. More frequent reloading can give victims the needed seconds to get away. While you reload your gun, you are not shooting. 

I do agree in theory. Rather then firing, say 100 rounds, in 1 minute, it will now take 2 minutes. So, I do agree that it MAY save lives. But the Texas Church shooter emptied 15 magazines inside that building and pausing to reload (14 times) didn't save a single soul.

Edited November 17, 2017 by DieChecker

[Gunn]

5 hours ago, third_eye said:

~

~

I think the points raised here neglects the intent, skill or level of training of the one pulling the trigger ...
 

 

Yeah you're right there, Third_Eye, that does factor in as well.

 

2 hours ago, FLOMBIE said:

I have no real argument? What don't you understand about the difference of a 30 round magazine and two 10 round magazines? 

Your methods could be used anyway. Then you would have two 30 round magazines taped together, and compare that to two 10 round magazines. Same, same. It is you who has no argument. Your methods do not negate anything I have said. Smaller magazines mean you have to reload more often; which results in less shooting. 

Okay why do you keep going back to that? Pointing out the difference in magazine capacities and the few second delays when switching between magazines equals less shooting? I already agreed to that in post 443, which is not what I was making my argument about. As a matter of fact, exactly where in any of my posts, word for word, did I say that it did not equal less shooting time? Where in any of my posts did I say there wasn't a difference, word for word, between a 30 round clip and a 10 round clip?

And again, I'll say it and I'll keep on saying it - Overall, none of that matters if the shooter drops his rifle (after emptying the magazine in the rifle of course) and pulls out another weapon on hand, like one or two pistols (it don't have to be rifles BTW), and continues shooting, therefore - he circumvented the whole purpose of decreasing the casualties with just the one 10 round magazine limitation by instantly switching to another gun, thus saving time reloading or switching clips in the rifle. What don't you understand about that?

That has been my point (which still stands) since your second post to me and I gave you a counter scenario with the pistol as backup if someone was to jump up and run, but you keep on reverting back to your obvious point above, in which for some reason, you keep thinking I'm arguing against the limitations of a single 10 round clip and how long it takes to reload the damn things. As a matter of fact, I said in my very first post to you that it would probably take only 2 and half seconds (if not more) to switch clips and pull back the bolt, even if two of them are taped together. 

I don't get you, man. It's like we're having two different kinds of arguments here at the same time. It's like you are not reading my posts very well or you're misinterpreting my posts to what you think I meant.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Purifier

[aztek]

10 hours ago, Kismit said:

Now I can see where the appeal comes from for the mass shooter. There is a definite ability to customize it for a desired kill and carnage ratio.

yea, and many other uses not related to human killing,  but i guess one sees what he wants to see

[Myles]

14 hours ago, Kismit said:

I'm about to discuss this from my own cultural point of view. I collect books and records, I have a few rare release notes and coins, I also have a few antique bottles. 

I  can see the reason for collecting something like a flintlock pistol as investment but I don't see what an AR-15 has to offer in terms of resale value, unless there is a good chance they will be outlawed and therefore a short run.

The supply and demand model for resale is a strange thing for me to understand, who will be looking to collect these later? Other collectors? That is an economy in itself, that to me is quite strange to understand. 

We have gun collectors here but they are more interested in rare guns. I don't know how common and AR is but I do know they seem to be the buzz word in current shooting cases. That sounds like they are quite common, like 10c pieces in a National economy.And in terms of collection that does not sound like a good return on investment.

If they are outlawed, and I think it is just a matter of time, I'd be able to wait a few years and sell them for 5 times what I bought them for.   There are people really into to guns and getting something in like new shape will appeal. 

I wouldn't say I'm a collector.   I have several guns, but mostly hand me downs or got them real cheap.  

[Kismit]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

If they are outlawed, and I think it is just a matter of time, I'd be able to wait a few years and sell them for 5 times what I bought them for.   There are people really into to guns and getting something in like new shape will appeal. 

I wouldn't say I'm a collector.   I have several guns, but mostly hand me downs or got them real cheap.  

Do you have the option of doing a pre-check on someone who was really into guns?

As I have mentioned many times we own Bullmastiffs, we gave breeding them a good because there is money to be made. However gang members like them but have to breed them with pitbulls to make them aggessive.  They like that pair breeding for dog fights. Agile and aggessive.  Also because not all people are responsible dog owners, we screened the new owners as thoroughly as we could. 

Sadly some of the puppies still did not go to good people. And  after discovering at least two who ended up with multiple owners and one that was farmed for puppies and money, we never did it again. 

So is it easier to screen a new owner of a gun?

[aztek]

we do screen people that are buying guns, it is called background check and it is mandatory in all states, for all dealers

Edited November 17, 2017 by aztek

[Kismit]

8 hours ago, aztek said:

yea, and many other uses not related to human killing,  but i guess one sees what he wants to see

I was talking in context of a mentally disturbed shooter. Not claiming that anyone who owns an AR likes them for the soul purpose of killing. 

In many mass shooter cases the shooter partakes in a fair amount of planning and preparation before hand. It's part of the event, psychologically speaking.

[Kismit]

7 minutes ago, aztek said:

we do screen people that are buying guns, it is called background check and it is mandatory in all states, for all dealers

And collectors? What is the process?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here I am genuinely interested.

You really would not want to be the guy who recognized a person you sold a gun to, as a mass shooter, especially if he used your old gun. I know I wouldn't. A certain level of prevention guilt would have to come with that.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

And collectors? What is the process?

 

same as with any other person. exsept for cops

Edited November 17, 2017 by aztek

[Kismit]

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

same as with any other person. exsept for cops

I don't know what that process is.

If you as a private collector wanted to sell a gun from your private collection to another private citizen how would you do that? Where do you advertise the sale? Are there restrictions with advertising? When initial contact is made how does the screening process begin? What training does a private citizen have to properly vet a future purchaser? Or is the process given over to a third party agency?

[aztek]

is the gun, that i want to sell registered to my name?

Edited November 17, 2017 by aztek

[Kismit]

23 minutes ago, aztek said:

is the gun, that i want to sell registered to my name?

What difference does that make? Is there a process where you could sell a gun registered to someone else? Can you break down both options for me?

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

What difference does that make? Is there a process where you could sell a gun registered to someone else? Can you break down both options for me?

i can't sell a gun registered to someone else, legally that  is. not really an option,

but it is really simple concept, if i want to sell a gun that  i have registered to my name, naturally i want it off my name, so i will go to dealer and go thru transfer process, and  that requires background check. even at gun shows, BC is ran. i've gone to gun shows for over 20 years, i never seen anyone selling guns with no paperwork, no bc checks.

if i have gun that is not registered, well as far as law is concerned that gun does not exist, nor i own it

when you sell a car do you run driving record check on the buyer?  they may have a history of DUI.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by aztek

[rodentraiser]

On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:51 AM, DieChecker said:

Hummm..... So.... a solution? I agree that bringing in the Army and collecting all guns would work, but that's just going to start a race-war, or perhaps a civil war with gun owners on one side and the government on the other. One of the problems with your "kill everyone that shoots a gun", mentality is that often the bullets seem to come out of no where, and no one "saw" anything, and no one ever gets arrested. So, that would just be another dead end extreme law that did very little.

Solution? Since most victims and most of those who commit gun violence, in mass shootings, are minorities, maybe we should ban gun ownership to minorities?

What needs to considered is not the Statistics and react to them, but what the context of those mass murders is and try to prevent that. Trying to prevent guns getting to criminals is like using a bucket a scoop at a time to save the Titanic, it just isn't going to float. Prevent those kids from becoming gangsters and criminals is what I think we should try. That would be a majority of those murders taken care of right there. Those who say we can emulate Australia, or the UK, are not considering that the issue in the US is cultural, in that it is a toxic sub culture that glorifies drugs, crime and money, that is the main channel of most mass murders.

The problem with taking 100% of the guns is that 99.9% of gun owners never have any issue and never fire a shot at anyone. So, we punish 99.9% (of 100 Million people) because we want to save 0.001% of the population from 0.0001% of the people?

Well, let me ask you, if one of those .001% of the population was your son, or your mother, or your spouse, do you think it would take on a different meaning for  you? Have you read anything about the people of Tahema, most of whom are living below the poverty level and many of whom are now facing astronomical hospital bills related to the shooting there? And by the way, anyone have any idea how many shootings there's been since Vegas now?

I have to say something about pit bills. First off, I owned a Doberman when everyone thought they turned on their owners. This was a time when people walking their loose pit bulls would call them in and leash them if I turned up with my Doberman. LOL

At the time, the Doberman was #2 in AKC breed popularity and the parent club, the Doberman Club of America, was very concerned about the number of bad breedings and reputation the dogs had. They did whatever they could to discourage the ownership of Dobermans simply because too many unstable individuals were getting their hands on them and breeding unstable dogs.

The big problem with pit bulls today is the breed is NOT recognized by the AKC (although the AmStaff is) and so the dogs really don't have an advocate for good breeding. Yet, like Dobermans in the 70s, many pit bulls today are owned and bred by unstable individuals who have no idea of the genetics needed to produce a pit bull temperamentally or physically sound that can fit into today's society. If someone wants a purebred dog, I always tell them to find a dedicated breeder (different from a back yard breeder) and get a dog from them. With pit bulls, I'm not sure there are any dedicated breeders around. Lots of backyard breeders, but someone who is breeding for health and temperament? Not that I know of.

The other thing to keep in mind is something called "sudden rage syndrome". I hear it can be a problem in bull terriers (look it up on Youtube) and pit bulls came from the same lines bull terriers did. Because pit bulls aren't AKC registered and because they don't seem to have a parent club to research it, I'm wondering if the sudden rage syndrome that affects bull terriers can also affect pit bulls. Pit bulls and bull terriers aren't my breed and I simply don't know enough about them to say anything more about this.

I will say, back in the 80s in San Jose, I took my Doberman to a temperament testing event put on by the Northern California Pit Bull Association. There were a lot of dogs who didn't pass, including some Akitas and other dogs you'd think would come through in flying colors (yes, my Dobe passed and I have the certificate to prove it). However, a good number of pit bulls did pass the test and this is a prime example of how a group of people who are concerned for the health and temperament of their dogs can make a difference in how those dogs behave. It's doubly impressive when you realize that San Jose was (may still be) a hot bed of dog fighting with pit bulls and more than one child was killed in the city by a pit bull used for fighting.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long there.

As to collectors who like to collect guns, hey, I'm all for it. I collect tons of things (although not guns) and I can surely understand the draw of getting a collection of items together. Any collection like that is a thing of beauty and again, I say it's a shame that responsible gun owners are paying the price for a few lunatics.

Edited November 18, 2017 by rodentraiser

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, rodentraiser said:

Well, let me ask you, if one of those .001% of the population was your son, or your mother, or your spouse, do you think it would take on a different meaning for  you? Have you read anything about the people of Tahema, most of whom are living below the poverty level and many of whom are now facing astronomical hospital bills related to the shooting there? And by the way, anyone have any idea how many shootings there's been since Vegas now?

What would I say? I'd say that it was horrible, but they were killed by a person, not a gun. The person goes to jail, not the gun.

My dad shot himself in the foot with his .223, ironically teaching us gun safety, and guess what? He didn't get rid of his guns, or blame the gun. He blamed himself, for being careless with his gun.

The people of the recent Texas shooting, AFAIK, have had numerous online aid accounts set up. The generosity of the Religious Gun Nuts is legendary. 

How many shootings and how many of them in Chicago.....

[rodentraiser]

Of course anyone shot would have been killed by a person with a gun and not the gun itself, but if the person using the gun should not have gotten hold of it, I'm not sure I'd be as calm as all that. It's the same premise as with a drunk driver running over a member of my family. Obviously, the car didn't kill anyone. But I'd be far less bitter about a regular car accident (tire blowout, driver having a heart attack, etc) killing someone I loved than I'd be about a drunk driver having multiple DUI convictions and still managing to be freed from jail and getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again and this time killing someone.

And I'm not questioning the generosity of anyone, gun owner or not. I just want to focus on the fact that with the number of guns around, too many people who shouldn't have one, have one. I could just as easily say: "Religion doesn't kill people. People with religion kill people" but as much as I dislike religion, I know perfectly well that many religious groups are the catalyst for giving to their friends and neighbors. I even volunteered with a church that does this annually. Yet that doesn't change the fact that while some church goers are the perfect poster people for being generous, others will still kill in the name if their religion if they take notion to.

It's just not as easy to do that without a gun, though.

[jugoso]

On 11/5/2017 at 2:29 PM, Lilly said:

My opinion is that it's a change in culture generated by Hollywood's violent movies, violent video games, tolerance of violent gang activity and certain illegal drug use leading to violent behavior.

You forgot to mention the dreaded violent music..... I remember when Marilyn Manson became the scapegoat of Columbine.... I think his response is bang-on.             

 

 

[ChrLzs]

On 11/18/2017 at 7:12 AM, aztek said:

when you sell a car do you run driving record check on the buyer?  they may have a history of DUI.

Um, is that meant to be a useful analogy???  Seriously?

[aztek]

Just now, ChrLzs said:

Um, is that meant to be a useful analogy???  Seriously?

it defiantly was not meant for your limited understanding., move along, nothing to see here,

Edited November 22, 2017 by aztek

[Paranormal Panther]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

it defiantly was not meant for your limited understanding., move along, nothing to see here,

Don't accept the status quo. Be defiant!

[+DieChecker]

On 11/19/2017 at 1:42 AM, rodentraiser said:

Of course anyone shot would have been killed by a person with a gun and not the gun itself, but if the person using the gun should not have gotten hold of it, I'm not sure I'd be as calm as all that. It's the same premise as with a drunk driver running over a member of my family. Obviously, the car didn't kill anyone. But I'd be far less bitter about a regular car accident (tire blowout, driver having a heart attack, etc) killing someone I loved than I'd be about a drunk driver having multiple DUI convictions and still managing to be freed from jail and getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again and this time killing someone.

And I'm not questioning the generosity of anyone, gun owner or not. I just want to focus on the fact that with the number of guns around, too many people who shouldn't have one, have one. I could just as easily say: "Religion doesn't kill people. People with religion kill people" but as much as I dislike religion, I know perfectly well that many religious groups are the catalyst for giving to their friends and neighbors. I even volunteered with a church that does this annually. Yet that doesn't change the fact that while some church goers are the perfect poster people for being generous, others will still kill in the name if their religion if they take notion to.

It's just not as easy to do that without a gun, though.

It is true that if there were less guns, there would be less gun deaths. But, like you said, this is true of a wide range of items, situation and people. Myself, I think gun ownership is worth the lives that result from that ownership... In the long run. Some feel that those lives matter more, and I generally try to hold those people to that same standard on so many other fronts. It seems hypocritical to demand the banning of guns, were way less then 1% of them are ever involved in a death, while turning a blind eye to so many other things that kill people. 

[Likely Guy]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is true that if there were less guns, there would be less gun deaths. But, like you said, this is true of a wide range of items, situation and people. Myself, I think gun ownership is worth the lives that result from that ownership... In the long run. Some feel that those lives matter more, and I generally try to hold those people to that same standard on so many other fronts. It seems hypocritical to demand the banning of guns, were way less then 1% of them are ever involved in a death, while turning a blind eye to so many other things that kill people. 

Turning a blind eye? If that were the case there would be no seat belt laws, or helmet laws for motorcycles or crack downs on drunk driving, etc.

We have "vehicle controls" that have reduced unnecessary deaths.

[rodentraiser]

17 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is true that if there were less guns, there would be less gun deaths. But, like you said, this is true of a wide range of items, situation and people. Myself, I think gun ownership is worth the lives that result from that ownership... In the long run. Some feel that those lives matter more, and I generally try to hold those people to that same standard on so many other fronts. It seems hypocritical to demand the banning of guns, were way less then 1% of them are ever involved in a death, while turning a blind eye to so many other things that kill people. 

Hmmm...I wonder. There are approximately 32,000 people a year killed by guns in the US, and more young Americans die from gunfire than they do in automobile crashes now. So can anyone prove more than 32,000 people a year are being saved by using a gun? That would be the justification for not banning them.

The thing with guns, though, is even one of them can kill so many people. It's why airliner crashes resonate with us more than car crashes do. You can have a car crash and there may be some hope of coming out if it alive. But when a Boeing 747 crashes from 37,000 feet, your chances of survival are pretty much nil. In other words, it only takes one airliner to kill almost the same amount of people as in about 50 to 60 car crashes. You don't have to have multiple airliners dropping out of the sky to have a large kill impact.

Same with guns. One person with a gun can kill multiple people in one go, compared to how many people can be killed with say, a knife or a club. And as for banning other things that kill people, many cities are still trying to ban pit bulls, and they kill far fewer people than guns do.

It still comes down to a personal level, though. If your child or your spouse were the one killed in a plane accident, you'd want to know why and you'd want to make them safer. If a pit bull killed your child, you'd want to get rid of them so no other child would ever get killed. Yet people are having us believe that if their child were killed by a gunshot, that's just collateral damage because we can't do anything about it. And what's even worse, a plane accident and a dog killing a child can be just that - an accident. Someone shooting someone else deliberately is no accident.

 

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Turning a blind eye? If that were the case there would be no seat belt laws, or helmet laws for motorcycles or crack downs on drunk driving, etc.

We have "vehicle controls" that have reduced unnecessary deaths.

Reduced, but not eliminated? The argument against guns is to eliminate deaths for an item that is unnecessary in this day and age. 

Couldn't this argument be used with cars? That the government would provide transportation, just as the government provides guns (military/police)? If the government provided all transportation, such as buses/trains/ferries, then deaths due to drunk drivers and otherwise accidental deaths would plummet dramatically. Or, if we simply made owning a car as hard as owning a gun is in the UK, or Australia? That would require whomever owned one to be exceedingly competent, rich, or willing to jump all the hoops.

Point being, more gun control would be the same as more vehicle regulation. Ultimately you need to ask where the Diminishing Returns are at.

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

Hmmm...I wonder. There are approximately 32,000 people a year killed by guns in the US, and more young Americans die from gunfire than they do in automobile crashes now. So can anyone prove more than 32,000 people a year are being saved by using a gun? That would be the justification for not banning them.

The thing with guns, though, is even one of them can kill so many people. It's why airliner crashes resonate with us more than car crashes do. You can have a car crash and there may be some hope of coming out if it alive. But when a Boeing 747 crashes from 37,000 feet, your chances of survival are pretty much nil. In other words, it only takes one airliner to kill almost the same amount of people as in about 50 to 60 car crashes. You don't have to have multiple airliners dropping out of the sky to have a large kill impact.

Same with guns. One person with a gun can kill multiple people in one go, compared to how many people can be killed with say, a knife or a club. And as for banning other things that kill people, many cities are still trying to ban pit bulls, and they kill far fewer people than guns do.

It still comes down to a personal level, though. If your child or your spouse were the one killed in a plane accident, you'd want to know why and you'd want to make them safer. If a pit bull killed your child, you'd want to get rid of them so no other child would ever get killed. Yet people are having us believe that if their child were killed by a gunshot, that's just collateral damage because we can't do anything about it. And what's even worse, a plane accident and a dog killing a child can be just that - an accident. Someone shooting someone else deliberately is no accident.

 

Well, a pit bull is essentially the Rocket Launcher of the dog world. Do I promote everyone being able to own grenades, rocket launchers and machine guns? Nope. Those need to be controlled. A more apt comparison would be that pit bulls kill a bunch of toddlers at a a birthday party, so there's a promotion of a national ban on DOGS. Even though less then 1% of all dogs ever bit anyone at all. Is it fair to ban all dogs, because a segment of them is killing more then they should? AND... Is it the pit bull's fault, or is it the criminal/gang mentality they often are pulled into that is the problem? Is the issue with guns actually an issue with guns, or is it a issue with culture, or specifically a criminal/gang oriented sub-culture? 

Even Australia has gun deaths every year. It is about 1/10th what the US has, and there are roughly 1/5th the number of guns per citizen there also. So, that, to me, indicates that either deaths go up at a greater rate as compared to gun ownership. Maybe at an exponential rate. OR, it means that there are other factors, such as culture, involved with why people are killed by guns. I think it is the latter, while it feels like the Left tries to say it is the former.

It is True that individuals, when such tragedies happen, often go on Crusades against the cause of their pain, but this is true of lots of things, even things like Marijuana, recalled furniture, and school curriculums. I'm not saying that even doing so is Bad. It has its place and such people are necessary overall to bring safety and awareness of issues forward. But, ultimately if a kid dies in a pot related way, does that mean pot needs to be banned? Or, does it simply mean the situation needs to be considered in as many ways as possible and fixes found for Any Major issues that caused it? 

Otherwise how could you have nations like Venezuela and Honduras, where gun ownership is 1/10th to 1/20th the US average and yet 5 to 6 times as many people (as in the US) are being killed (per 100,000) by guns? The answer is that deaths and gun ownership is not a linear correlation. It is a cultural correlation.

I'd like to think that if my kid had anything happen to them, that I'd evaluate what happened and not just knee jerk start shouting for a Ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Edited November 25, 2017 by DieChecker