[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s funny how with everything in this society, people try to come up with solutions that did not exist preciously. New drugs for every condition.

But when it comes to guns…. Oh well, we just have to accept there will be shootings.

Those same people think that restricting access to abortions solves a problem, but they don’t think gun restrictions work.[/quote]

Both gun rights and pro life are rooted in faith and fear.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.

Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?

The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]

The guy had Risperdal prescribed, there was some psychosis diagnosed. He didn’t take the med, never even started. Like I said before. These type of people have extremely poor insight about their disease. It is nearly impossible for them to seek care. And when they do get forced to seek care, they are completely noncompliant.

I am very critical of big pharma, just like I am very critical of the food industry and the NRA, but the comments about big pharma are quite off base here.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]
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.[/quote]

Sure, as long as the same standards are applied regarding any medications you have, the car you own, the knives you own, items used in the manufacture of weapons, etc.

Someone borrowed your car, had a drink with the wife, and got into an accident? You’re on the hook for manslaughter charges. Your kid (or a neighbor’s kid) took some of your meds and gave them to a friend who died? You’re on the hook for that, as well. You have gasoline stored in your garage that someone used to light someone else or a building on fire? You’re responsible. Someone borrowed a knife from your drawer and they, or another person, used it to kill someone? You’re responsible. Would you agree to that?[/quote]

If you allowed an unlicensed driver to borrow your car and that person gets into an accident, of course you will be responsible. Not necessarily manslaughter but you will have to bear some responsibility. Even the owner of a pit bull that was not properly caged would be responsible if it mulls down a passerby. Guns are weapons, if the weapon is not stored safely and was accessed by a teen in a shooting or in an accident involving kids, why shouldn’t we blame the gun owner?

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]I don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.[/quote]

Gun control, or gun bans? If they require registration for all guns, how long until they are knocking at everyone’s door because the “powers that be” decide to ban guns, altogether? I’d give it 5-10 years, at most. Nobody in established power likes the unwashed masses to be armed.

And who makes up this 90% when 60% of the population is armed? That only counts those who are willing to admit to gun ownership (I’m willing to bet the number is quite a bit higher).

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/29/gallup-60-percent-of-americans-own-guns-for-personal-safety/%5B/quote%5D

Can you imagine the massive undertaking it would take to force, like you said, 60% of the country to give up their guns?

You just essentially gave the reason why the “powers.to be” would not dare removing and banning guns.

You also just provided the underlying Psyche as to why there is such resistance to any gun regulation, because there is a huge and unrealistic fear about the formation of a police state.

Again, if the narrative is this:
That ALL gun control equal LOSS of liberty.
Then the sporadic but continued loss of innocent lives IS justified as the price to pay for that liberty.

It is almost like the Aztec sacrifice of young virgins to please their Gods. It was justified as the price to pay inin order for the sun to return the next day.

[ocrenter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

100 years ago we medicated our kids with tinctures of booze and opium. Doctors orders…

Probably that would ensure better drug compliance…[/quote]

A whole lot of the population is still self medicating with booze and opium, just in different forms. (substitute sugar for booze and narcotics/heroin for opium).

[ocrenter]

[quote=joec]
+1

Agreed…with Solution 3.

Again, the fight over gun control is a losing battle and a waste of money/time/resources…I wouldn’t support it neither since having so many guns in America seems to make us impossible to take over by a foreign power. I’m sure some folks have enough guns to arm a small army. I also don’t trust our government neither…

Aside from all that personal believe, I think…Solution 3 won’t be challenged by many groups and the NRA can’t be against getting help for people who do this since it puts them on the defensive yet again.

If it takes drugging more people and it shows it helps to prevent this, then the drug companies would be happy too.

It is sad not much/anything seems to be done since we are wasting all our time/resources on the gun debate issue.

Incremental steps…small wins first.[/quote]

Solution 3 sounds wonderful! If it really is workable. Most of these patients have very poor insight about their problems. Getting them to even agree to go to see psychiatry is a big question, because most of them do not think there’s anything wrong with them. The very few that do end up there are not very good about medication compliance either. Again, “there’s nothing wrong with me and I don’t like to put chemicals in my body.”

Solution 3 does make for great talking point and great way to keep spinning the wheel and pretend we are doing something…

[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.

[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=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.

[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.

[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!

[ocrenter]

I for one am glad the elephant in the room is finally being discussed.

I’ve been posts on this thread trying to figure out this guy and watching the typical cry about need for better mental health assessment and access and awareness in the media. But nobody seem to want to talk about how this guy managed to get 3 guns and 40000 rounds of ammo.

Here’s the bottom line. People LIE when they go in to see their doctors. They lie about how much they drink, they lie about how much they exercise, they lie about how much cookies they eat. So how many would be mass murderers will tell their doctor they have a bunch of guns and ammo in the car?

Knives kill people, we understand that. Just like in Taiwan last week, some crazed college kid decided to start knifing people in the crowded subway. 4 people lost their lives. My only question is if he had the type of guns and ammo this Santa Barbara character had in a crowded subway, what would the body count be?

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.

[ocrenter]

I’m not much better, 3.1% this year.

But I’m not really complaining since last year it pulled in almost 28% for me. I’m sure everybody did pretty well last year too. Just average the numbers out and you won’t feel so bad. 🙂

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]

We are very happy with room temp around high 70’s, that might explain the difference. Downstairs almost never reach 80. On a hot day upstairs can hit 84 by later afternoon, then AC comes on to bring temp down to 79. That likely explains why we rarely turn on the AC. If we have the AC on to bring room temp down to 71, I can definitely see the bill double.[/quote]

Yep, that explains it! If we could, we’d have the A/C set on 68, but know that’s just asking for too much. We make it up a bit in the winter time because we keep our heater set at 58-60 degrees. :)[/quote]

That’s too funny CAR. 68 is actually when the heater comes on in winter time!

[ocrenter]

[quote=Navydoc]Pool is 7 feet deep (not supposed to go below 6, but nobody measured). 44,000 gallons, took 40 hrs to fill with 2 hoses. That was a no-joke water bill. Yeah it may be expensive but we’re having an absolute ball with it. This weekend has been an almost non-stop pool party. The fire refugees have been here since Thursday.[/quote]

Just for comparison, mine is on the swallow end with Max depth at 5 feet. Total of 15000 gallons. This is probably why a pool cover is sufficient for us. Pool temp of 85 today.

Would agree with CAR to at least give the cover a try (lots of other benefits such as cleaner pool, less frequent filter cleaning, and No need to fish little critters out of the pool). But might need to get that solar heating system to help extend the use of your investment.

[Author]

Posts