Ideas on how to curb mass shootings.

[WorldofWarcraft]

What do you mean?
You can ask some of the sane conservative posters and they'll tell you I have for quite awhile posted that I don't support most gun control efforts. I think such efforts are largely irrelevant to existing (albeit diminishing) crime problems.


Of course it would be a big deal. I don't know what you're trying to get at.

What do you mean you don't get it? There's a huge fucking improvement in the decline of crime in general and people are still crying. They don't see the decline in crime, they only hear what's on TV and THINK things are actually getting worse. It doesn't matter how few murders they are, the people that are against guns will ALWAYS push for more gun control, will ALWAYS be on the media blowing up the situation out of proportion to garner an emotional response so they can get their shit legislated.

 

[UpaLoompa]

What do you mean you don't get it? There's a huge fucking improvement in the decline of crime in general and people are still crying. They don't see the decline in crime, they only hear what's on TV and THINK things are actually getting worse. It doesn't matter how few murders they are, the people that are against guns will ALWAYS push for more gun control, will ALWAYS be on the media blowing up the situation out of proportion to garner an emotional response so they can get their shit legislated.

Oh, I had no idea what you were getting at. Media coverage of crime is always sensationalist and always will be. That has little to nothing to do with pushing for gun control.

It is not one sided either, the same type of hysteria drives gun sales. Anyone want to guess what this summer's new "urban youth" crime menace is going to be? Last year we had the KO game. The year before that we had roaming flash mobs. The fact that KO game incidents were all pretty isolated incidents and often unattributed reposting was irrelevant. Simple manufacture moral panic.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Doesn

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

If it was catholics it was certainly after they partook of cannibalism.

I recently had to go to a Baptism for my niece. During the ritual (which I use over the word ceremony, because it is more accurate I think) the preacher was speaking about this 6 month old baby and of her sins about to be cleansed. A fucking 6 month old baby.

It made me fucking sick. That's what religion does to people. I cannot stand how the religious talk about morality when they are the ones with much to answer for. Talking to that "sinful baby"... what crimes that baby must have committed screaming for her mothers milk or for a diaper change. Damn that baby, we must speak words over it and dip it into water so as to be cleansed. Disgusting.

Hitchens said it best. Religion preaches that we as a human species are created sick and then commanded to be well. Even the babies. Religion truly does make otherwise good and decent people say and do wicked things.

 

[James Keith]

Why do you think the right to freedom isn't important?

I think it's very important.

I support the 2nd amendment but I'd much rather they ban a few guns ...

Why do YOU think the right to freedom isn't important?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think it's very important.


Why do YOU think the right to freedom isn't important?

I don't think they should ban guns or preemptively lock people up, both of those are terrible knee jerk solutions to miniscule problems but the latter is scarier to me.

 

[James Keith]

I don't think they should ban guns or preemptively lock people up, both of those are terrible knee jerk solutions to miniscule problems but the latter is scarier to me.

Depends how you look at it. In one case a small percentage of people are potentially mistreated. In the other case the entire country is converted into an institution so everyone is mistreated.

Anyway my point was rhetorical. People (such as that family member) accuse the NRA and right wingers of blocking measures to protect us from dangerous crazy people. But if we actually know they're dangerous it needn't be a debate about gun laws at all.

 

[Hadron]

You're probably trolling but I agree.

Mass shootings didnt happen like this in America 40 years ago. Back then kids would bring their rifles to school and work on them in shop class. Back then you could buy a rifle at the local hardware store and there wasn't a background check. Yet, with all the guns around and the easy access we didnt see the violence we have today.

Whats different?

Societal decay.


.

Why woudl you think I am trolling? In fact, it says alot about the state of society that suggesting kids watch less sex and violence, stop spending 4 hours a day on average playing war shooters, and to get involved in a church group is considered "trolling".

 

[Islam Imamate]

Depends how you look at it. In one case a small percentage of people are potentially mistreated. In the other case the entire country is converted into an institution so everyone is mistreated.

There's potential for abuse don't you think? Just as the government could abuse an unarmed populace they could also essentially imprison whoever they wish if they could ock up crazy people who have yet t do anything by paying off the right psychiatrists. I don't think either is likely and the government already can indefinitely detain people but I wouldn't want them having another tool to do so. Even if it wasn't abused its still possible people would be unjustly deprived of their freedom because some people are unreasonably afraid of loons.

Anyway my point was rhetorical. People (such as that family member) accuse the NRA and right wingers of blocking measures to protect us from dangerous crazy people. But if we actually know they're dangerous it needn't be a debate about gun laws at all.

Not that I agree its sufficient justification for gun control but the argument is dangerous crazy people are less dangerous without guns. Again, its a knee jerk reaction and not reall helpful IMO.

 

[James Keith]

There's potential for abuse don't you think? Just as the government could abuse an unarmed populace they could also essentially imprison whoever they wish if they could ock up crazy people who have yet t do anything by paying off the right psychiatrists. I don't think either is likely and the government already can indefinitely detain people but I wouldn't want them having another tool to do so. Even if it wasn't abused its still possible people would be unjustly deprived of their freedom because some people are unreasonably afraid of loons.

That potential already exists and such cases already happen. I don't think anyone is actually 100% opposed to involuntary commitment.

Not that I agree its sufficient justification for gun control but the argument is dangerous crazy people are less dangerous without guns. Again, its a knee jerk reaction and not reall helpful IMO.

It's a right. Either you have sufficient justification for taking rights away or you don't.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That potential already exists and such cases already happen. I don't think anyone is actually 100% opposed to involuntary commitment.

Is there already involuntary commitment for individuals who have yet to do anything? I know its used on individuals who attempt suicide and for the criminally insane but as far as I know you can't get committed against your will unless you've already done something or plan to.

It's a right. Either you have sufficient justification for taking rights away or you don't.

I don't think its fair to take away gun rights based on a few exceptions just as it isn't fair to take away someone's freedom based on an a few exceptions.

 

[ruthless robert]

I made a statement that if more good and responsible citizens were armed it would help curve violent crime and mass shootings. Some people seem to think that by arming good and responsible citizens automatically makes them bad and irresponsible. Some people seem to think that there will be blood in the streets after every fender bender.

It's funny how libs seem to think good people turn bad when they have a gun. The truth is people would actually be more friendly and courteous and it's because people will have an understanding that there could be repercussions for being a dick.

To say that when people are armed it automatically makes them evil bastards would be equivalent to saying that Cain, Jones, Anderson, Weidman, and Hendricks all beat the hell out of people if someone accidentally bumps into them in a crowded area.

If people knew that if they did someone wrong it could result in them getting shot and possibly dying then they think twice and halt their violence because it would be stopped rather quickly by someone fighting back.

Kinda like if you took a big bully from a college football team, does anyone think this bully would pick on Cain Velasquez??? Hell no..... but the bully wouldn't hesitate to pick on a band nerd....... why is that?

Repercussions

Same reason, if I put a sign in my yard that said "Protected by Smith and Wesson and a German Shepard" then the neighbor put a sign in their yard saying "Ban all guns, this home is protected by my poodle"...... if you're a criminal scoping out there area which home are you going to pick to break into?

Repercussions halt bad behavior, and the few times it doesn't well then we just cleansed society of a violent piece of scum that doesn't deserve to be in our society anyways....

.

 

[James Keith]

Is there already involuntary commitment for individuals who have yet to do anything? I know its used on individuals who attempt suicide and for the criminally insane but as far as I know you can't get committed against your will unless you've already done something or plan to.

It is decided by the state. Some are much stricter about it than others. And generally it would be decided based on some kind of evaluation of the level of risk, not just a smoking gun or evidence of planning etc. Those latter cases are for criminal charges.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It is decided by the state. Some are much stricter about it than others. And generally it would be decided based on some kind of evaluation of the level of risk, not just a smoking gun or evidence of planning etc. Those latter cases are for criminal charges.

Huh, never heard of that. Which state involuntary commits people who haven't done anything yet?

 

[elmo_1968]

I'm denying the way violent crimes are studied as a statistic. I don't believe the manipulators such as government officials and politicians.

The U.K. and other countries have changed their definition of violent crime to get their statistics down. This is nothing more than creative accounting cooking the books.

I don't care to read statistics because you can get 5 different groups to bring up 5 different stats and none of them will match.

What I can tell you is that 99% of people in prison are multiple time offenders, which tells me that our judicial system is broken. I can also say that our prisons are overflowing, which tells me there's a huge problem there.

.

So you dismiss all of the world's statistics and then offer one of your own, without any source. Arrogance is not knowledge.

Homicides are down, but I guess law enforcement has simply changed its definition of "dead". Divorce is likewise down, but those were probably just labelled "really sad breakups".

If we need any statistics, RR will make them up for us. I don't see what could go wrong.

 

[dza76wutang]

I recently had to go to a Baptism for my niece. During the ritual (which I use over the word ceremony, because it is more accurate I think) the preacher was speaking about this 6 month old baby and of her sins about to be cleansed. A fucking 6 month old baby.

It made me fucking sick. That's what religion does to people. I cannot stand how the religious talk about morality when they are the ones with much to answer for. Talking to that "sinful baby"... what crimes that baby must have committed screaming for her mothers milk or for a diaper change. Damn that baby, we must speak words over it and dip it into water so as to be cleansed. Disgusting.

Hitchens said it best. Religion preaches that we as a human species are created sick and then commanded to be well. Even the babies. Religion truly does make otherwise good and decent people say and do wicked things.

Dude, c'mon, I'm no fan of religion but the "sin" is original sin, something humans are born with due to the falling out between God and the original humans. Lots of religions have a "baptism" or "cleansing" type of ritual, Catholics just happen to do theirs to babies.

Of all the things to take issue with this one seems a bit excessive.

 

[ruthless robert]

So you dismiss all of the world's statistics and then offer one of your own, without any source. Arrogance is not knowledge.

Homicides are down, but I guess law enforcement has simply changed its definition of "dead". Divorce is likewise down, but those were probably just labelled "really sad breakups".

If we need any statistics, RR will make them up for us. I don't see what could go wrong.

#1 I was asked my opinion

#2 You can take a liberal news site and the NRA, have them run statistics on gun crime and you will find that neither of their statistics match, now why is that? I dont trust stats because most if not all have special interest in what they're giving stats on, especially the government.

#3 Divorce is down compared to last year or 50 years ago? That 2 different answers, not one in the same.

Divorce, teen pregnancy, swearing/cussing, violent lyrics in music, etc. etc. all used to seen as bad and the people doing this were shunned from society like a cleanse of society. Today these actions are normal and society is conditioned to it as normal. Thats a problem and further proves societal decay.

.

 

[UpaLoompa]

So, teen pregnancy is pretty low now. It is however less stigmatized. That's worse than it being far more common but heavily stigmatized. What you're effectively saying is that actions matter less than the perception of those actions. That's... odd.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So, teen pregnancy is pretty low now. It is however less stigmatized. That's worse than it being far more common but heavily stigmatized. What you're effectively saying is that actions matter less than the perception of those actions. That's... odd.

What if we gave out condoms, educated aaaannnd stigmatized those who still fucked it up? You think the rates would do what?

 

[elmo_1968]

#1 I was asked my opinion

#2 You can take a liberal news site and the NRA, have them run statistics on gun crime and you will find that neither of their statistics match, now why is that? I dont trust stats because most if not all have special interest in what they're giving stats on, especially the government.

SInce you haven't given any links there is no way for me to explain the discrepancy. Maybe they're reporting on different things, maybe one is lying.

Have you run across any source that says homicide is not down since the 1990s? Or one that says divorce is not down since the 1980s? Please share them with us.

#3 Divorce is down compared to last year or 50 years ago? That 2 different answers, not one in the same.

Correct, they may or may not be the same. It has declined from about 1980 to 2005 and appears to be flat since then.

Divorce, teen pregnancy, swearing/cussing, violent lyrics in music, etc. etc. all used to seen as bad and the people doing this were shunned from society like a cleanse of society. Today these actions are normal and society is conditioned to it as normal. Thats a problem and further proves societal decay.

.

That is your opinion and I don't see what it has to do w/ statistics.