Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.

You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.

what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.

The recent Marseille knife attacker says Hi.

with his seven different identities in France, seems like he was a French citizen and not a refugee.

A naturalised French citizen who originally came from Africa. Refugees can become citizens.

 daedalus wrote:
I feel like I keep seeing the same argument no matter what happens when bad things happen:

"A bunch of people dying is terrible, but don't take our <noun> because that would only stop a tiny fraction of the issues for the amount of lives it would impact."

Well, part of the problem from the gun control end of it that it's usually pretty bad. If you look at gun violence as a whole, the great majority of death comes from handguns, but when politicians talk about ways to combat death from firearms it's usually poorly thought out legislation like the most recent Assault Weapons Ban, which banned stuff like bayonet lugs and flash hiders and barrel shrouds and pistol grips and other cosmetic features. It's easy to shoot down the idea of a political response when they keep bringing garbage to the table.

I think another little piece of it is that some Americans are wary of overreach, that we again will tilt our society strongly in a weird direction as an overreaction to a threat. The US moved the dial several notches towards a police state as a response to terrorism, which has killed less people in the last decade domestically than bee stings. The idea that we must now give up some more liberty doesn't play as well as it used to, and couple that with that loss of perceived liberty in service to some ineffective measures...

There is no mass shooting thread on this forum that will ever be a good thread because it's never going to be a good argument, and we've all done it so many times now. Even now, when some of the crapper posters have wandered off or been banned, it's just a difficult set of facts to work from. What is feasible politically is ineffective, and what is effective is politically infeasible.

 Ouze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I feel like I keep seeing the same argument no matter what happens when bad things happen:

"A bunch of people dying is terrible, but don't take our <noun> because that would only stop a tiny fraction of the issues for the amount of lives it would impact."

Well, part of the problem from the gun control end of it that it's usually pretty bad. If you look at gun violence as a whole, the great majority of death comes from handguns, but when politicians talk about ways to combat death from firearms it's usually poorly thought out legislation like the most recent Assault Weapons Ban, which banned stuff like bayonet lugs and flash hiders and barrel shrouds and pistol grips and other cosmetic features. It's easy to shoot down the idea of a political response when they keep bringing garbage to the table.

I think another little piece of it is that some Americans are wary of overreach, that we again will tilt our society strongly in a weird direction as an overreaction to a threat. The US moved the dial several notches towards a police state as a response to terrorism, which has killed less people in the last decade domestically than bee stings. The idea that we must now give up some more liberty doesn't play as well as it used to, and couple that with that loss of perceived liberty in service to some ineffective measures...

There is no mass shooting thread on this forum that will ever be a good thread because it's never going to be a good argument, and we've all done it so many times now.

I don't mind the discussions sometimes as it does seem some of us sit back and tries to re-evaluate their previous stance... most of the time though, it does seem like a rehash.

It's almost like an automated script.

Heh... I can do that in PERL.

Anyone have any new updates? Most of the news sites seem to be repeating the same thing from this afternoon...

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

And I probably need to clarify that I do think that there are some steps to hat can be taken to address the issue, I just don’t feel like having the same conversation we always have in these kind of threads. So I’m not bothering to talk about what can be fixed. Instead I’m just talking about why things don’t get addressed. It’s not that “I’m” okay with dead kids in schools and such, it’s just that I realize that as a country “we” are okay with it as the price to pay.

 Ouze wrote:
Even now, when some of the crapper posters have wandered off or been banned

Hey, some of us are still here

 whembly wrote:


What would "fix this"?

repeal and replace the 2nd.

federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.

repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.

background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.

No private sales unless through a government intermediary.

must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.

Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


you accept it, 58% of the nation does not. Illicit use of drugs will see 17,000 deaths this year, yet look at the considerable effort and war on drugs to try and reduce that number. Rarer things have been studied and efforts made to fix them some of them have even been solved/cured. Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

Once again, your rhetoric here is transparently dishonest. Events like this, or even ALL of the murders committed with ANY type of rifle, whether it be a bolt-action .308 or a fully automatic AK variant, account for less than 1% of gun deaths. Oh, and did I mention that fists, feet, baseball bats and hammers are each individually responsible for more murders than rifles every year? Saying that we need to get rid of scary black rifles and their accessories because they contribute to some kind of epidemic of violence is an outright lie. Out of those 30,000 gun deaths each year, nearly ALL of them are committed using standard capacity, small caliber, concealable handguns. And a majority of them are committed by criminals in major urban areas that have restrictive gun laws. Again, facts. If you had an honest interest in reducing gun violence you would start there, but you don't even know about any of what you're saying. You're arguing solely from demonstrable falsehoods and emotions.

I'm talking all gun related deaths, I don't know why you only want to talk about 1 type of rifle.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:


What would "fix this"?

repeal and replace the 2nd.

federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.

repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.

background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.

No private sales unless through a government intermediary.

must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.

Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.

Thank you for your response.

I disagree with all except your last point. I'd be 100% onboard to expand mental health in that regard.

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Even now, when some of the crapper posters have wandered off or been banned

Hey, some of us are still here

Yes, it's been very hard picking up their slack

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.

Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.

I know, fantasy land...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.

...we're swaying into a subject matter that shall not be named on OT...

Alas, the Republicans is all kinds of hot mess... but, if the Democrats want to make the next election over the 2nd Amendment, they won't try to stop 'em.

How 'bout we find out more in the next couple days before you start marching?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.

Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.

I know, fantasy land...

What's this unicorn you spake of here?

sirlynchmob wrote:


repeal and replace the 2nd.

federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.

repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.

background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.

No private sales unless through a government intermediary.

must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.

Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.

How about no. Literally all those ideas related to gun control are complete fething trash.

If you want to talk mental health, then talk mental health. If we want to talk gun violence, then let's start in inner cities. The US is actually pretty safe outside of inner cities, and their issues are social/cultural.


In other news, Fox is reporting bump fire stocks. Not like it matters, but this lunatic may not have actually modified anything illegally.

sirlynchmob wrote:


repeal and replace the 2nd.

Literally over many dead bodies

federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.

Right, because it works so well in those places! Brilliant!

repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.

Another falsehood. No such bill exists. Trump repealed an SSA rule that Obama put in place. That rule prevented ownership from people receiving Supplementary Security Income based on SSA’s listed mental disorders and who were appointed a “representative payee” to help them manage their benefits. That is an extremely specific group of people. And guess what, it wouldn't have any significant impact on gun violence.

background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.

Haha, no. When the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow people to exercise a right to self-defense (against individuals or the State) with the most effective tool available, making people wait a year to obtain that tool pretty much invalidates that right.

No private sales unless through a government intermediary.

My state has exactly such a law, and gun violence went UP after it was passed.

must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.

Again, it's fortunate that you don't get to mediate other people's rights based on your own prejudices, though you so clearly have a burning desire to do so. I might even agree to some kind of mandatory education or testing, but you're just so far over the top it's laughable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:


I'm talking all gun related deaths, I don't know why you only want to talk about 1 type of rifle.

I'm talking about ANY type of rifle. Do I really need to go back through this thread and point out all of the times you falsely claimed that this kind of event (perpetrated with the use of rifles) is common, or implied whether directly or otherwise that allowing people to have rifles is a significant factor in ANY kind of violence?

The industry needed something like this to fix their sluggish sales. It’s hard to keep up the past 8 years of panic buying if there’s no boogie man in office.

I've never once said rifles. and the reason californing and Chicago doesn't work is because those places are not in a vacuum. What good does high gun control laws do in Chicago, when you can quickly drive to any neighboring state and get guns quickly and easily at a gun show with no background cheks. that's why all gun laws need to be at a national level.

"repeal and replace the 2nd. "

Unlikely. Would be resisted by most states. And not just southern ones.

"federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago. "

Because those laws are clearly working in those places.

"No private sales unless through a government intermediary. "

As an employee of the US Federal Government, let me assure you this would NEVER work as intended, and would see thousands of people armed who most definitely should not be.

The “look at Chicago” argument is gak for many reasons, but it always shows back up.

sirlynchmob wrote:
that's why all gun laws need to be at a national level.

You all know what sort of posts I make. Now imagine ME being in charge of who gets a gun? See why this is a bad idea now?

 BaronIveagh wrote:



As an employee of the US Federal Government, let me assure you this would NEVER work as intended, and would see thousands of people armed who most definitely should not be.

isn't this where we are at now anyways?

sirlynchmob wrote:


isn't this where we are at now anyways?

In Pennsylvania, we call this a 'home security device'.

 d-usa wrote:
The “look at Chicago” argument is gak for many reasons, but it always shows back up.

Kinda weird, right? It's never places like Memphis or Birmingham or Cleveland or Kansas City or St Louis.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.

I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.

We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.

Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.

I know, fantasy land...

Yeah. Maybe when Skynet rules the planet.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've never once said rifles. and the reason californing and Chicago doesn't work is because those places are not in a vacuum. What good does high gun control laws do in Chicago, when you can quickly drive to any neighboring state and get guns quickly and easily at a gun show with no background cheks. that's why all gun laws need to be at a national level.

You never explicitly mentioned rifles, but your entire reason for being here is predicated on the idea that mass shootings perpetrated with the use of rifles are a significant and preventable threat to the public at large. You wouldn't even BE here arguing if that wasn't the case. You are also constantly deflecting from the fact that such events account for a statistically insignificant portion of murders as a whole, or even gun murders. If you cared enough about this issue to inform yourself about the facts surrounding gun violence, you would be focused on different issues and solutions. But you don't care about actually solving any problems, you just want to use this event as a political bludgeon.

Secondly, the latter part of your quote above is, again, dishonest on multiple levels.

From the ATF:

The GCA does, however, prohibit nonlicensed persons from acquiring firearms
from out-of-State dealers and prohibits nonlicensees from shipping or transporting
firearms in interstate or foreign commerce.41 Nonlicensees are also prohibited from
transferring a firearm to a nonlicensed person who the transferor knows or has reasonable
cause to believe does not reside in the State in which the transferor resides.42 A
nonlicensee also may not transfer a firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that the transferee is a felon or other prohibited person.43

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/guide/gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces-199/download

This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.

The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.

 amanita wrote:
This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.

The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.

He could have packed his plane (if he actually did have one) with fuel and had a heck of a casualty count.

 amanita wrote:
This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.

The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.

He didn't do that though.

Nice strawman though, that was fun.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


isn't this where we are at now anyways?

In Pennsylvania, we call this a 'home security device'.

I just blurted out laughing and had to explain my wife what is what...

Have an exalt!

Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

Gotta say, it's sad when we didn't even have a total count of how many victims there were, and the politics were already in full spin.

People trying to make this about guns, has everyone ignored the fact that this man had all the makings for high explosives in his possession as well? Given that this man was a millionaire, he easily had the resources to bomb that place and cause just as much if not more havoc.

 djones520 wrote:


People trying to make this about guns.

Probably because he used guns?

 djones520 wrote:
Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

Gotta say, it's sad when we didn't even have a total count of how many victims there were, and the politics were already in full spin.

People trying to make this about guns, has everyone ignored the fact that this man had all the makings for high explosives in his possession as well? Given that this man was a millionaire, he easily had the resources to bomb that place and cause just as much if not more havoc.

He was a millionaire. He could have bought a bus and made this in to a Speed situation. OOH OOH! He could have bought a boat and done SPEED 2! Just think of all the possibilities! But not the guns. Don't think about the guns!