The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 61 - 80 of total 5825 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:31pm PT
1: I clearly have some interest as I have commented several times already on this thread. Please read the whole thread before posting. ;-)

2: This thread was forked from another where some felt the gun debate was a bit tired and insensitive.

3: I'm not sure where you pulled your definition of trolling from but I am guessing this doesn't fit it. How does going off topic and attacking the thread author about saying he might be disinterested in his own thread sound for a definition of "trolling" though?


Simply doesn't fit with your original post.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:36pm PT
Well Jaybro, considering the amount of violence DAILY in the US let alone the border area,by gangs/cartels, they make the theatre shooting look like amature hour. As per the comment about "neighbors" and "paranoia" i thinks i shalt not touch that one LMAO!
Josh Higgins

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
A couple of things I've heard on NPR over the past couple of days:

1. There are roughly two dozen shootings annually in the US where 4 or more people are killed.

2. One man interviewed reported conducting research into such shootings and found that gun control did reduce the number of shootings. It would be interesting to see if that was peer-reviewed scientific research, but it sounded like it probably was.

If gun control does reduce such shootings, I view that as a good thing. I don't think that elimination of guns is realistic, or a even a goal to strive for at all, but some sort of screening or delay in receiving a purchased firearm would be great if proven scientifically to reduce violence and murder rates.

A question for those who oppose gun control, would some gun control be acceptable if research showed that it would reduce violence?

Josh
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
That's cause its a Trick question toad, neither gun control or arming the population from
Montessori on can eliminate this threat. (Life is like that) And you know that. Gotta set your rhetorical traps better than that.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:38pm PT
I think trolling is more along the lines of saying you chose climbing as the ideal activity for a bunch of developmentally disabled children you're working with because of all the sports, climbing is the one that requires the least intelligence to do.

That one was a classic, and a good definition of the term.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
You have a super bright scientist in training who decided to use guns to kill people in a theater. Seems to me the key issue is mental health--not guns. You think this guy was not smart enough to figure out another way? Look at his apartment. The scary thing to me is that this person was very capable of bioterrorism. It's a waste of time talking about guns. How does someone like Holmes get this way?

Let's say there was ideal gun control (i.e., the impossible: good guys have guns, bad/unstable guys don't). One of these nut jobs is going to use a car, or a bomb (oh, yeah, that already happened) or much worse. The only hopeful thing about this case is that we might learn something about how the alleged killer thinks.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
Josh the "study" was pure BS man.. Chicago home of some of the stictest gun control,, has set a record for homicides. That was just recently in the news.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
Pina Bausch and Wim Wenders: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh49es_pina-3d-bande-annonce_shortfilms

Les novices de Pina Bausch : rencontre avec Jo-Ann Endicott: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfllmf_les-novices-de-pina-bausch-rencontre-avec-jo-ann-endicott_shortfilms
Josh Higgins

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:56pm PT
Fascinating:

"The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data."

Moorehouse, J.C., Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal 26(1) pg 103-124.

A little bit of poking around shows that the Cato Institute is libertarian and possibly political. I'm not 100% sure this journal article is 100% reliable, but interesting to skim...

Anyone know if the Cato Institute's data is reliable and impartial? Or do they have a strong enough agenda that it may not be trustworthy?

Josh
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:58pm PT
agendas be as common as the air you breath..;)
QITNL

climber
Jul 21, 2012 - 04:03pm PT
I have the solution. It's simple: the Internet.

We need more gun forums. Firearm mobile apps. Something like Facebook, but called Gunbook. Give dudes a plethora of options where they could whip out their weapons, compare them with each other and spray all about.

Get people online 24x7 talking about guns. No need for ski masks, their anonymity will be protected. Far more rewarding than going out and shooting them, no doubt.

If you don't have guns or know anything about them, no problem, you're totally included, 100% welcome. A vital part of the community, in fact. We encourage you to jump in, use your imagination and start making things up.

Don't tell me it won't work. This model has already been tested and proven. Rock climbers were used as the first test group. The conversion rate far exceeded expectations.

You're looking at it.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
Beef you ask:

I have to ask the gun control crowd though: if you found yourself in that situation- would you rather there be a chance of someone else having a firearm or would you rather know, without a doubt, that no one else in the room had a gun aside from the crazy fuk shooting everyone? Think about it, because when you preach gun control, especially concealed carry, that is what you're potentially creating.


Beef, the only thing I'd find worse that being in a target-rich environment as one of the targets, is to be in a CROSS-FIRE between two people firing. Or how about 10 people firing, in poor visibility?

How would I like to have one of those guns?

When the SWAT team comes in and sees people firing guns, they have been converted into targets....as almost happened to a gun carrying person at the Giffords shooting.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
Why do non gun owners think no one could have helped by returning fire?
They have no tactical knowledge yet say things like "the chance that it would have made any difference was small."
How do you know?
Is that based on any actual knowledge or experience?
Shooting a pistol is not rocket science.
I could teach anyone here in an afternoon to hit what they aim at....no problem.

BTW..a "bullet proof" vest or "body armor" does not keep the bullets that hit you from causing severe internal injuries, broken bones, knocking the wind out of you, knocking you down, causing extreme pain and the feeling that you have been shot...nor does it protect your head, arms, or legs.
All they do is keep bullets from penetrating the body cavity (usually).
Being hit by multiple rounds even with a vest on is gonna f*ck you up, period.

beef supreme

climber
the west
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:19pm PT
Ken M: I agree with what you're suggesting about being in crossfire. I'm only saying that the situation is obviously f*#ked from the get go, could it have been worse if people were shooting back at the guy? Sure. Could it have turned out better if someone had gotten a shot off? Sure could.
Point is, we don't know, never will know, and it's all speculation by the likes of us on the peanut gallery. I'm saying that I'd rather someone had the chance to help instead of not.
beef supreme

climber
the west
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:21pm PT
and Mighty Hiker:
why do you phrase pro-gun/ violence people the way that you did? Do you really think that pro-gun people are people of violence? I wouldn't be so general in your a*#umptions. People of violence may absolutely use a gun (or their fists or a club or knife, etc)
I wouldn't equate a person that claims to be pro-gun to be a person of violence.

Edit: but I would concede the point that perhaps people who are armed don't help out much in these types of situations statistically. I really don't know what the numbers are and like other people have made point of, you really don't hear about many of those stories. At least I don't. Hopefully they don't happen that often really.
I would, personally, rather have a chance to defend myself/ others or have another person acting to that end.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:33pm PT
a) Of course you'd have to be there, and nobody carries unloaded..whats the point?

b)yes, you would have to be in range and I'm sure anyone would be able to tell where the shooter was from the muzzle flash

c) can't guarantee that no one else would be injured, but if you were able to stop the shooter from continuing to execute people, the reward far out weighs the risk.

d)not even in the equation once you decide to shoot back

e)? who is going to mistake who? the cops are 10 minutes away...

While it is rare, it happens way more than you think.

So what if the odds are not good...The bad guy is already killing people right and left, how could it get any worse?
You wouldn't need ideal circumstances to have made a difference...even if you only saved one life, it's worth trying.


John M

climber
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:37pm PT
You have a super bright scientist in training who decided to use guns to kill people in a theater. Seems to me the key issue is mental health--not guns. You think this guy was not smart enough to figure out another way? Look at his apartment. The scary thing to me is that this person was very capable of bioterrorism. It's a waste of time talking about guns.

Not true that it is a waste of time. The guy may have been smart enough but was he organized enough mentally to make it happen. Mental health has all kinds of variations..

An example.. For those who are extremely depressed and suicidal, the most dangerous time for a suicide isn't usually at the worst part of the depression because by then they don't even have the energy to get out of bed. The most dangerous time is often as they are coming out the depression. Then they have enough energy to go through with it. So a person get suicidal, they start thinking about how to kill themselves, then they might buy a guy, then if the depression worsens they might not even have the wherewithal to pull the trigger until they are starting to come out of the depression. It takes more energy they you might realize to actually go through with killing yourself and it take mental organization to build a biological weapon and then use it.

I only post that to point out that mental illness has stages and it has different dangers at different stages. A person like this could be smart enough to build a biological weapon, but not motivated to do it. Then as the mental illness progresses he might get the motivation to do something violent but then he might not have the mental organization to build that biological weapon. So then he looks for something simpler. Such as a gun.

If the gun were harder to get he might still go through with plan, but he might have less weapons or he might progress through his mental illness until he doesn't even have the energy to do anything but kill himself.

So guns and the ease with which a person can get them do play a role. Although it is not the only thing which plays a part in this. It was mentioned in the other thread that our mental health system was taken apart so help is more difficult to obtain.

Then there are the organized psychotics.. which is a whole other variation but which I believe is more rare. those are the crazies that kill lots of people over a bunch of years. One at a time. Their mind is organized enough to keep them from getting caught immediately.

So the type of mental illness plays a role. How far along the mental illness is plays a role. And how prone the person is to violence plays a role.
beef supreme

climber
the west
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:50pm PT
Something that crossed my mind, not really making a point of anything, but it's in regard to the 'mental stability' of the perp. Remember in the first batman (ok, not the first, but like the first one of late- the one with heath ledger as joker or whatever) so, anyway, I remember a part in the movie where Michael Cain/Cane (spelling? whatever).. So anyway, he says something like "some people just want to see the world burn" in the movie.
Makes me wonder if people who act out these atrocities really are mentally ill. Look at the guy in Norway who did worse- there's no way that guy is 'insane', he's perfectly sane!. I wonder if it's the same with this guy.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Jul 21, 2012 - 06:21pm PT
"some people just want to see the world burn"
Bingo!
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Jul 21, 2012 - 06:22pm PT
Three things you can't have real discussion about:
gun control
abortion
religion
Given that, this will be my last comment on the subject.
If you ever experience a REAL firefight (not talking paintball here) your opinion concerning assault weapons in the hands of the general public might undrego a metamorphosis.
Messages 61 - 80 of total 5825 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews