OT: parenting and the santa barbara shooter

[ocrenter]

[quote=livinincali]
If what you say is true and that people lie, what recently discussed gun control laws would have prevented this situation from happening? What background check enhancements, what assault riffle ban, etc. prevents this situation from happening again? Are we doing something that actually will make a difference and prevent these scenarios from happening or are we doing something just to make ourselves feel better that we did something.

The democratic majority in this country isn’t going to change the second amendment right now. We can eliminate gun related mass murders but it requires a police state that most of us aren’t willing to trade in exchange for never having another gun death.[/quote]

That is the narrative isn’t it?

IF we have gun control, THEN we are looking at a police state.

BLACK and WHITE, No ifs, ands, or buts.

You make enough people to believe that is the only truth out there, of course putting up with a few death here and there is fine. What a small price to pay if in exchange for a few kids dying here and there, we have LIBERTY!

[livinincali]

[quote=Jazzman]
You say this isn’t about the 2nd amendment yet make proposals about laws that attempt to further restrict gun ownership through various means. Hoping to find a clever way of greatly restricting gun ownership without violating the principals of the 2nd amendment.

Tell me what is there to violate? An anachronistic right that is irrelevant to contemporary society, or the sanctity of life? It would be a Knave of Hearts Trial. If the founding fathers were alive to ask, there is little room for doubt as to how they would reply. You either speak for humanity, or your speak for the pro-gun industry. Choose at your peril.
[/quote]

Then for you the solution is quite clear change the second amendment. Either remove it completely or change it to be more narrowly defined. If it was so clear cut and obvious to everybody why haven’t we gone down the path of seriously changing the second amendment. We have a democratic process that can be pursued to make that change. The fact is that the American people as a whole don’t seem to be ready to go down that path and make that change. They value the freedoms and protections that the second amendment offers.

Owning a gun or agreeing that there is a right to own a gun does not make you anti-humanity. Those things are not mutually exclusive. There’s been millions of Americans that have owned and used guns that value life and humanity just as much as you do.

It a terrible thing that happened. It’s a terrible thing that will happen again unfortunately, but this world has risks. Terrible things can happen in a police state where guns are banned. In many cases far worse things have happened, especially when a tyrant comes to power.

[ocrenter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
American rate of death by gun (homocide and suicide) is at 10/100k, most of the OECD countries are below 1/100k.

You do the math on that one.[/quote]

Here’s a recent study with graphs. If do some cherry picking you can arrive at a conclusion that more guns = more deaths. Of course we can always cherry pick data to suit our agenda.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increase-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html%5B/quote%5D

I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.

As for your Chicago example. We do know poverty increases crime rate. Now poverty wih guns, that’s the perfect storm. That’s why places like Nicaraga has something like 40+/100k gun deaths.

A city is not going to be able to enforce gun control, you just have to drive a block out of the city and you will not be subject to that control. You know that, but of course you will use that to justify zero control, because that fits with your narrative.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali] We need to use logic and research to determine if something is going to be effective[/quote]

is that why gun research was banned by Congress?

In many ways, American public policy is based on research. But we can’t do research on guns.

[scaredyclassic]

We need more training in how to pick up women. Gov. Financed.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]We need more training in how to pick up women. Gov. Financed.[/quote]

In countries like Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, Israel, countries that have low birth rates, they have such programs.

[scaredyclassic]

These mass shootings are unavoidable says only nation with mass shootings.

This week’s headline from the onion.

Absolutely….nothing we could possibly do….

[ocrenter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]These mass shootings are unavoidable says only nation with mass shootings.

This week’s headline from the onion.

Absolutely….nothing we could possibly do….[/quote]

Yes, but we got liberty, everyone else are under the shackle of socialist police state.

Think of the victims of mass shootings as occasional sacrifices to the God of Liberty.

[joec]

I really think the whole gun debate talk is a waste of time. Congress can’t pass crap and people want them to seriously try to slap on a band-aid and solve gun control?

As someone else mentioned above, we need to take a long hard tough look and realize that all these people who killed like this were very mentally disturbed. This kid, having finally actually read some stuff on it today and looked at some of the photos…looked to me had a lot of help being in therapy at a young age. Maybe they should have a sponsor or a few sponsors where when they feel really bad, they can call and talk to someone they like/trust. Maybe it wouldn’t help, but more ideas related to attacking the mental health issue is more helpful than all the pro/anti gun debates.

Also, I know we all hate meds, but as an ADULT, it was mentioned he STOPPED taking all his meds and refused so that may have something to pushing him over the edge.

A lot of these people sound like they actually want the help I feel, but the current system, even though he came from a pretty well off family wasn’t able to provide it so something isn’t working in the current system/help.

Instead of getting into a shouting match about gun control, people/congress/gun lobbyist and NRA folks should find a way to offer suggestions on what to do with the very mentally disturbed/bullied kids/young adults doing this. I don’t think most sane folks would be against this since it could happen to our kids/us/our kids could be the shooter…etc…

Looking at his writings, he comes off to me as like a 10 year old still that hasn’t grown up. I’m sure we’ve all had these feels growing up, the difference is he acted on it and murdered 3 people with a machete/knives/a hammer, etc… in their sleep. Then killed 3 more with a gun.

[no_such_reality]

Let the lawsuits begin. Sheriff deputies did a welfare check on the shooter after reports of disturbing videos being posted online on April 30th. They didn’t bother to view the videos according to the latimes.

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
American rate of death by gun (homocide and suicide) is at 10/100k, most of the OECD countries are below 1/100k.

You do the math on that one.[/quote]

Here’s a recent study with graphs. If do some cherry picking you can arrive at a conclusion that more guns = more deaths. Of course we can always cherry pick data to suit our agenda.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increase-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html%5B/quote%5D

I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.

As for your Chicago example. We do know poverty increases crime rate. Now poverty wih guns, that’s the perfect storm. That’s why places like Nicaraga has something like 40+/100k gun deaths.

A city is not going to be able to enforce gun control, you just have to drive a block out of the city and you will not be subject to that control. You know that, but of course you will use that to justify zero control, because that fits with your narrative.[/quote]

Why do the anti-gun folks always want to focus on “gun-related” homicides? I don’t care how someone chooses to kill, I only care that he kills. Conversely, the #1 way for a person (especially a weaker person) to defend him/herself is with a gun. Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?

Even if you could eliminate every gun in the world, do you think that would prevent a killer from killing? That’s totally naive and unrealistic, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]These mass shootings are unavoidable says only nation with mass shootings.

This week’s headline from the onion.

Absolutely….nothing we could possibly do….[/quote]

Are we the only country with mass murders? Again, most of us couldn’t care less about the method of killing.

[livinincali]

[quote=ocrenter]
I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.
[/quote]

If you actually bothered to open the link and look at the charts, the researchers plotted number of gun homicides vs per capita gun ownership and didn’t find a strong correlation. If you pull out all the developing countries and South Africa and are left with the 25 or so western countries there does seem to be some correlation between gun ownership rates and number of homicides.

So let’s just say the solution is to become like Japan. Repeal the second amendment, make gun ownership illegal and confiscate most of the 300 million guns in this country. That would probably be effective at preventing mass killings by guns. Do you think that is feasible in this country. I would argue that an attempt to go down that path probably gets fairly bloody and might end in civil war. There’s a fairly large segment of the population that isn’t going to give up their guns voluntarily and likely would fight to the death to keep their weapons. This would likely be an effective solution but you might have decades worth of mass killing deaths to implement it.

Solution 2 add more gun control that was discussed after Sandy Hook. Enhanced back ground checks, assault riffle bans, ammunition buying limits, etc. Does anybody here think those additions would have prevented this current tragedy. Do you have any scientific evidence it prevents any future tragedy? If so then this is a reasonable debate to have. It obviously can’t prevent a mass killing from ever happening, but maybe there some evidence that it creates fewer mass killings. I honestly don’t think anybody knows although I’m sure some will argue it’s worth doing even if we can’t measure the results.

Solution 3. Address the mental illness problems in this country. In pretty much ever single one of these cases you have a total nut job that goes on one of these killing sprees. In all the cases there were significant warning signs, but effective action was not taken before the tragedy happened. I personally think it would be more effective to spend the money and resources on identifying and helping those citizens that exhibit these warning signs.

Solution 4? Do nothing. The most likely solution in our current political climate and maybe the only realistic solution in a country that values it’s right to own guns. I’d like to see the debate focus on solution 3 because I think it can get broad support. It might mean taking on the pharmaceutical lobby but I think it’s at least reasonable doable.

Solution ? Do something that isn’t a violation of the second amendment and has a measurable reduction in the number of mass killings? Tell me what it is and we can debate it. It’s not enough in my eyes to say do this because we had to do something. Demonstrate how you think it would reduce mass killings preferably using this case. What do you advocate for that would have prevented this particular case.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
American rate of death by gun (homocide and suicide) is at 10/100k, most of the OECD countries are below 1/100k.

You do the math on that one.[/quote]

Here’s a recent study with graphs. If do some cherry picking you can arrive at a conclusion that more guns = more deaths. Of course we can always cherry pick data to suit our agenda.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increase-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html%5B/quote%5D

I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.

As for your Chicago example. We do know poverty increases crime rate. Now poverty wih guns, that’s the perfect storm. That’s why places like Nicaraga has something like 40+/100k gun deaths.

A city is not going to be able to enforce gun control, you just have to drive a block out of the city and you will not be subject to that control. You know that, but of course you will use that to justify zero control, because that fits with your narrative.[/quote]

Why do the anti-gun folks always want to focus on “gun-related” homicides? I don’t care how someone chooses to kill, I only care that he kills. Conversely, the #1 way for a person (especially a weaker person) to defend him/herself is with a gun. Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?

Even if you could eliminate every gun in the world, do you think that would prevent a killer from killing? That’s totally naive and unrealistic, IMHO.[/quote]

It would be naive indeed to think method of killing Doesn’t make a difference.

You can catch a few would be victims off guard with a knife attack. But I don’t understand how ukulele can’t see you can increase your tally quite significantly with a gun.

Somebody once tried to equate gun control with banning all dogs. Of course dogs can kill, but how many dogs out there do you know that can kill 20+ in less than 5 minutes?

[ocrenter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
I never said guns increase crime rate. I’m saying you get more gun death with more gun ownership. Not all gun death are criminal. Crime rate is actually falling over the last 40-50 years over the entire country, but regardless of per-capita gun ownership.
[/quote]

If you actually bothered to open the link and look at the charts, the researchers plotted number of gun homicides vs per capita gun ownership and didn’t find a strong correlation. If you pull out all the developing countries and South Africa and are left with the 25 or so western countries there does seem to be some correlation between gun ownership rates and number of homicides.

So let’s just say the solution is to become like Japan. Repeal the second amendment, make gun ownership illegal and confiscate most of the 300 million guns in this country. That would probably be effective at preventing mass killings by guns. Do you think that is feasible in this country. I would argue that an attempt to go down that path probably gets fairly bloody and might end in civil war. There’s a fairly large segment of the population that isn’t going to give up their guns voluntarily and likely would fight to the death to keep their weapons. This would likely be an effective solution but you might have decades worth of mass killing deaths to implement it.

Solution 2 add more gun control that was discussed after Sandy Hook. Enhanced back ground checks, assault riffle bans, ammunition buying limits, etc. Does anybody here think those additions would have prevented this current tragedy. Do you have any scientific evidence it prevents any future tragedy? If so then this is a reasonable debate to have. It obviously can’t prevent a mass killing from ever happening, but maybe there some evidence that it creates fewer mass killings. I honestly don’t think anybody knows although I’m sure some will argue it’s worth doing even if we can’t measure the results.

Solution 3. Address the mental illness problems in this country. In pretty much ever single one of these cases you have a total nut job that goes on one of these killing sprees. In all the cases there were significant warning signs, but effective action was not taken before the tragedy happened. I personally think it would be more effective to spend the money and resources on identifying and helping those citizens that exhibit these warning signs.

Solution 4? Do nothing. The most likely solution in our current political climate and maybe the only realistic solution in a country that values it’s right to own guns. I’d like to see the debate focus on solution 3 because I think it can get broad support. It might mean taking on the pharmaceutical lobby but I think it’s at least reasonable doable.

Solution ? Do something that isn’t a violation of the second amendment and has a measurable reduction in the number of mass killings? Tell me what it is and we can debate it. It’s not enough in my eyes to say do this because we had to do something. Demonstrate how you think it would reduce mass killings preferably using this case. What do you advocate for that would have prevented this particular case.[/quote]

Remember this guy did have mental health Care. He went off his meds, remember? Remember people on this forum were blaming medications for his actions? When it was the lack of that was the problem. So how do we force him to take meds everyday? Had we had a national registery on gun ownership that the police had access to, maybe they could have accessed it to see how much of a threat he was to society? Especially if he stockpiled his 40000 rounds within the last month.

Point is accountability of the gun owners and elevating the bar of ownership. If my gun was used and accidentally killed a neighbor’s little girl, I should be at fault. And guns should be just as hard to obtain as a car. And just as every car is registered, every gun should be too.

[Author]

Posts